The Importance of Documentary Evidence
A quote from one of the activists who exposed Cointelpro
A small group of anti-war activists broke into an FBI office in Pennsylvania on March 8, 1971 and stole secret documents which proved that the agency was committing counterintelligence crimes against American citizens.
When those activists finally revealed their identities in January 2014, one of them, Keith Forsyth, explained why they felt the break-in was necessary:
“When you talked to people outside the movement about what the FBI was doing, nobody wanted to believe it.”
A quote from Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh (who revealed the My Lai Massacre in the Vietnam War and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War) discussed the issue of documents when he was interviewed by the Guardian in September 2013.
Hersh noted that reports of the invasive practices of NSA surveillance were mostly ignored until NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed documents which proved it:
“Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn’t touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game.”
Scope of the Documents Presented
Most of the information on this website comes from non-classified documents. The exceptions include some de-classified materials – for example from the Cointelpro era – and some leaked documents, such as the secret NSA documents from whistle-blower Edward Snowden and leaked diplomatic cables posted on WikiLeaks.
This page includes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request responses, civil claims, affidavits, government reports, correspondence, academic articles, and some self-published articles (identified as such).
All of the mainstream published news reports about organized stalking with which I am familiar are listed in the “Published News Reports” section of the What is “Gang Stalking?” page of this website.
Reasons for the limited amount of documentary evidence
“The first rule of fight club is you do not talk about fight club.”
– from the 1999 film Fight Club
No documents have ever been found showing that Hitler explicitly ordered the Holocaust. This is not especially surprising: people who commit crimes often avoid creating documents which can be used as evidence.
In the case of gang stalking though, my assumption is that there is plenty of official documentation; it simply has not been exposed yet – unless you count the documents associated with Cointelpro.
If you wish to view an official U.S. government document about a high-profile case of state-sponsored gang stalking reported in the mainstream news media, look at my November 23, 2013 post on the “Cointelpro News” page of this website. That post includes an FBI inter-office memo about an operation aimed at destroying the life of a successful film actress, Jean Seberg, because she supported the civil rights movement. FBI agents blacklisted her, slandered her, monitored her with covert surveillance (wiretaps), and terrorized her with overt surveillance (stalking) and black bag jobs (break-ins).
Emotional distress from the terror campaign waged by the FBI against Ms. Seberg while she was pregnant apparently caused her to give birth prematurely (her baby died), and ultimately led her to commit suicide. Ms. Seberg was just one of many victims targeted by the FBI’s secret police program.
The original FBI Cointelpro operation was exposed in 1971 when activists broke-into an FBI office and stole more than a thousand documents about the illegal program and released them to the press. Something like that might eventually happen with the current version of gang stalking, but there are probably not many FBI offices these days whose security systems could be easily breached by burglars.
Here are a half-dozen additional problems which make the exposure of Cointelpro Version 2.0 challenging:
1. The Catch-22 Problem
Until gang stalking is investigated by Congress – as was eventually done by the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee in the 1970s regarding Cointelpro and MK Ultra – the amount of solid information on the subject will be limited. Obviously, there is a “Catch-22” situation at work: neither the press nor Congress will be inclined to investigate the matter in the absence of hard evidence of a conspiracy, and such evidence will be difficult to obtain without investigations by the press and Congress.
2. The Prosecution of Whistle-Blowers Problem
The ideal development would be for a whistle-blower in the U.S. agencies involved to leak information about the program to initiate such inquiries. Unfortunately, by all accounts, the federal government has become more aggressive in recent years about prosecuting whistle-blowers.
This April 15, 2013 article describes the prosecution of employees of the National Security Agency (NSA) who revealed what they perceived to be a vast unconstitutional program of domestic surveillance following the 9/11 attacks. The reaction by the government generally was not outrage over the surveillance, but rather an attempt to hammer the whistle-blowers for exposing a program they described in this article as “better than anything that the KGB, the Stasi, or the Gestapo and SS ever had.”
The seizure by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of two months of phone records of the Associated Press in the spring of 2012 (and revealed in May 2013) might well intimidate anyone who is considering leaking information to the press about government transgressions. The famous Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein said that he believed this was the very intention of the records seizure: “The object of it is to intimidate people who talk to reporters.”
Some Americans might be under the impression that all whistle-blowers in the U.S. are legally protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Actually, that law does not apply to the intelligence community. Agencies such as the FBI and the CIA are exempt. An employee of those agencies who reveals unconstitutional policies would not be legally protected from retribution.
3. The Nature of the Evidence Problem
The organizational structure and tactics of gang stalking are specifically chosen for their lack of directly observable and legally persuasive evidence. People familiar with it often describe it as a crime which leaves no fingerprints. Victims’ accounts tend to be dismissed as paranoia since their experiences sound like commonplace occurrences – because that is indeed what they are: strangers who are rude to them, noises from neighbors, being cut-off in traffic, etc. These are things which happen to everyone. But for gang stalking victims, these things happen constantly – which becomes a form of real psychological torture. Having no one believe their accounts only makes it worse.
4. The Disinformation Problem
Disinformation is a major component of counterintelligence operations. A major example of this strategy as it relates to gang stalking is the disinformation front group called FFCHS. The significance of FFCHS as a source of disinformation is such that I devote an entire section to it in this website. As I argue there, the organization is itself a strong piece of evidence of a larger conspiracy, because its disinformation objective is absolutely clear when you analyze the FFCHS in detail.
I make the same case below (see Document #3) regarding a New York Times article about gang stalking – namely that it not only fails to be convincing in its attempt at creating skepticism, it is actually so heavy-handed that it’s impossible to dismiss it as merely being bad journalism.
5. The Fear of Association with a “Conspiracy Theory” Problem
Media organizations, such as magazines and newspapers, and human rights groups such as the ACLU, need to be circumspect about publicly discussing anything which is likely to be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” to avoid possibly damaging their reputations.
This is not to make excuses for their inaction though; the more you find out about gang stalking, the more you realize that – given its apparent scope – there must be many individuals in groups such as the ACLU and news organizations who are familiar with the crime.
It is inconceivable, for example, that a group like the ACLU does not have any clue about it. As noted below, the National Center for Victims of Crime receives frequent reports of gang stalking. No doubt, the ACLU does also. I know for a fact that they have received several such reports since they came from me.
Given the ACLU’s awareness of the history of similar programs – such as the persecution of political dissidents under the original Cointelpro – you have to assume that they know damn well what is going on. Most likely they are reticent about any involvement with a “conspiracy theory” because of potential damage to the institution’s reputation.
6. The Fear of Being Targeted for Gang Stalking Problem
This challenge is similar to the whistle-blower problem. Just as a government employee whistle-blower must worry about possible career repercussions and legal trouble for exposing government malfeasance, anyone who is not already a targeted individual has to consider the possibility that his or her efforts to expose a Cointelpro-type conspiracy could conceivably result in him or her becoming a stalking victim.
Document #3 below is the affidavit of a former FBI agent whistle-blower (Ted Gunderson) who tried – with some success – to expose the government’s acquiescence in gang stalking. He claimed that his efforts resulted in him becoming a targeted individual himself.
It is one thing to be willing to antagonize groups of citizens by advocating and litigating on controversial political issues; it’s another thing to risk the wrath of the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI.
(1) U.S. Department of Justice crime survey statistics about the stalking of individuals by multiple perpetrators
U.S. Department of Justice crime statistics from a 2006 survey indicated that an estimated 445,220 stalking victims reported being stalked by three or more perpetrators. (Page 12 of the report has the relevant numbers: 13.1 percent of 3,398,630 victims reported such group stalking.)
Incidentally, that percentage is comparable to what appears in crime surveys in the U.K. – a nation with whom U.S. intelligence agencies have very close ties. A 1998 crime survey of England and Wales found that 12 percent of stalking victims reported being stalked by 3 perpetrators (page 25).
Possibly more relevant to organized stalking is the number of victims stalked by “four or more” perpetrators. In the British survey, that group was approximately 8 percent of all stalking victims (page 25). That would be approximately 1 percent (0.944 percent) of all adults aged 16 to 59.
(2) Affidavit about the results of contacting the National Victim’s Crime Center
Another indication of the apparent pervasiveness of organized stalking is this account by the aforementioned Mr. Labella, in which he details his contacts in October 2008 with the National Center for Victims of Crime, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Labella inquired about the frequency of reports the center receives about organized stalking crimes, and was informed that they receive “thousands of calls per month.” Notwithstanding the frequency of calls to their victims helpline, they offered no guidance or referral to other agencies or organizations.
Click on images to enlarge.
(3) Affidavit about gang stalking by the late Ted Gunderson, former head of the FBI’s Los Angeles field office (and an important related “document” – a New York Times article about gang stalking, which inexplicably fails to mention Mr. Gunderson)
When someone with no particular expertise or professional credentials makes a claim about the existence of a conspiracy, it’s generally easy to dismiss the person. However, skeptics of the government’s acquiescence in gang stalking don’t have that particular excuse for dismissing the testimony of the late Ted L. Gunderson. As a former high-level FBI official, Mr. Gunderson was in a position to know what he was talking about. After he retired from the bureau, he publicly claimed that “gang stalking” is perpetrated by rogue members of law enforcement agencies – and that his efforts to expose it resulted in him becoming a victim of organized stalking himself.
Assessing Gunderson’s testimony about this subject is a bit complicated. As I explain in detail here, the strange nature and context of Gunderson’s statements on this issue suggest that he was actually trying to discredit claims about Cointelpro-type stalking, by connecting them with bizarre, implausible statements about Satanism and child sex rings – and by suggesting that the activity was being perpetrated by “rogue” agents – rather than as part of an approved covert program.
Regardless of how one chooses to interpret Gunderson’s statements, they imply something bad about the FBI. If he was telling the truth about organized stalking, then the FBI is continuing to perpetrate Cointelpro-type crimes against Americans; if he was expressing delusional paranoid views, it suggests that the FBI’s highest level officials are mentally ill. Either way, it is remarkable that America’s paper of record would publish an article on gang stalking, and fail to even mention that a high-level official of the FBI had made public statements about the matter. A lengthy New York Times article on gang stalking –“Sharing Their Demons on the Web” – Nov. 13, 2008 – makes no mention of Mr. Gunderson.
That article also failed to include any comments from anyone with any expertise on the “Zersetzung” (a.k.a. “gang stalking”) tactics sometimes used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in counterintelligence operations. Instead, the only “experts” interviewed for the article were four mental health professionals (psychiatrists and psychologists) who discussed mental illness and delusions.
The one other person interviewed was someone who supposedly claimed to be a victim of gang stalking, Derrick Robinson, who is identified as a janitor in Cincinnati, and president of FFCHS – a support group for gang stalking victims. Most readers of the Times article would not be familiar with FFCHS, and would have no way of knowing – or even suspecting – that it is a disinformation front group – as I detail in the FFCHS page of this website.
Note that none of the mental health experts was asked about their knowledge of crimes (such as stalking), let alone their views on the plausibility that a modern version of the FBI Cointelpro operation might exist. In fact, the article makes no mention of Cointelpro whatsoever.
Also note that the one supposedly self-proclaimed gang stalking victim, Mr. Robinson, is a janitor – and he is the head of the victim support group. The intended takeaway is that the very most capable member of the community of self-proclaimed victims of organized stalking – the one with the wherewithal to become head of their organization – is a janitor. The reader is left to infer that the rest of the community must really be losers if he’s their brightest bulb. It simply would not have served the objective of the “reporter” to discuss gang stalking victims who were professionals, such as the aforementioned FBI special agent in charge, Mr. Gunderson, or the attorney, Mr. Labella.
Just to be sure readers got the message though, the psychiatrists quoted in the article mention that “These people lead quietly desperate lives.” (Read “losers.”)
A final point about the article: none of the websites cited are legitimate, credible websites, such as those I have listed in the “Recommended Websites” section of this blog. If the Times readers had been directed to any of the sites which I recommend, they would have encountered discussions of gang stalking very much at odds with what they were reading in the Times. The websites mentioned in the article – such as Gang Stalking World (as distinguished from Gangstalkingworld.wordpress.com) are badly edited and filled with extraneous garbage. Most likely, they are also examples of disinformation.
You can read the article at the link below if you want to see a textbook case of disinformation planted by the government in the mainstream news media – the sort of thing Noam Chomsky gets marginalized for warning people about.
If, despite the historical background of Cointelpro, and despite all the other information provided in this website, you conclude that this article is simply an example of journalistic incompetence at the nation’s “Paper of Record,” then I have a bridge to sell you.
Incidentally, by a remarkable coincidence, an article that was virtually identical to the Times piece was published by ABC News one month later (although it makes no reference to the Times piece that preceded it). ABC’s “reporter,” Lauren Cox, even interviewed the same psychiatrist who was interviewed by the Times, Ken Duckworth.
Also by coincidence, the ABC article failed to include any reference to the important high-profile credible whistle-blower key witness who supports the claims of gang stalking victims, Ted Gunderson. The ABC News article which involved such an extraordinary number of coincidences also failed to even mention Cointelpro or MK Ultra – or any other actual and relevant non-disputed government conspiracies, and focused exclusively on discussions of delusional thinking.
For more information on the New York Times’ attitude toward conspiracies, I strongly recommend reading Russ Baker’s deconstruction of a May 2013 Times article on the Boston Marathon bombing. Essentially the Times suggested that anyone who doubts information from the government is crazy, and they offered a pseudo-scientific explanation for that sophisticated view.
For a contrast between the type of mainstream press coverage which appears to be arranged pieces of disinformation for the government (the New York Times and ABC articles above), see the Washington Post’s feature article on gang stalking published during the previous year (2007).
(4) Letter from Police Lieutenant Larry Richard of the Santa Cruz, California Police Department describing gang stalking (dated March 30, 2011)
A January 29, 2011 TV news broadcast in California (Channel 46 – KION and Channel 35 – KCBA) featured a report – linked below – about gang stalking.
The news report is significant because it is rare for gang stalking to be discussed in TV news reports and rare for police officers to publicly mention the term.
In the segment’s introduction, a reporter said that police describe gang stalking as “bullying on steroids” – which is certainly an accurate description.
A self-proclaimed victim of gang stalking, Lawrence Guzzino of Salinas, California, was interviewed in the report. He described his experiences in a way that seemed credible and consistent with numerous such accounts. Guzzino said he was being systematically stalked in his neighborhood.
The reporters indicated that Guzzino’s case was not unique. They characterized gang stalking as a “trend” that involves, among other things, overt stalking to “terrorize” the victim.
Larry Richard, a police lieutenant with the Santa Cruz Police Department, was interviewed in the report, and he stated that gang stalking is not new.
Unfortunately, the report’s assertions become a bit muddled at this point, because Richard’s description of gang stalking makes reference to online bullying via social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. The reporter did not explicitly ask him about overt stalking done in-person, so he never clearly addressed the issue.
Note however that Richard did say that gang stalking predates the era of online social media – which implies that it must involve other tactics as well.
Also note that – as mentioned above – the report begins by saying that police characterize gang stalking as “bullying on steroids,” which sounds more serious than simply posting some rude comments on the Internet. The description is not specifically attributed to Larry Richard, however, so it is unclear who said it.
Update – attorney Keith Labella obtained a letter about the report.
On the basis of the California Public Records Act, attorney Keith Labella requested and obtained additional information about this incident – specifically, a letter from Lieutenant Richard dated March 30, 2011, in which he describes gang stalking.
This is the body of Larry Richard’s letter – including typo’s:
“Candice Nguyen from KION is doing a story ion this phenomenon called “Gang Stalking”. It has nothing to do with “gangs”, rather it is a form of cyber-bullying. The intent is a psychological impact and socially ostresizing the targeted person. With tools available to track someone (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, etc) it has made people more vulnerable to this. It has implications to workplace violence, love relationships gone bad, etc. I told Candice it is like Mean Girls or cyber-bullying on steroids.”
In my opinion, it is clear that Lieutenant Richard is simply lying in this letter.
The letter was produced in response to the request by Labella for written clarification and confirmation of the news report. Richards had two months between the TV news broadcast and the preparation of this letter. He had to know that the TV broadcast specifically discussed claims of overt physical stalking, but he completely dodges that issue by neither confirming or denying any awareness of such stalking, and instead addresses only the unrelated issue of cyber-bullying.
Here is the letter:
Here is the video clip of the TV broadcast:
(5) Federal civil complaint against U.S. government for gang stalking a contractor
This is a complaint filed in federal court in December 2013 by a former U.S. government contractor, Jeffrey Kantor. The lawsuit alleges that federal agencies gang-stalked the plaintiff and caused him to lose his job. For details, see my January 25, 2014 post in the Cointelpro News page of this website.
(6) U.S. Senate’s Church Committee Reports on Cointelpro & MK Ultra
Since the FBI committed so many crimes against Americans during this era, there are thousands of pages of documents in the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee reports.
Most Congressional reports are boring – but not these. Among the most interesting documents (and the most relevant to gang stalking) are the three which you can view or download below.
Just browsing through the contents pages gives a sense of the scope of the FBI’s crimes. Here are some of the topic headings:
Use of illegal or improper means, mail opening, political abuse, ignoring the law, efforts to discredit, media manipulation, distorting data to influence government policy and public perception,Congress declines to confront the issue “infiltration” investigations, wiretaps, bugging, FBI political intelligence for the White House, exaggeration of communist influence, “Black Bag”jobs, misuse of the IRS by the FBI and CIA, targeting of ideological groups, NSA monitoring, warrantless electronic surveillance, domestic intelligence network, violent and illegal activities of informants, targeting law-abiding citizens, targeting critics and political figures, attorneys general failure to limit and control FBI intelligence activities, efforts to promote enmity and factionalism within groups or between groups, encouraging violence between groups, efforts to prevent speaking/teaching/writing and publishing, propaganda, fictitious organizations, disseminating derogatory information to family, friends, and associates, contacts with employers, interference with the judicial process, blurred distinction between counterintelligence and investigation.
These reports are filled with interesting stuff. For example, Volume 6 of the hearings contains, among other items, a letter about “black bag jobs” (referred to as such). Book 2 of the final reports refers to an apparent attempt to blackmail Martin Luther King, Jr. and encourage him to commit suicide (pages 220-221).
This U.S. Senate webpage has all the Church Committee reports:
(7) GCHQ Documents on Disinformation & a Stasi Directive on Zersetzung
In February 2014 The Intercept posted secret documents leaked by whistle-blower Edward Snowden which showed how GCHQ (the U.K.’s equivalent of the NSA) systematically spreads lies on the Internet to undermine and slander targeted individuals and groups.
The following document was posted online by Jacob Appelbaum – an activist associated with the Tor project who has publicly discussed his harassment by U.S. law enforcement personnel. He has apparently been the target of extreme psychological operations against him (including, for example, agents entering his girlfriend’s residence at night while she was sleeping alone).
When Glenn Greenwald posted the secret documents on The Intercept, Appelbaum posted a link to this Stasi directive about zersetzung (the gang stalking tactics used by the state police in communist East Germany). He wanted to call attention to the striking similarity between the methods used by the Stasi and those currently used by western intelligence agencies.
(8) Classified U.S. diplomatic cable from 2008 with apparent reference to organized stalking in Canada
A classified U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks in November 2010 documented a discussion between a U.S. State Department official and the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in which the CSIS director said the agency was “vigorously harassing” members of Hezbollah – an apparent reference to organized stalking (which the Canadian intelligence community refers to as “diffuse and disrupt” tactics).
The cable, which was dated July 9, 2008 documented a discussion which occurred a week earlier between Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Jim Judd and Counselor of the U.S. State Department Eliot Cohen. The cable was part of the cache of secret documents leaked by U.S. Army private Bradley Manning.
The cable describes a statement made by CSIS Director Judd during the discussion:
…Judd said CSIS had responded to recent, non-specific intelligence on possible terror operations by “vigorously harassing” known Hezbollah members in Canada.
Just to be clear, the people being “vigorously harassed” were not people who sneaked into Canada using fake identities and had been observed committing crimes. If that were the case, they could have been arrested and prosecuted. These were people on whom the CSIS had no legally incriminating evidence, so CSIS was – apparently – overtly stalking them as an extra-judicial operation.
The cable notes that the CSIS director expressed his frustration at having to comply with “recent court rulings that, Judd complained, had inappropriately treated intelligence agencies like law enforcement bodies.”
An article about the cable’s release was published today by the Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail. That article notes that the discussion documented in the cable occurred during a period when the intelligence agency was the subject of judicial scrutiny:
“At the time, a series of Canadian judges were probing CSIS complicity in American actions that may have led to the torture of terrorism suspects…”
Reports on the connection between mobbing and workplace violence
Mobbing is intense harassment (group bullying) in a workplace or school; it is often a component of gang stalking.
Studies by Dr. Kenneth Westhues, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Waterloo, Canada, have found a link between mobbing and mass shootings in recent years in North America.
Professor Weshues has authored a number of reports on this topic – which I address in more detail in the section of this website about “Mobbing & Workplace Violence.”
This link is to his November 2007 report Mobbing and the Virginia Tech Massacre.
This next link is to a website featuring correspondence between Professor Westhues and attorney Keith Labella, discussing the apparent causal relationship between mobbing and workplace violence “rampage killings.” Westhues estimates that at least a third of all such incidents can be attributed to mobbing (systematic harassment).
As with gang stalking generally, articles occassionally appear in the mainstream press about the workplace harassment component of gang stalking (mobbing). Here is one example from Newsweek/Daily Beast:
Self-Published Articles About Gang Stalking
In addition to obtaining important evidentiary documents (such as the four documents listed above), attorney Keith Labella has posted informative and insightful articles on gang stalking. Originally his material was posted under the pseudonym “PeaceFrog” at the now-defunct website called NowPublic.com – and can now be found at his website Gang Stalking is Murder.
Here are two of his articles which offer an overview of the nature of organized stalking.
(1) “How Widespread is Gang Stalking?”
(2) “Cointelpro” [on the connection between Cointelpro and gang stalking]
Also see my June 12, 2013 entry in the “Gang Stalking News” section about Labella’s article on conspiracies and the current American government.
“An Introduction to Police Stalking”
The following document is an overview of gang stalking that was posted on its author’s blog. He purports to be a victim of organized stalking who is familiar with how the policy is used by European law enforcement agencies. Visser is a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. He has a background in history and comparative politics and holds a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Oxford.
To download a Microsoft Word file of the document, click here:
The following information is unrelated to counterintelligence stalking, but gives you a sense of Visser’s professional accomplishments…
Visser’s articles published in the journal Foreign Affairs:
Video of Visser participating in a panel discussion of the Iraq War on C-SPAN. (The segment featuring Visser begins 24 minutes into the video.)
(1) “Cause Stalking” by David Lawson – (Purportedly) a licensed private investigator’s first-hand account of how gang stalkers operate
This out-of-print book was self-published in March 2007 – purportedly by a licensed private investigator who claims that he personally accompanied gang stalkers for years. His descriptions of the harassment tactics seem to be accurate and consistent with other information.
On the other hand, Lawson’s analysis of the overall structure of gang stalking is not plausible. He essentially attributes the phenomenon exclusively to vigilante and criminal groups. He either doesn’t grasp – or pretends not to grasp – the implication of the wide scope of gang stalking – namely, that it could not possibly exist without the acquiescence of the U.S. federal government (for reasons explained by many observers and by me in other areas of this website).
The significance of Lawson’s document is that it is a detailed account of gang stalking operations by someone who is (purportedly) a licensed private investigator and a first-hand witness. It’s very possible that this book was a piece of disinformation.
(2) “Organized Stalking” by “Eleanor White” (a pdf file)
Organized Stalking is a detailed document which been widely posted online at various gang stalking websites, and has been updated several times in recent years.
The document – and others posted under the name “Eleanor White” – contains a significant amount of information about organized stalking that is consistent with my own observations and with reports from other apparently credible sources.
Ostensibly, “Eleanor White” is a self-proclaimed victim of gang stalking. “She” is actually a cyber persona (also called a “sock-puppet”), used as part of a counterintelligence disinformation program.
“Eleanor White” might be a purely fictitious person – or possibly there is (or was) an actual person by that name, and her name was adopted for use by counterintelligence agencies in the U.S, and Canada so that in the event some nosy journalist actually decided to inquire about the whole matter, it would not appear to be fabricated. I lack the resources to investigate that.
Documents posted under the name Eleanor White are routinely cited by the front groups FFCHS and OSI. (See my page in this website on those two groups for details about them.)
Those documents ignore or downplay the apparent complicity of law enforcement and intelligence agencies in organized stalking.
One clue about the disinformation nature of “Ms. White’s” documents is the generic Internet domain name: “Random Collection.” The website of FFCHS also has a domain name which does not include “stalking” – presumably for the same reason: it provides a web location to which targeted individuals can be directed, but one which will be less likely to show up and attract attention in search engine queries by the general public about stalking.
In June 2013 I began exchanging comments with “Ms. White” in an online forum devoted to gang stalking (linked below) and I addressed my concerns with “her” in detail.
In addition to consistently defending the legitimacy of FFCHS and down-playing the apparent Cointelpro nature of organized stalking, she (or he or they) invariably advocates that targeted individuals respond to harassment in the most passive way possible (essentially the opposite of my own advice).
Suspiciously, that advice is the same course of action which organized stalking perpetrators would want to see their victims choose – namely, to quietly endure their harassment and not make trouble.
It is also obvious that “Ms. White” has no interest whatsoever in any media reports which are either directly or indirectly related to the topic of organized stalking and Cointelpro operations. Instead she simply refers victims to her own collection of documents on the topic.
For anyone interested in the aforementioned exchange of online comments, you can visit pages 599 to 601 of the “Gang Stalking and Psychological Harassment” forum on Topix. Bear in mind that the forum contains multiple allegations that comments are sometimes deleted, so I can’t guarantee that the discussion thread has not been compromised since I last checked.
Here is a link to the forum:
Eleanor White’s “Organized Stalking” document is available here, among other places:
The main page for the archive of documents by Eleanor White is here:
(3) Description of gang stalking by John B. Lopes, a licensed private detective
This account of organized stalking by a licensed investigator does not delve deeply into the question about the identity and motivations of the perpetrators of gang stalking. It does not address, for example, the increasingly apparent connection between such stalking and government counterintelligence operations.
However, this document (which appears to have perhaps been an article in a trade publication) still has some importance because it is purportedly an account of a licensed detective who maintains that gang stalking – whatever its exact nature – is a real phenomenon.
Here is the website for John Lopes’ detective agency:
For what it is worth, I do not recommend contacting Lopes for help if you are a victim of gang stalking. The fact that he is one of the only investigators willing to publicly discuss this form of crime is a red flag for me.
If he were taking a brave lone stand against government corruption, he would probably become the target of some intensely negative attention by FBI goons.
My guess is that he is letting himself be used by criminally-complicit law enforcement agents as part of their counterintelligence operations.
If Mr. Lopes ever publishes an article exposing the obvious connection between gang stalking and illegal law enforcement strategies by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI – or if he appears on TV making such claims – then I will change my mind.
Image from John Lopes’ article:
If you can help expose illegal spying and harassment of Americans by intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and private security contractors, please do so. America needs more patriots like Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown, Russell Tice, William Binney, Ray McGovern, Thomas Drake, Frank Serpico, Thomas Tamm, Hugh Thompson, Jr., William C. Davidon, John Raines, Bonnie Raines, Keith Forsyth, Judi Feingold, and Bob Williamson.