I poke the bear because he won’t let me go

You might have noticed I added a disclaimer to the previous post. I did this in deference to my husband, who despite thinking the CHP has nothing to do with gangstalking, is nevertheless uncomfortable with my publicly writing that I am sure they do.

Poke The Bear

I think on some guttural level most people feel (me included) a little leery of Poking the Bear Especially a bear that has the power and ability to bite back. So to reiterate: It is my opinion that the CHP set our gangstalking in motion. That very statement makes both my husband and I nervous. It’s obvious why Poking this particular Bear makes me apprehensive: I’ve been bitten. If my husband does not think the CHP has anything to do with gangstalking, exactly why is he wary of Poking the Bear?

 

Police get lots of bad press and I am small potatoes. If the California Highway Patrol  is an ethical agency, they aren’t going to be interested in this bloggers opinion.  In theory, I need not worry about  being bitten by legally exercising my right to express myself from an agency that upholds laws.  And yet… in my interactions with them, they have displayed a complete disregard for ethics and the law.  I’m not talking about one  bad apple.  I’m talking about the culture.  So, there is this apprehension….

Could it be that even among the most trusting of us, there is, at our core, a niggling apprehension and distrust of government and its enforcers. I do think most of us are aware enough, to be alarmed by the stripping away of the protections, put in place by the Founding Fathers.   Maybe the uneasiness is because we sense that those diminishing protections,  may be all that stands between us and the snapping jaws of Big Brother. Our liberty is a stake. Our way of life is at stake.

If you would also feel apprehensive, about exercising your legal right (by say…. for example, suing a government agency in small claims court, or writing about it in a blog), you aren’t as free as you think you are. You are feeling the thumb of repression. Government should be working for us… not working us over. Any apprehension at all.  should give you pause. And when you pause… think about what an important tool repression has been. historically to those in power. Not very pretty, is it?

Most people go through life trying to avoid trouble. I’ve always done that. We don’t want police, government or criminal interference in our lives. We just want to live as unfettered and unobstructed as possible. I was naïve in thinking that I could actually sue a powerful branch of law enforcement and emerge unscathed.   It never occurred to me that there might be consequences to seeking a legal remedy to recover money taken from me, money I disputed owing.  I thought the entire collection process was unfair, unconstitutional and would be illegal if done by any group or person, other than the State.  Winning a few battles, felt like victory at the time, but I had no idea I was fighting a war.  And that was before the gangstalking  started. Our nightmare with the CHP began in the summer of 2007. It wasn’t resolved legally until fall of 2010. Add 4 years of gangstalking to that. No, I am not winning this war.  I can’t even walk away from it.

Silly me, I had no idea that doing something perfectly legal would piss off the Highway Patrol as much as it did. I mean…. they are the California Highway Patrol– surely they piss off people daily… probably hourly. People choose their battles. Make ’em mad enough, or treat them bad enough and they just might sue you. The Highway Patrol must get sued all the time, or so I thought. I certainly never could imagine that they would take it personally–extremely personally.

Now… having been through it… I no longer think they get sued in small claims court– at least not very often, and  if they do, they must never lose. The system is rigged, absolutely rigged.  I had to go through it to realize it.  The judgment in our favor seemed to have taken them completely by surprise.

They were, with all their resources, completely unprepared for it. If anyone has ever won against them in small claims court before… I would be very surprised. I used to think an impartial judge made a decision based solely on the merits of a case. Now, I am fairly certain  CHP doesn’t even have to put in an appearance to win.  I think they are a slam dunk and everybody knows it, except opposing parties in law suits (like me)  From what I’ve seen,  our judicial system and law enforcement are one and the same.  Judges can’t be expected to be impartial when they have a horse in the race.

Keith Labella, an attorney and my one of my personal heroes,  has done a lot for gangstalking victims.  He is also no stranger to judges that won’t be swayed by the facts.    Here’s a summary of his recent lawsuit over FOIA request omissions by the FBI   : http://gangstalkingismurder.wordpress.com/gang-stalking-f-o-i-a-lawsuit.  There is a link to the  full text PDF from there, if you want to read it in its entirety.

I am no whistleblower. I am not an activist. I just want to live my life free from harassment. It doesn’t seem like a lot to ask. It’s called the “pursuit of happiness”. You may have heard of it. Well, for the past 4 years the “pursuit of happiness” as been denied us. Gangstalking is covert aggression. An agency, which is in place, strictly for the purpose of upholding the law, would never be able to justify retaliating against anybody that legally sued them in court. You wouldn’t expect them to retaliate at all. But if they did…. they would have to do it covertly.

I don’t believe in violence, but it is pretty obvious that harassment, bullying. mobbing and gangstalking can push people over the edge. I think there is a lot of evidence to support the theory that mass shootings are often preceded by it. Complaints are often lodged with someone in a position of authority about by the (soon to be) shooter, trying to get relief from the harassment.   Later the shooters are described fairly consistently, regardless of the victims,  or the real motives.  You’ve all  heard it before:  The shooter  is described (after the fact) as a loner, a disgruntled employee, anti social or not quite right in the head. I think one of the goals of gangstalking is absolutely to: push people over the edge. They keep the pressure on victims constantly, hoping frustration and rage at the injustice, will do just that.

Being placed on a list by some secret threat assessment committee, signals the start of total and unrelenting, harassment. The fact that being on the list in the first place is what caused a person to go off the rails, just wouldn’t work to further the gangstalking program or the huge expenditures it requires.. When people do blow their tops, it furthers the consensus (among those in the know) that these lists (and the ever tightening noose around the neck of free America) are necessary to find and neutralize potential threats. Cause and effect are obscured by arguments for even more lists, more vigilance and ever more intrusive ways of identifying threats, (thus widening the net) including labeling, identifying and protecting us from the mentally ill (conveniently diagnosed by expert opinion, rather than science). This (they claim) will keep us safe and free from tragedy by preventing crime before it happens. This not only distracts the public, it allows them to marginalize people for crimes they may commit in the future.  Ludicrous as it seems,  this is a well-funded hot research area right now.  I’ll try to give you more information about it some time.

My personal favorite, among methods used to obscure what causes  mass shootings is to break out the old, tired gun control debate– always good for diverting attention and shifting blame.  Nothing ever comes of it, of course, because in the current climate, guns are  useful.  It’s easy to blame guns, and it might not be in your best interest to blame government harassment and blacklisting.

Everybody knows you don’t need a gun for killing, Murder takes place every day,  in almost every country, without them. Guns just make killing more efficient. You can’t grab the attention of our rubber necking society without some substantial carnage. Guns are good for that. This explains why the argument never gets put to rest. It’s a distraction away from the real reason people go postal.

The truth is, nobody in power envisions or wants a future where the civilian majority can legally own a gun. It’s problematic. The day it becomes illegal for civilians to own guns will be the day we can’t get back up the slippery slope. . Until that day, there is still hope for a way of life that allows all people to have their basic needs met and live a life of hope and dignity.

I hate violence. I don’t think it has any place in a civilized society and this…., writing all this crap down and railing passionately on a public forum about societal ills is so not me. It is, instead, the me who has been pushed over the edge by four years of non stop harassment and stalking. The old me didn’t feel the need to stir things up. Even the new me wishes they would just give up, so I could too.

I think about Christopher Dorner and how he destroyed himself to make an impact. He paid the ultimate price. He had other avenues available to get his message out. He was blinded to the possibilities by frustration, indignation and rage at what had been done to him.  Violence is never the answer.  It could be he felt his days were numbered and he had to get the message out very quickly –or never.  A lot of gangstalking victims feel that way.  that their health is in decline from the stress of be harassed.  I’m currently healthy and I shouldn’t have any problem rolling out my message at a snails pace, if I want.  But I still feel an urgency to get the message out

I really think Christopher Dorner was a man out of time, and out of options.  After reading his manifesto, I think he was an intelligent man who didn’t think he would be alive to take the “slow and study wins the race approach”.  He spoke out against police brutality and he later goes on a killing rampage.  He was out of options.  No one should ever feel that way and backing people into a corner by gangstalking, mobbing and monitoring  until they lash out, doesn’t solve problems It creates them.  If you’ve been told gangstalking is a solution to a problem, don’t believe it…  you’ve been snowed.  You can’t break things to fix things.  When you break people, society doesn’t get better; It gets less open and more fearful.  Who among us doesn’t want society to get better?  Who benefits from gangstalking?  Don’t be part of it.

Thank you for reading my blog.