Santa Cruz Cop Gets Played by Gangstalkers

The Santa Cruz Police Officer who responded to the traffic accident, that could have crippled my husband (see my last post,) got it wrong on his report. The report stated that the accident was caused by my husbands failure to yield the right of way, while entering  a traffic lane.

I am certain that the three gangstalkers who acted as witnesses are the reason the patrol officer, wrote a report that did not reflect the actual circumstances that led to the accident.  I think the witnesses followed a script.  I think the script used language and words that were deliberately chosen because they were powerful enough to influence the police, and keep real  witnesses to the accident at bay.   CAREFULLY CHOSEN WORDS CAN BE EXTREMELY POWERFUL. In this situation, they influenced the perception of the responding officer,  and ultimately shaped that officer’s written accident report and findings.

Evidence for this is found in the behavior and words of  all three of the witnesses.   These three witnesses, posing as strangers to each other and the driver of the Jeep.  All  used the exact same words, alternating between them and repeating . “I saw everything! I’ll be your witness!”.  They said it loud and often.  This began seconds after impact and  continued while the paramedics tended to my husband, and even while the officer interviewed the parties involved in the accident.  These gangstalkers are into NLP stuff.  It is basically using the words to influence the mind.  NLP goes hand in hand with hypnosis and the “power of suggestion”.  When it is non consensual and used to influence or control someones thoughts or behavior, it is unethical, but…. for gangstalkers, ethics isn’t really a concern.  Many NLP practitioners, no doubt, think applying NLP ethically, severely limits its power.  More info on NLP here.

When the cop took the witness statements, all three witness also used the exact same words to describe the accident. Those words are what made it onto the actual police report.  interestingly enough, the report references the three witness accounts,  but gives them one voice , saying  “all witness agreed that it would not have been possible for the Jeep to have avoided hitting the motorcyclist” .  Even more interesting is that the report only identifies one of the witnesses by name. Remember, these people want to remain anonymous. We would love to know their names. Why the other two names don’t appear anywhere on the report, seems a little sloppy to me. But maybe two of the witnesses slipped off, (planned, no doubt) before the officer could get their personal information.  .

Their real names are important to us. It helps us to connect dots, and often leads to the real names of other gangstalkers, and the groups they are members of. The connections are often family members who we recognize from times they followed us.  Sometimes it leads full circle, and connects back to a possible motive for targeting us.  Here is an example:

My awareness of  gangstalking started right after I threatened to sue Carrington College, in San Jose,  and told the dean, I thought their accreditation should be rescinded. I did this after an ugly experience where in my opinion (disclaimer:  my opinion, okay)  they  failed to deliver on their promises, had behaved unethically. and basically ripped me off and then tried to extort even more money out of me, after that.    The motive for my personal gangstalking is not known, but we do have a couple of theories.  Carrington College is one of those theories.  I have written about them at length, and will post it in the future.

The real name of one gangstalker,  led us to a relative of hers, who has also followed and harassed us.  This relative has a connection to Carrington College; so it lends support to one of our theories,  about why we were targeted. It’s not conclusive, but it’s another brick in the wall, so to speak. It also explains the importance of knowing the real names of these people.

We have often joked that we’re tempted to deliberately ram a car into one of the a$$hole stalkers, just so we could find out who they were from the police report. How disappointing to see only one of the three witnesses actually named on the report.

Okay, back to the accident:

 

The gangstalkers sprang into action, the moment the accident happened, to protect their fellow gangstalker from legal trouble. They had a job to do and they did it just as they planned and practiced for. They acted just like professional con artists.

The cop actually had everything he needed to ascertain exactly how the crash happened. But he also had to contend with the testimony of three lying witness, determined to influence the outcome.

The gangstalker who was involved in the accident, was clearly shaken up.  (my husband wondered at the time if maybe he didn’t have insurance, a license or had fake plates, because he was so nervous acting.)  My husband and the other driver both told the truth.   Inexplicably, neither one of their statements actually appears correctly in the report.

The Jeep’s driver told the officer that he “punched it around traffic to make the green left turn light.”   (Him and my husband were interviewed together.) This admission is found nowhere in the report and is extremely important. It was not part of the witness testimony, probably because it alters the perception of the driver as blameless .and in need of three impartial witnesses to protect HIS interests ( as evidenced by  “I’ll be YOUR witness”.)

My husband told the officer he was about to make a left into southbound traffic and he was looking right to make sure it was clear, when he was hit.  He says he never saw the car coming because there was no reason to look in that direction.  The report says my husband was looking at the driver when he hit him. That must have come from the witnesses.

Neither of my husbands statements are all that crucial, to understanding what happened, but it is worth noting that the phony witnesses statements are the only ones that appear on the report, and they were lies.

To understand how the accident really happened only required a few pieces of information, all of it readily available.

The Santa Cruz Officer who responded to the accident knew (or was told) the following:

1. The spot where the impact of the accident occurred ( at the very beginning of the Northbound left turn lane)

2. The Northbound lanes that proceed straight through,were stopped, backed up, and waiting for the red light to turn green.

3. My husband had maneuvered his bike through the two lanes of stopped traffic to get to the spot where the impact occurred. (he admitted this.  and it’s the only thing the witness did not lie about.)

4. The driver of the jeep had “punched it around the traffic to make the green left hand turn light.“

That leaves only one crucial question:   How did the driver of the jeep arrive at the spot where the accident happened?  HOW?

The traffic wasn’t moving in the northbound lanes, backed up well before the left turn lane began, effectively blocking access to the northbound turn lane. The jeep couldn’t have come from the gas station, squeezing between the cars backed up, waiting for the light, like my husbands motorcycle did.

There was only one way the driver could have gone around the traffic to reach the place where the left turn lane actually began, and the accident happened. The driver of the Jeep had to have been going North, traveling the wrong direction, in the Southbound lane, to circumvent the northbound traffic that was  stopped at the light.

That explains why my husband says he was looking right before turning into the southbound lane, and never saw the jeep. The jeep driver hit my husband broadside, unable to stop. Witness and the report said there would have been no way for the driver to have avoided the motorcyclist. My husband thinks there were probably skid marks because the jeep driver locked his brakes in an attempt to avoid the accident.

I disagree, about this being and unavoidable accident for the jeeps driver.  What if the jeep driver had not been going the wrong way on Ocean street, clearly against the law, in the first place?

Or try this thought experiment:

if my husband had been a couple of seconds faster, or the jeep driver, just a bit slower, they would have had a head on collision in the southbound lane. The jeep driver would have been going the wrong direction (north in a southbound lane) and clearly be at fault for the accident. The cause of the accident was set in motion prior to the impact, regardless of fault. If it had happened a couple of seconds earlier it would have happened in the southbound lane, instead of the start of the northbound left turn lane. It would have changed nothing about the jeep drivers actions. So how could it change his responsibility for the accident, once he is in motion?

Feel free to use the comment section, if you find fault with my logic here.

 

Since the jeep driver was already in motion, doesn’t he assume some responsibility, even if the impact takes place as he is illegally pulling into the northbound lane, instead of still traveling the wrong way to get to the point of impact?

I don’t know if what my husband did was legal, but I am certain what the driver of the jeep did, was NOT LEGAL. Yet, my husband who,  got broadsided by the jeep was found at fault, instead of the Jeep’s driver.

How does a police officer trained in accident investigation get it wrong, despite having all the evidence needed, at the scene, to get it right?

He was up against pros.

 

I think being trained to spot gangstalkers and witness who are not just lying, but using the same words and phrases to do so, would help them do their jobs better.

This isn’t a one time thing. These gangstalkers cause lots of accidents. They will do the same thing to you or anybody they hit or run over, if they continue to get away with it.

That witness testimony kept the cop from asking that all important question. HOW DID THE JEEP DRIVER ARRIVE AT THE POINT OF IMPACT? The answer to that would have shifted blame, and should not have been missed.  In this case the witness testimony was so persistent, so adamant, and so unanimous, that, that alone was given enough weight to determine the cause of the accident.

Witness testimony should only be used as a tool for determining what happened to cause the accident.  It shouldn’t be allowed to lead the officer away from the truth.   Officers need  training to see the signs that these people are running a game.  Training is the only way to keep from getting snowed by them.  There are certainly signs.

These witnesses behaved strangely, and the police department should train their officers to recognize the signs that signal collusion and gangstalking tactics are being used to influence the outcome of an investigation.

There isn’t really anybody at an accident scene that can legitimately make the claim. “I saw everything” .  (You would need an overhead view.) This accident had three of them.  Nowhere on the report does it state where the witness were when the accident happened.  It’s also missing, just like two of their names.

These witnesses kept saying. “I’ll be your witness” repeatedly to the jeep driver”. Clearly, not unbiased, and again, an odd thing to have all three witnesses say repeatedly.

And maybe the cop should have noticed how all three witness avoided eye contact with the motorcyclist,  they told there stories without a glance in his direction, usually keeping their backs to him. Odd behavior all the way around.  Of course the officer didn’t actually get to  see the strangest behavior, which happened before he arrived. All three witnesses stepped over and ignored a bleeding man in the street, and convened a pow wow at the window of the unhurt jeep driver.

My complaint is not so much about the officer, as the departments failure to train their officers to go with the evidence, instead of allowing witness testimony alone to determine fault. Officers should be on the lookout for witness testimony that is all seeing, all knowing, and told verbatim by different witnesses.  It’s classic gangstalker.

The report should have identified all three witnesses by name, and given their location at the time they witnessed the accident. It was incomplete. And even more important…it was wrong.

The gangstalkers are here. they are working Santa Cruz, and they are working Santa Cruz PD.  It’s not too late for Santa Cruz Police Department  to get it right, by training officers to recognize gangstalkers in action.

 

My Husband Almost Lost His Leg To a Gangstalker

My husband came close to losing his leg to a gangstalker less than two months ago. It happened on Ocean Stree, in Santa Cruz on a bright sunny day. Although some Gangstalkers have reportedly run into their targets on purpose, this really was an accident. A foreseeable accident, but an accident just the same.

If you think this happened to my husband, because he is a target, you should know that it could easily (and often does) happen to anybody in the vicinity of gangstalkers, as they go about harassing their target by car. They drive like maniacs, taking whatever chances are necessary to keep their target in site and to create an environment of unrelenting harassment.

They cut off parking lots; they go the wrong direction on one way streets. They periodically exit a freeway from the fast lane, making an abrupt right angle turn, cutting across all lanes to scare their target and force them to brake suddenly. They’ve done this to me, going 60mph, and pity the innocent person who could have been behind me. (This tactic is going to be covered more thoroughly in future post.) It’s an intimidation move, meant to let you know they have been right in front of you for the last few miles.  Box maneuvers happen frequently, on  freeways using several vehicles to keep the target (and anybody who is unfortunate enough to be behind the group) , from speeding up or exiting the freeway.  They are dangerous. It might seem like they are playing a game, but the stakes could be your life or your leg.

Here’s my husbands leg, in pictures taken the day of the accident and over the following 2 weeks. I have no doubt that if my husband had lost his leg or been permanently crippled, the gangstalkers would have viewed it as a happy accident.  If an innocent bystander lost his leg it would probably be viewed as unfortunate, but just the cost of doing business.

I’m going to describe the accident in detail, because it is important for realizing how the Santa Cruz officer was taken in by the Gangstalkers.  Gangstalkers never work solo, when stalking their targets. They operate using the “safety in numbers” principal.  If one of them gets in trouble, the others spring into action to deflect any negative consequences. that might befall any member of the team.  In the case of police involvement or an auto accident, the job of the rest of the team is to act as witnesses, vouching for the member of their team who has earned unwanted attention.

The gangstalkers, posing as witnesses, can rightly be compared to an experienced team of   grifters, smoothly pulling off a complex con on a mark.   In my husbands accident,  the ultimate goal was to make sure the stalker who hit him, was not held responsible for the accident.  To achieve this goal the Gangstalkers had to work two separate marks:  the police officer who responded to the scene, and  ultimately wrote the erroneous police report; and several real witness, that were just feet away, at the moment of impact.

The Gangstalkers are able to pull this off, by using psychological tricks to create an alternate reality, which enables them to suck the unsuspecting into the lie. You’ll be able to see exactly how it works, when I describe the actual scene that began to unfold,  seconds after the accident.

I am not holding my husband blameless for the accident. He should have spoken up at the time.  He felt outnumbered, he wasn’t sure if his actions were entirely legal. and he may have been in shock. At the very least, he was shook up, in pain, and not thinking clearly.

I spoke with my insurance agent, who informed me there can be degrees of fault assigned to any accident. Insurance companies regularly use these findings when figuring how to proportion payout, in an accident, where the actions of both parties are considered a contributing factor. Even if my husbands actions were not strictly legal, I think you will have a hard time assigning the blame ratio at 100 to 0, in the Jeep driver’s favor, once you know what happened.