Using TRAPWIRE to Investigate Misconduct in the Police State? ELyssa Durant © 2012

Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy

Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr. from ABA Law Journal

  •  
image

A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.

After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.
With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.

POINT AND SHOOT

“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.
But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”

“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

CASES IN PLAY

Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.

ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.

In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.

The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police.
“On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”

 Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”

Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.

“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”

Learn more about Professor Hudson here… http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson or visit his website at http://www.davidlhudsonjrbooks.com/index.html

glad to know ya!

^ed

David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.

LEARN MORE ABOUT ME HERE. Powers That Beat
..

Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State? 

by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M. Policy Analyst and Citizen Journalist with a Camera Phone

I was trying to de-escalate the situation with the local Police
Department since I realize how much danger this city is in given recent
laws to persecute Muslims and people who were not born in the United
States 287(g)

However, after watching the violence erupting around me, knowing that I
am the primary target [thanks to COINTELPRO agent provocateurs] and
being questioned by the police about my twitter stream, I really don’t
give a fuck.

These people have no idea how they are being manipulated by
disinformation agents, toxic living conditions and a system that is far
more corrupt than even I imagined.

The “monitor” who controls the surveillance cameras clearly has some
special deal with Metro because despite all the violence that broke out,
he finds the time to threaten, harass and stalk me ignoring the fact
that several residents threatened me after spooks came in and told
people to stay away from me or they will “get in trouble”

WHAT THE FUCK? I have no history of violence and have never even been
in a fight,I weigh 124 pounds and all these people are afraid of me? Do I
“look dangerous” because I am quite certain it won’t be long before
someone makes another attempt on my life.

Much like Trayvon Martin, I was told police were on there way after a
man threw a brick through my window and then chased me down the street.

I was on the phone with 911 the whole time screaming “HELP, HELP, HELP”
yet the police claim they did not want to waste radio space to update
status of my call to a Code 3. Are you fucking kidding me?

911 told me to return to the scene of the crime where I was assaulted a
second time, and the cops didn’t even bother to arrest him or take
witness statements. In fact, the officer would not even step out of the
car to speak with me because he did not like the way I was dressed.

Because no action was taken against the man that assaulted me and vowed
to kill and my father (who just happens to be a former Fed) I constantly
carry my iPhone because the cops claim they did not have enough
evidence to arrest this man. They never bothered to check the
surveillance camera and did not take statements from additional
witnesses.

They did, however take issue with the fact that I placed a video on
YouTube and were even more upset that I contacted a former colleague in
the Mayor’s Office who then requested an investigation. They sent two
Lieutenants to my home; one was aggressive and disrespectful and was
more interested in what book I was reading and my website than the facts
of the case.

I was told that they would follow up with the other witnesses who would
corroborate my story, and that a Special Operations Unit and Gang Unit
would be contacted regarding the racial comments that became commonplace
every time I left the apartment.

One man hung up Nazi flags, another started praying in Muslim and all
hell broke loose in the neighborhood. I became a target because I was
white in a Black neighborhood, and apparently that alone was enough to
incite hatred among the other tenants and I feared for life each time I
left my apartment, so the police told me NOT to leave my home. THAT IS
OUTRAGEOUS.

The other tenants became more and more abusive and violent since they
now had a new sense of entitlement because they knew the police would
not take action.

It is worth noting that even after I left, the violence continued to
escalate and one women was stabbed and several other injured in fights
that broke out in the hallway. The cops still did not arrest the people
who continue to live in the neighborhood, and some of them have shown up
here at my new apartment to harass me and spread rumors.

The neighbors here have suddenly became abusive and overly concerned
with my religion and it seems the writing is on the wall. They think my
healthy paranoia is “suspicious” and I think their behavior is
outrageous.

They constantly stand outside my window and scream at me and the
“monitor” called the police on me after he threatened me and told me I
was not allowed to go near a “white car.” There were SIX white cars,
two of which have no tags, so how am I to know which white car is the
one who stopped me at the mailbox and told me that two men were knocking
at my door and were here to beat me up?

I may very well be the next Treyvan Martin and if so, so be it. I am old
enough and experienced enough to know that these people do not see the
bigger picture~ that they are being used to as examples to bring down
the police state and usher in the New World Order.

I leave these notes because I do not know if I will get shot at today,
tomorrow or next week, and I think it is important to let people know
that I have spent my entire life studying gang violence, and have fought
hard against police corruption and discrimination so regardless of what
happens to me, I do not want my work (or experience) to be in vain.

I am one of the good guys, and if you can’t see that by now… then take
some time to look through some of my publications which are
systematically being removed from the internet by groups like Anonymous,
Lulz, and AntiSec.

This breaks my heart, but I am fighting a losing battle. I am starting
to question my commitment and given the communities response~ I am not
sure if they are worth the sacrifice.

That’s all for today. This is the Daily Dose for March 29, 2012.

Just me,

e

@ELyssaD 

ANOTHER POST THE POLICE TOOK ISSUE WITH:

Metro Nashville Police Department continue to cover up crimes by failing
to follow established code of conduct in lower income neighborhoods.

Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he
notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to
multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults
against two women and one man on Monday evening.

I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life
for being a “cracker Jew bitch” and threw a brick through my window
where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force
behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi
Party and the Lucis Trust.

I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical
experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a
variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of
victims of Mengele’s subjects.

I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in
Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that
my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws
since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.

Ironic when I noticed which posts were
being removed due to the sensitive nature (and my vast knowledge) about
the true purpose of organized, controlled opposition as a driving force
to escalate domestic unrest designed to incite violence justifying a
Police State ushering in the New World Order.

This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.

One cop came running after me, demanded to see my cell phone and after
running my license to check for warrants (which seemed extreme) and
finding none, he wrote up an incident report for “suspicious behavior”
for video taping a crime scene. 

He not only searched my cell phone without a warrant, but proceeded to DELETE crime scene photos.  

THAT IS A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FOURTH AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT’S ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS. 
RELEVANT HISTORY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC:

Despite being a “confidential” informant in an undercover sting operation that went bad [way bad] in 2009 at the request of the Mayor’s Office and several police officers not to be named at this time, I became an informant when I saw people selling prescription drugs to teenagers in DCS custody.  

I wanted it to stop, and at the police sergeant’s request, I agreed to work with the Crime Suppression Unit to keep these kids from inevitable path to lifelong addiction and criminal behavior.

 I was instructed to report on the illegal activities, which included taking down license plates and traffic patterns indicative of illegal drug sales.  

After lengthy discussions with my contact in the department,  the majority of all follow up communications were via e-mail on my cell phone so my neighbors would not hear me discussing the situation.

That fateful day my cell was jammed and hacked, I was unable to receive or send critical communications to alert me that shit went bad, and my cover was blown.

None of this ever made it though the network, and the e-mails reside on a microchip that is an UNDISCLOSED LOCATION with about 40 back ups at the ACLU, FBI, and Nightly News just in case something happens to me before I transfer out of here into a safer jurisdiction.

That was the first, but not the last time my cell was jammed and hacked.

I could not receive communications or directions from the crime suppression unit, and I wound up being assaulted and hospitalized after one of  the bullets hit my window. 

I was promised a police escort and advanced warning, but they never showed up, until they did with automatic assault rifles at my front door. 

It was too late.

I have never disclosed those emails, however they have since been accessed by hackers from Lulz, AntiSec and whoever accessed my computer when I was out of town this time last year. 

How do I know? Because the PC hadn’t been turned on in several years and the last ten documents opened were my detailed call records and an e-mail to a certain politician who also had his cell phone records searched and used against him in an ugly court battle and political campaign.

SO, they’re you have it folks The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me [aliens]

Now, an obvious target by the police department, I am constantly harassed, stopped, searched, interrogated or subjected to “unofficial complaints” of harassment that always seem to follow a pattern I know all too well.

SO, when the investigator tries to tell me that I would not make a good witness since I called 911 from my closet AFTER the brick came through my window, what they mean is, we will make sure your credibility is destroyed through false reports, and constant harassment should you ever decide to sue us for police misconduct.  

Well, fuck you!

After yet another incident where the police failed to respond to a life threatening situation in a timely manner, insult and intimidate me, three times in 24 hours, then ultimately release the suspect claiming there
is not enough evidence??

I CALL TRAPWIRE!!
When you refuse to take witness statements; reveal your name or badge
numbers, and another violent criminal continues to terrorize me for months on end, and the police refuse to review the live feed trapwire video that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this man assaulted me AND three other individuals within minutes of being released?

No evidence? Check the fucking surveillance cams just above the the scene of the crime.

Hell, check MY surveillance cam! I don’t leave home without it!

Just me,

e
@ELyssaD

ELyssa Durant © 2012 || All Rights Reserved || DailyDDoSe™ @ELyssaD™.

Using TRAPWIRE to Investigate Misconduct in the Police State? ELyssa Durant © 2012

Good Cop, Bad Citizen? As Cellphone Recording Increases, Officers Are Uneasy

Posted Mar 1, 2012 4:40 AM CDT
By David L. Hudson Jr. from ABA Law Journal

  •  
image

A plainclothes Maryland state trooper approaches speeding suspect Anthony Graber, who captured the encounter with a camera atop his motorcycle helmet and later posted the video on YouTube.
Walking past Boston Common, the city’s august park, in 2007, attorney Simon Glik noticed several police officers arresting a young man. Glik heard another bystander say he thought the police were using excessive force. So he pulled out his cellphone and began shooting video of the incident.

After arresting the young man, one of the officers turned to Glik, saying, “I think you have taken enough pictures.” When the officer asked Glik whether his audio recorder was on, Glik acknowledged it was. Glik was then arrested for violating a state wiretap law and two other state offenses.
The charges were subsequently dropped, but for Glik that was just the beginning. He filed a constitutional tort suit alleging violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers filed a motion to dismiss, contending they were entitled to qualified immunity, enabling government officials to avoid liability if they don’t violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law. But a federal district court denied the officers’ claim.
And last August, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that the officers violated Glik’s clearly established constitutional right to video-record the police performing their duties in public.
“Our recognition that the First Amendment protects the filming of government officials in public spaces accords with the decisions of numerous circuit and district courts,” the panel wrote. The case went back to the federal district court and the parties are in discovery.
With the ubiquity of cellphones, the ease of video-recording and the availability of such websites as YouTube, people can respond quickly to police incidents and broadly circulate the recordings.

POINT AND SHOOT

“The prevalence of cellphone cameras with high enough resolutions for people to record the police and then be able to disseminate it over the Internet” is a major reason for the video-recording, says Boston attorney Jeffrey P. Hermes, director of the Citizen Media Law Project.
But law officers are often uncomfortable. “Many officers are also uncomfortable that their activities might be displayed on the Internet and otherwise widely distributed,” says Portland, Ore., lawyer Bert P. Krages, who specializes in the area. “Some also have the impression that photography presents a security risk and are acting according to a post-9/11 mentality.”
Adds Krages: “Law enforcement personnel are still grappling with the idea that ordinary citizens have the right to take images, whereas previously such photographs and videos were taken by professionals employed by traditional media companies.”

“When you talk about citizen journalists, there is also a slightly different relationship between those individuals and the police and the relationship that many mainstream journalists have with the police,” Hermes says. “Those mainstream journalists who cover the police have developed an understanding with the police that many private individuals have not.”
The 1st Circuit found it irrelevant that Glik was a private citizen rather than a professional journalist. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cellphone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew,” the court said. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

CASES IN PLAY

Glik is far from the only case. The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois also has a case pending in the Chicago-based 7th Circuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, as it applies to making video and audio recordings of police performing their public duties.

ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, filed in August 2010, claims the broad nature of the Illinois law may expose ACLU members to arrest. “The act makes audio-recording police officers in these circumstances a felony,” the complaint states. “Due to a reasonable fear of arrest and prosecution, the ACLU is restrained from engaging in this conduct.”
A federal district court dismissed the case as moot in October 2010 and the ACLU appealed. Oral argument took place in the 7th Circuit last September.
In May 2011, Emily Good was arrested in Rochester, N.Y., for taking video of police conducting a traffic stop on the street in front of her yard. According to published accounts, police told her they didn’t feel safe with her there. She was later taken into custody.

In April 2010, Anthony Graber faced an indictment in Abingdon, Md., after he recorded a state trooper giving him a ticket and then posted the video on YouTube. Graber, a 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard, was riding his motorcycle down Interstate 95. On top of his helmet was a camera he often used to record his journeys.

The camera was rolling when an unmarked gray sedan cut him off. A man wielding a gun emerged from the driver’s side, yelling at Graber and ordering him to get off his bike. Only then did the state trooper identify himself and holster his weapon. Graber was cited for doing 80 in a 65-mph zone.
Graber accepted his ticket, then posted his video. A few weeks later, he was awakened by six officers raiding his parents’ home, where he lived with his wife and two children. He learned later that a grand jury indictment alleged he had violated state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.
“Police justifications come in a few different flavors,” Hermes says. There are security concerns and charges of violating wiretap laws, which vary by state. But police also claim they are covered by qualified immunity. The doctrine shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights—so long as the official’s actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate “clearly established law.”
David Milton, a Boston-based attorney who represents Glik, points to the 2010 case Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle. There the 3rd Circuit at Philadelphia granted qualified immunity to a police officer who arrested a passenger in a vehicle he had pulled over for speeding. The officer discovered the passenger was video-recording him and claimed the passenger violated Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act. The appeals court determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably believed he had the authority to arrest the passenger.
Part of the problem, Milton says, stems from a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Pearson v. Callahan, in which the justices said lower courts had the option of deciding cases based on whether the law was clearly established, without first determining whether there had been a violation of individual constitutional rights.
But Glik altered the balance, saying there is a clearly established right to monitor the police.
“On the First Amendment issue, the concept that there is a clearly established right seems consistent with prior case law in the 1st Circuit and the experience of media recording in public as long as there have been video cameras,” Hermes says. “For decades we have had television stations recording in public and not facing sanctions.”

 Adds Milton: “What is so good about the 1st Circuit decision in Glik is that the judges recognized that even though there may not be a prior case of a police officer in a park with a person on a cellphone, basic long-standing First Amendment principles clearly apply to the situation even though it involves new technology.”

Although there is no Supreme Court ruling that finds a right to record in public, Hermes says, many believe there is a clearly established constitutional right to monitor the police.
“Police serve a vital function and most law enforcement officers are very decent people who should be commended,” Krages says.

“However,” he adds, “the police are in a position to grossly abuse civil liberties, and the bad ones cause a lot of harm. In many situations, a determination of what actually happened comes down to deciding whether the officer is more credible than a suspect or citizen. Consumer-level imaging, particularly video, has captured images of officers acting very inappropriately in all sorts of situations.”

Learn more about Professor Hudson here… http://law.vanderbilt.edu/hudson or visit his website at http://www.davidlhudsonjrbooks.com/index.html

glad to know ya!

^ed

David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center where he writes for the Center’s website, speaks to the media and lectures on a variety of First Amendment issues. He is the author, co-author or co-editor of more than 35 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008)(one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He also serves as a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. Professor Hudson teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt.

LEARN MORE ABOUT ME HERE. Powers That Beat
..

Using TRAPWIRE to investigate misconduct in the Police State? 

by Elyssa Durant, Ed.M. Policy Analyst and Citizen Journalist with a Camera Phone

I was trying to de-escalate the situation with the local Police
Department since I realize how much danger this city is in given recent
laws to persecute Muslims and people who were not born in the United
States 287(g)

However, after watching the violence erupting around me, knowing that I
am the primary target [thanks to COINTELPRO agent provocateurs] and
being questioned by the police about my twitter stream, I really don’t
give a fuck.

These people have no idea how they are being manipulated by
disinformation agents, toxic living conditions and a system that is far
more corrupt than even I imagined.

The “monitor” who controls the surveillance cameras clearly has some
special deal with Metro because despite all the violence that broke out,
he finds the time to threaten, harass and stalk me ignoring the fact
that several residents threatened me after spooks came in and told
people to stay away from me or they will “get in trouble”

WHAT THE FUCK? I have no history of violence and have never even been
in a fight,I weigh 124 pounds and all these people are afraid of me? Do I
“look dangerous” because I am quite certain it won’t be long before
someone makes another attempt on my life.

Much like Trayvon Martin, I was told police were on there way after a
man threw a brick through my window and then chased me down the street.

I was on the phone with 911 the whole time screaming “HELP, HELP, HELP”
yet the police claim they did not want to waste radio space to update
status of my call to a Code 3. Are you fucking kidding me?

911 told me to return to the scene of the crime where I was assaulted a
second time, and the cops didn’t even bother to arrest him or take
witness statements. In fact, the officer would not even step out of the
car to speak with me because he did not like the way I was dressed.

Because no action was taken against the man that assaulted me and vowed
to kill and my father (who just happens to be a former Fed) I constantly
carry my iPhone because the cops claim they did not have enough
evidence to arrest this man. They never bothered to check the
surveillance camera and did not take statements from additional
witnesses.

They did, however take issue with the fact that I placed a video on
YouTube and were even more upset that I contacted a former colleague in
the Mayor’s Office who then requested an investigation. They sent two
Lieutenants to my home; one was aggressive and disrespectful and was
more interested in what book I was reading and my website than the facts
of the case.

I was told that they would follow up with the other witnesses who would
corroborate my story, and that a Special Operations Unit and Gang Unit
would be contacted regarding the racial comments that became commonplace
every time I left the apartment.

One man hung up Nazi flags, another started praying in Muslim and all
hell broke loose in the neighborhood. I became a target because I was
white in a Black neighborhood, and apparently that alone was enough to
incite hatred among the other tenants and I feared for life each time I
left my apartment, so the police told me NOT to leave my home. THAT IS
OUTRAGEOUS.

The other tenants became more and more abusive and violent since they
now had a new sense of entitlement because they knew the police would
not take action.

It is worth noting that even after I left, the violence continued to
escalate and one women was stabbed and several other injured in fights
that broke out in the hallway. The cops still did not arrest the people
who continue to live in the neighborhood, and some of them have shown up
here at my new apartment to harass me and spread rumors.

The neighbors here have suddenly became abusive and overly concerned
with my religion and it seems the writing is on the wall. They think my
healthy paranoia is “suspicious” and I think their behavior is
outrageous.

They constantly stand outside my window and scream at me and the
“monitor” called the police on me after he threatened me and told me I
was not allowed to go near a “white car.” There were SIX white cars,
two of which have no tags, so how am I to know which white car is the
one who stopped me at the mailbox and told me that two men were knocking
at my door and were here to beat me up?

I may very well be the next Treyvan Martin and if so, so be it. I am old
enough and experienced enough to know that these people do not see the
bigger picture~ that they are being used to as examples to bring down
the police state and usher in the New World Order.

I leave these notes because I do not know if I will get shot at today,
tomorrow or next week, and I think it is important to let people know
that I have spent my entire life studying gang violence, and have fought
hard against police corruption and discrimination so regardless of what
happens to me, I do not want my work (or experience) to be in vain.

I am one of the good guys, and if you can’t see that by now… then take
some time to look through some of my publications which are
systematically being removed from the internet by groups like Anonymous,
Lulz, and AntiSec.

This breaks my heart, but I am fighting a losing battle. I am starting
to question my commitment and given the communities response~ I am not
sure if they are worth the sacrifice.

That’s all for today. This is the Daily Dose for March 29, 2012.

Just me,

e

@ELyssaD 

ANOTHER POST THE POLICE TOOK ISSUE WITH:

Metro Nashville Police Department continue to cover up crimes by failing
to follow established code of conduct in lower income neighborhoods.

Some power hungry police officer demands to search my iPhone after he
notices I am video taping the MNPD who took three hours to respond to
multiple neighbors call 911 after witnessing multiple violent assaults
against two women and one man on Monday evening.

I called 911 after two people approached my window threatening my life
for being a “cracker Jew bitch” and threw a brick through my window
where I was working on two projects about Cointelpro as a driving force
behind the Occupy movement that is being funded by The American Nazi
Party and the Lucis Trust.

I was interviewing someone who had been involved with Nazi medical
experiments and how it effected his four children who suffer with a
variety of neurological and psychological problems that are typical of
victims of Mengele’s subjects.

I had just received notification from the copyright office (USTPO) in
Virginia that my submission was approved and was thrilled to learn that
my publications and identity would be protected under trademark and copyright laws
since I received several take down notices from the police and google that my site was in danger of being seized due to the number of complaints received about the content: THE TRUTH.

Ironic when I noticed which posts were
being removed due to the sensitive nature (and my vast knowledge) about
the true purpose of organized, controlled opposition as a driving force
to escalate domestic unrest designed to incite violence justifying a
Police State ushering in the New World Order.

This is not the first, second, or even third time I have been stopped by undercover police or random uniforms knocking on my door to search my cell.

One cop came running after me, demanded to see my cell phone and after
running my license to check for warrants (which seemed extreme) and
finding none, he wrote up an incident report for “suspicious behavior”
for video taping a crime scene. 

He not only searched my cell phone without a warrant, but proceeded to DELETE crime scene photos.  

THAT IS A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FOURTH AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT’S ABOUT AS SERIOUS AS IT GETS. 
RELEVANT HISTORY THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC:

Despite being a “confidential” informant in an undercover sting operation that went bad [way bad] in 2009 at the request of the Mayor’s Office and several police officers not to be named at this time, I became an informant when I saw people selling prescription drugs to teenagers in DCS custody.  

I wanted it to stop, and at the police sergeant’s request, I agreed to work with the Crime Suppression Unit to keep these kids from inevitable path to lifelong addiction and criminal behavior.

 I was instructed to report on the illegal activities, which included taking down license plates and traffic patterns indicative of illegal drug sales.  

After lengthy discussions with my contact in the department,  the majority of all follow up communications were via e-mail on my cell phone so my neighbors would not hear me discussing the situation.

That fateful day my cell was jammed and hacked, I was unable to receive or send critical communications to alert me that shit went bad, and my cover was blown.

None of this ever made it though the network, and the e-mails reside on a microchip that is an UNDISCLOSED LOCATION with about 40 back ups at the ACLU, FBI, and Nightly News just in case something happens to me before I transfer out of here into a safer jurisdiction.

That was the first, but not the last time my cell was jammed and hacked.

I could not receive communications or directions from the crime suppression unit, and I wound up being assaulted and hospitalized after one of  the bullets hit my window. 

I was promised a police escort and advanced warning, but they never showed up, until they did with automatic assault rifles at my front door. 

It was too late.

I have never disclosed those emails, however they have since been accessed by hackers from Lulz, AntiSec and whoever accessed my computer when I was out of town this time last year. 

How do I know? Because the PC hadn’t been turned on in several years and the last ten documents opened were my detailed call records and an e-mail to a certain politician who also had his cell phone records searched and used against him in an ugly court battle and political campaign.

SO, they’re you have it folks The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me [aliens]

Now, an obvious target by the police department, I am constantly harassed, stopped, searched, interrogated or subjected to “unofficial complaints” of harassment that always seem to follow a pattern I know all too well.

SO, when the investigator tries to tell me that I would not make a good witness since I called 911 from my closet AFTER the brick came through my window, what they mean is, we will make sure your credibility is destroyed through false reports, and constant harassment should you ever decide to sue us for police misconduct.  

Well, fuck you!

After yet another incident where the police failed to respond to a life threatening situation in a timely manner, insult and intimidate me, three times in 24 hours, then ultimately release the suspect claiming there
is not enough evidence??

I CALL TRAPWIRE!!
When you refuse to take witness statements; reveal your name or badge
numbers, and another violent criminal continues to terrorize me for months on end, and the police refuse to review the live feed trapwire video that would show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this man assaulted me AND three other individuals within minutes of being released?

No evidence? Check the fucking surveillance cams just above the the scene of the crime.

Hell, check MY surveillance cam! I don’t leave home without it!

Just me,

e
@ELyssaD

ELyssa Durant © 2012 || All Rights Reserved || DailyDDoSe™ @ELyssaD™.

Important Message about Nashville Community Organizers, TNDP and OFA

May 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM

What an it interesting twist of fate.

So the Queen steps without naming an heir, and takes they whole
“community” with her.

What an brilliant demonstration of leadership gone bad. So that’s two.

It was my understanding that the core concept of #OFA was that
community organizers rely on grass roots and heart of the community.

The turf wars at TNDP and NCO served only one purpose, the political
agenda was more like a pulpit for shameless self-promotion. As a
result Tennessee has continues to move further way from the core
principles of progressive voters across the state.

Personal agendas took priority over policy initiatives and we are
certainly no closer to being anywhere near the place we need to be.
I no longer affiliate with the TN Democratic party despite my long
standing record of being an active member of many local, national and
International organizations promoting human rights and justice for
all.

As a result I no longer volunteer or align myself with any “political” party.

I watched from afar as the TNDP and NCO claimed OWNERSHIP of other
community agencies. Including Nashville for All of Us.

To alienate so many so quickly, it tells me that my instincts were
right on target.

I received multiple emails and action alerts all claiming to Speak for of OFA.

Upon further inspection, it became clear that this was one individual
was pushing a personal agenda. To be an effective community organizer
on must keep the emphasis on “community” rather than “leadership”

I think is certainly a step in the right direction. Maybe there still
is a Nashville for All of Us.

Truly disgraceful demonstration of poor leadership, dedication and character.

Elyssa Durant
Nashville, TN
http://bit.ly/blbFec

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Meetup
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:11:28 -0400
Subject: Important Message about Nashville Community Organizers
To: ed70@columbia.edu

Members of Nashville Community Organizers,

Your Organizer, Kathy, just stepped down without nominating a replacement.

Without an Organizer, Nashville Community Organizers will shut down on
May 27, 2010.

Step up to become this Meetup Group’s Organizer and you can guide its
future direction, schedule Meetups, change its site’s colors —
you can make it whatever you and your members want!

Other members can help you. Ask them for ideas or even nominate a few
to help as Assistant Organizers.

Want to learn more about what Organizing a Meetup Group is like? Check
out Meetup’s Organizer Center: http://orc.meetup.com/

KEEP YOUR GROUP GOING:
http://www.meetup.com/Nashville-Community-Organizers-formerly-NLBO/handover/?…

got questions? we’re here to help! Call us at 1-877-633-8870
#supporthours() or send us an email at support@meetup.com

Viva la community!
The Team at Meetup HQ

 

An Open Letter to the TNDP

 

June 24, 2009

Dear Mr Forrester:

I have a HUGE problem with the “Chip in for Chip Campaign” I feel this is a grievous misrepresentation of the TNDP and the incestuous affiliation it appears to have with the NCO.

What an awful way to start you tenure and try to gain support from local, vocal advocates and activists like myself. http://www.actblue.com/page/chipin

Unfortunately, duty calls, and I don’t have the time to fully express just how disturbed I was by how betrayed I feel by the TNDP that caused me to question the ethics of my own party. a breach of ethics within the Democratic party.

But rest assured I will return to this topic with further details, and a copy of a letter I received from one of of your staff members the day after we discussed the possibility of summoning volunteers from the health care lobby to get your new office up and running.

Although you did invite me both verbally and through e-mail, I was told by one of your staffers that I was not welcome since I “Chip doesn’t even know you, AND because I did not even volunteer at the Obama Headquarters.”

Sorry– I was hitting the streets with Health Care for America Now [HCAN] and manning the phones for Cover the Uninsured.

This campaign was misrepresented to me as a non-profit supporting the community through and by local activists and advocates right here in Nashville.

The website revisions validate that transformation from as the NCO slowly morphed into the TNDP.

This kind of and followed up with one of the most disgusting displays of all the things ugly we hate about politics.

NCO is NOT act blue. As a former lobbyist, I am deeply offended by the ethics and misrepresentation of the TNDP. Especially after being told I am not a welcome volunteer at YOUR office.

Bad business, Chip.

It is unfortunate that you have surrounded yourself with people who are working against you to further their own political agenda hoping they may someday replace you.

It was interesting to watch how quickly the dispersed when the “Chips were down.”

As a life-long democrat who missed only one election since I turned 18, I truly hope your staff (especially the “NCO” can recognize how seriously they are jeopardizing and alienating members of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately, I can’t donate money, but I would have more than happy to volunteer time. Therefore, I am formally requesting a refund of the $5.44 I donated online.

I shared the letter with a friend in the Republican Party because it was so offensive and shocking. I think you deserve a copy as well. I will try to get that o you in the near future.

Please note, it is not personal against you, but In the meantime, I would like to formally request a refund of $5.44. You can make it payable to charity of MY choice, however since I am unemployed and on disability, I wouldn’t object if you made the check out to “cash.”

Sincerely yours,

Elyssa Durant, Ed.M.
Nashville, Tennessee

Because THIS is how the Tennessee Democratic Party treats volunteers in “The Volunteer State”

So, no. Don’t ask me to “chip in for Chip Forrester” or donate money to any of the people associated with this organization.

To quote Kathy, “it’s just not happening.” ELyssa Durant, Ed.M.
TN05, House 52
אל

> > ——Original Message——
> From: kathy@communityorganizers.net
> To: Ed70@columbia.edu
> Subject: TNDP
> Sent: Feb 8, 2009 7:27 AM
> > Hey Elyssa,
> > Just wanted to let you know that the TNDP Transition Team already has formed, met, and is working. I know you’re interested in being on it, but it’s just not happening this time. You’re not on it. Chip doesn’t know you, hasn’t worked with you, and hasn’t even met you, Elyssa. You’ve got a good heart with great intentions, but you’re just being too aggressive right now and it’s having an opposite effect than what you want. No one knows you here -you weren’t on the Obama staff or volunteer staff here, or even a volunteer at HQ, and haven’t done anything with NCO. Give it time.
> > I know you’ll appreciate the direct approach. No worries!
> > Kathy
> > >

Important Message about Nashville Community Organizers, TNDP and OFA

May 12, 2010 at 10:09 AM

What an it interesting twist of fate.

So the Queen steps without naming an heir, and takes they whole
“community” with her.

What an brilliant demonstration of leadership gone bad. So that’s two.

It was my understanding that the core concept of #OFA was that
community organizers rely on grass roots and heart of the community.

The turf wars at TNDP and NCO served only one purpose, the political
agenda was more like a pulpit for shameless self-promotion. As a
result Tennessee has continues to move further way from the core
principles of progressive voters across the state.

Personal agendas took priority over policy initiatives and we are
certainly no closer to being anywhere near the place we need to be.
I no longer affiliate with the TN Democratic party despite my long
standing record of being an active member of many local, national and
International organizations promoting human rights and justice for
all.

As a result I no longer volunteer or align myself with any “political” party.

I watched from afar as the TNDP and NCO claimed OWNERSHIP of other
community agencies. Including Nashville for All of Us.

To alienate so many so quickly, it tells me that my instincts were
right on target.

I received multiple emails and action alerts all claiming to Speak for of OFA.

Upon further inspection, it became clear that this was one individual
was pushing a personal agenda. To be an effective community organizer
on must keep the emphasis on “community” rather than “leadership”

I think is certainly a step in the right direction. Maybe there still
is a Nashville for All of Us.

Truly disgraceful demonstration of poor leadership, dedication and character.

Elyssa Durant
Nashville, TN
http://bit.ly/blbFec

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Meetup
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:11:28 -0400
Subject: Important Message about Nashville Community Organizers
To: ed70@columbia.edu

Members of Nashville Community Organizers,

Your Organizer, Kathy, just stepped down without nominating a replacement.

Without an Organizer, Nashville Community Organizers will shut down on
May 27, 2010.

Step up to become this Meetup Group’s Organizer and you can guide its
future direction, schedule Meetups, change its site’s colors —
you can make it whatever you and your members want!

Other members can help you. Ask them for ideas or even nominate a few
to help as Assistant Organizers.

Want to learn more about what Organizing a Meetup Group is like? Check
out Meetup’s Organizer Center: http://orc.meetup.com/

KEEP YOUR GROUP GOING:
http://www.meetup.com/Nashville-Community-Organizers-formerly-NLBO/handover/?…

got questions? we’re here to help! Call us at 1-877-633-8870
#supporthours() or send us an email at support@meetup.com

Viva la community!
The Team at Meetup HQ

 

An Open Letter to the TNDP

 

June 24, 2009

Dear Mr Forrester:

I have a HUGE problem with the “Chip in for Chip Campaign” I feel this is a grievous misrepresentation of the TNDP and the incestuous affiliation it appears to have with the NCO.

What an awful way to start you tenure and try to gain support from local, vocal advocates and activists like myself. http://www.actblue.com/page/chipin

Unfortunately, duty calls, and I don’t have the time to fully express just how disturbed I was by how betrayed I feel by the TNDP that caused me to question the ethics of my own party. a breach of ethics within the Democratic party.

But rest assured I will return to this topic with further details, and a copy of a letter I received from one of of your staff members the day after we discussed the possibility of summoning volunteers from the health care lobby to get your new office up and running.

Although you did invite me both verbally and through e-mail, I was told by one of your staffers that I was not welcome since I “Chip doesn’t even know you, AND because I did not even volunteer at the Obama Headquarters.”

Sorry– I was hitting the streets with Health Care for America Now [HCAN] and manning the phones for Cover the Uninsured.

This campaign was misrepresented to me as a non-profit supporting the community through and by local activists and advocates right here in Nashville.

The website revisions validate that transformation from as the NCO slowly morphed into the TNDP.

This kind of and followed up with one of the most disgusting displays of all the things ugly we hate about politics.

NCO is NOT act blue. As a former lobbyist, I am deeply offended by the ethics and misrepresentation of the TNDP. Especially after being told I am not a welcome volunteer at YOUR office.

Bad business, Chip.

It is unfortunate that you have surrounded yourself with people who are working against you to further their own political agenda hoping they may someday replace you.

It was interesting to watch how quickly the dispersed when the “Chips were down.”

As a life-long democrat who missed only one election since I turned 18, I truly hope your staff (especially the “NCO” can recognize how seriously they are jeopardizing and alienating members of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately, I can’t donate money, but I would have more than happy to volunteer time. Therefore, I am formally requesting a refund of the $5.44 I donated online.

I shared the letter with a friend in the Republican Party because it was so offensive and shocking. I think you deserve a copy as well. I will try to get that o you in the near future.

Please note, it is not personal against you, but In the meantime, I would like to formally request a refund of $5.44. You can make it payable to charity of MY choice, however since I am unemployed and on disability, I wouldn’t object if you made the check out to “cash.”

Sincerely yours,

Elyssa Durant, Ed.M.
Nashville, Tennessee

Because THIS is how the Tennessee Democratic Party treats volunteers in “The Volunteer State”

So, no. Don’t ask me to “chip in for Chip Forrester” or donate money to any of the people associated with this organization.

To quote Kathy, “it’s just not happening.” ELyssa Durant, Ed.M.
TN05, House 52
אל

> > ——Original Message——
> From: kathy@communityorganizers.net
> To: Ed70@columbia.edu
> Subject: TNDP
> Sent: Feb 8, 2009 7:27 AM
> > Hey Elyssa,
> > Just wanted to let you know that the TNDP Transition Team already has formed, met, and is working. I know you’re interested in being on it, but it’s just not happening this time. You’re not on it. Chip doesn’t know you, hasn’t worked with you, and hasn’t even met you, Elyssa. You’ve got a good heart with great intentions, but you’re just being too aggressive right now and it’s having an opposite effect than what you want. No one knows you here -you weren’t on the Obama staff or volunteer staff here, or even a volunteer at HQ, and haven’t done anything with NCO. Give it time.
> > I know you’ll appreciate the direct approach. No worries!
> > Kathy
> > >

@columbiajourn FYI — hack3d

jHAZbAau.DOC
Download this file

 

SABU took over Lulz Whois domain July 1, 2011.

Registrant Name: Adrian Lamo
Admin Name: Adrian Lamo
Admin ID: CR25623848 
Admin Street1: 1 Police Plaza
Admin Street2: #Aspergers section
Admin City: New York
Admin Country: US

“The goberment of Portugal will not extradite me!”

Expires: January 17, 2012 

Fuck. That. Shit.

Category:
News & Politics

Tags:
Anonymous Fraud Lulz Aspergers Hackgate NY USA @ELyssaD Whois
License:
Standard YouTube License

504
Aspie
504-lulz
Columbia_transcript_ed_m_
Error83
Russian1
Blows

Soros’s game plan for Iceland and its “freedom of information” zone was hatched years ago

Wikileaks and Iceland media law are stalking horses for
Soros

Following up on
WMR’s March 25, 2010 report on Wikileaks’s ties to U.S. intelligence, Mossad,
and George Soros, WMR has received additional information that points to the
Icelandic media law that would turn the economically-battered country into an
information safe haven for websites like Wikileaks as being a contrivance of
George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI).

WMR has learned
that OSI’s Mark Thompson spoke at the May 2009
First Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and New
Communications Services. Present at the conference was Katrin Jakobsdóttir,
Iceland’s Minister of Culture, Education, and Science and members of the
Icelandic parliament, the Althing. It was after this conference that the
Icelandic Modern Media Initiative was introduced with much fanfare from
Wikileaks and its co-founder Julian Assange.
Thompson has a background
that includes propagandizing for the western incursion into the Balkans,
including directing the Media Analysis Unit for the UN mission in Yugoslavia,
UNPROFOR; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Soros’s
OSI.

Wikileaks claims it is the first website dedicated to
revealing sensitive and classified information. This is false. In fact,
Cryptome, founded by New York City architect John Young, was the first and
Wikileaks is a mere poor facsimile. John Young once proudly proclaimed to this
editor that he would likely become America’s “first political prisoner” from the
Internet. Young’s Cryptome has gone far beyond Wikileaks by publishing a list of
British MI-6 agents, Microsoft’s manual on how it conducts surveillance for U.S.
law enforcement, photos of Guantanamo and a list of the detainees imprisoned
there, and even overhead photos of Dick Cheney’s home in McLean, Virginia while
it was under construction.

And Wikileaks appears to have climbed on to the previous
work of others.
In 2008, Wikileaks
claimed to have obtained, through “hacking,” the credit card records of the Norm
Coleman Senate campaign in Minnesota.
In fact, WMR has been informed that
the credit card files, along with the campaign’s
backup material, was stored by the webmaster in an unprotected folder. It was
this file that was downloaded.
The “hack” was heralded by
MinnesotaIndependent.com, a Soros-funded operation. The illegal operation was
never acted upon by law enforcement. In addition, the website PoliticsInMinnesota.com reported on the
leak of the files several weeks before the Coleman data appeared on
Wikileaks.

It is Young’s Cryptome that has been harassed by the U.S.
government and Internet Service Providers
. Meanwhile, Wikileaks has come
up with a fanciful tale of its activists being tailed in Iceland by shadowy
Icelandic and American gumshoes and fears that they will be “taken out” before
they can air a video at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on April 5
showing a U.S. missile attack on Afghan civilians. There is also a specious
claim that the military’s encryption codes were somehow broken to obtain the
video. If that is true, the real story is that the United States suffered a
major compromise of its cryptographic keys, something that has only rarely
occurred in the past.

When John Young pulled out of the Wikileaks operation in
2007, suspecting it was a CIA front, there were also early allegations that
Wikileaks was funded by Soros. Soros fronts for the CIA by running the
operations of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. In fact,
one of Wikileaks’s advisory board members, Chinese dissident Xiao Qiang, is a
commentator for Radio Free Asia.

Soros has been heavily involved in Iceland since 1998
and it is Soros who helped found the small Democracy Movement.
The
website Reykjavik Grapevine took the Democracy Movement to task last October 22
when it wrote, “A speculative column appearing on Vísir.is points out that
billionaire George Soros has enough money to buy Iceland . . . Foreign
investment – or foreign exploitation – of Iceland has been on the minds of a lot
of Icelanders lately, especially as more companies from abroad express an
interest in Iceland’s natural resources . . . And look at this, Obama’s OMB
director Peter Orszag (the name is Jewish from Hungarian-Romanian Transylvania
like fellow vampire Soros) and his connection to Iceland: “In 1998, after
serving in the Clinton administration, Orszag co-founded an economic consulting
group company with his brother and Joseph Stiglitz called Sebago Associates,
where he served as president through 2007. The firm’s clients have included the
World Bank, the Nordic Council of Ministers, and most notably, the Central Bank
of Iceland. The once prosperous economy of Iceland has been devastated by the
current economic crisis, which its citizens say was carried out by a gang of
financial criminals who followed disastrous policies and advice – provided by
Peter Orszag and Company.”

Soros appears to
have been partly behind the collapse of the Icelandic economy and now his
minions in Reykjavik and his contrivance, Wikileaks, wants to transform Iceland
into an information technology safe harbor from he and his NGO network can
engage in massive propaganda campaigns and destabilization efforts around the
world without the fear of legal ramifications.

WMR’s sources
report that the Soros Private Equity group
(since renamed TowerBrook Capital Partners) invested $10 million in
TradeDoubler, a Swedish online provider and platform, in cooperation with the
Icelandic venture firm Arctic Ventures. TradeDoubler handles online financial
payments and transactions but mainly online advertising, and is big in online
betting throughout Europe. The downfall of Iceland’s banks was enabled by online
banking and investment.
Ragnar Thorisson, an Icelander, worked at VBS Securities
before founding Arctic Ventures (where he invested in E-Trade Nordic). He then
invested in Argnor, a wireless service provider. Ordinary members of the TradeDoubler Board of
Directors include Niclas Gabrán and Ramez Sousou of Soros Private Equity group,
now TowerBrook Capital Partners.
Thorisson reportedly sold his shares in
TradeDoubler.

It is also
noteworthy that TowerBrook is heavily invested in healthcare services and
pharmaceuticals and stands to reap huge profits from President Obama’s health
care program.

Although Soros claims he is
for freedom of information, going as far as promoting Iceland as a freedom of
information paradise, criticism of Soros’s operations don’t appear to be covered
by the former Hungarian Nazi collaborator’s largess as seen in the following RT
program when this editor criticized Soros’s operations. Iceland’s Soros-prompted
media reform bill also contains a provision for an Icelandic Freedom of
Expression Award, a typical Soros construct. Soros’s NGO network provides for a
number of awards that are used to pad the resumes of a number of dubious bad
actors.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20100328_1

http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/2010/03/soros-co-back-wikileaks-kosher-mob…

Philadelphia State trooper suicidal over S&M revelation http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6225939.htm

If you have reached this
page upon trying to submit images to the site, you have exceeded the indicated
file size limits. Please go back to the
submission page and choose images that meet the file size limits.

If you have reached this page upon trying to submit a new topic to a
forum, your new topic may be in the process of being approved. Please click here to view your submission.

Go to the forums page.”);

Go to the forums
page.

Page Not Found

If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another
Web site, this page is no longer available.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

http://www.dailyrotten.com/archive/2003/_2003-07-03.html

State trooper suicidal over S&M revelation

Philadelphia Inquirer | Submitted by: Tobermory

“A federal judge released around 1,000 pages of previously confidential State Police internal affairs records Thursday, including the names of several troopers who were disciplined for sexual misconduct. … One lawyer told the judge this week that a trooper has threatened to harm himself if it is revealed publicly that he allowed himself to be ‘dominated’ in a sexual manner. ‘One person I represent is terribly, terribly, terribly distressed by all this and I fear for his safety,’ attorney Marc Durant told the judge at a hearing Tuesday.”

Read article…

http://www.dailyrotten.com/archive/2003/_2003-07-03.html

#COINTELPRO – #CIA #BLACKOPS #CIA “CHAOS PROGRAM #DOJ #COVERT OPS OPERATION CHAOS: ROUND TWO

COINTELPRO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Common name Federal Bureau of Investigation
Abbreviation FBI
US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg
Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.

COINTELPRO tactics included discrediting targets through psychological warfare such as planting false reports in the media, smearing through forged letters, harassment, wrongful imprisonment, and extralegal violence and assassination. Covert operations under COINTELPRO took place between 1956 and 1971, however the FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception.[2] The FBI’s stated motivation at the time was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.”[3]

FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed “subversive,”[4] including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the civil rights movement, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled “New Left“, including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; organizations and individuals associated with the women’s rights movement; nationalist groups such as those seeking “independence for Puerto Rico” and a United Ireland; and additional notable Americans, such as Dr. Albert Einstein. The remaining 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert “white hate groups,” including the Ku Klux Klan and National States’ Rights Party.[5]

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” the activities of these movements and their leaders.[6][7]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] History

COINTELPRO began in 1956 and was designed to “increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections” inside the Communist Party U.S.A. (CPUSA). However, the program was soon enlarged to include disruption of the Socialist Workers Party (1961), the Ku Klux Klan (1964), the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party (1967), and the entire New Left social/political movement, which included antiwar, community, and religious groups (1968). A later investigation by the Senate’s Church Committee (see below) stated that “COINTELPRO began in 1956, in part because of frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government’s power to proceed overtly against dissident groups…”[8] Congress and several court cases[9] later[when?]concluded that the COINTELPRO operations against communist and socialist groups exceeded statutory limits on FBI activity and violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association.

[edit] Program exposed

The program was successfully kept secret until 1971, when a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI burglarized an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, and took and exposed several dossiers by passing the information to news agencies. Many news organizations initially refused to publish the information. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.[10]

Further documents were revealed in the course of separate lawsuits filed against the FBI by NBC correspondent Carl Stern, the Socialist Workers Party, and a number of other groups. A major investigation was launched in 1976 by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, commonly referred to as the “Church Committee” for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho. However, millions of pages of documents remain unreleased, and many released documents have been partly, or entirely, redacted.

In the Final Report of the Select Committee, COINTELPRO was castigated in no uncertain terms:

Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that…the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.[8]

The Church Committee documented a history of FBI directors using the agency for purposes of political repression as far back as World War I, through the 1920s, when they were charged with rounding up “anarchists and revolutionaries” for deportation, and then building from 1936 through 1976.

[edit] Range of targets

In an interview with the BBC‘s Andrew Marr, MIT professor of linguistics and political activist Noam Chomsky spoke about the purpose and the targets of COINTELPRO saying, “COINTELPRO was a program of subversion carried out not by a couple of petty crooks but by the national political police, the FBI, under four administrations…by the time it got through, I won’t run through the whole story, it was aimed at the entire new left, at the women’s movement, at the whole black movement, it was extremely broad. Its actions went as far as political assassination.” [11]

According to the Church Committee:

While the declared purposes of these programs were to protect the “national security” or prevent violence, Bureau witnesses admit that many of the targets were nonviolent and most had no connections with a foreign power. Indeed, nonviolent organizations and individuals were targeted because the Bureau believed they represented a “potential” for violence — and nonviolent citizens who were against the war in Vietnam were targeted because they gave “aid and comfort” to violent demonstrators by lending respectability to their cause.
The imprecision of the targeting is demonstrated by the inability of the Bureau to define the subjects of the programs. The Black Nationalist program, according to its supervisor, included “a great number of organizations that you might not today characterize as black nationalist but which were in fact primarily black.” Thus, the nonviolent Southern Christian Leadership Conference was labeled as a Black Nationalist-“Hate Group.”
Furthermore, the actual targets were chosen from a far broader group than the titles of the programs would imply. The CPUSA program targeted not only Communist Party members but also sponsors of the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee and civil rights leaders allegedly under Communist influence or deemed to be not sufficiently “anti-Communist”. The Socialist Workers Party program included non-SWP sponsors of anti-war demonstrations which were cosponsored by the SWP or the Young Socialist Alliance, its youth group. The Black Nationalist program targeted a range of organizations from the Panthers to SNCC to the peaceful Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and included every Black Student Union and many other black student groups. New Left targets ranged from the SDS to the InterUniversity Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy, from Antioch College (“vanguard of the New Left”) to the New Mexico Free University and other “alternate” schools, and from underground newspapers to students’ protesting university censorship of a student publication by carrying signs with four-letter words on them.

Examples of surveillance, spanning all Presidents from FDR to Nixon, both legal and illegal, contained in the Church Committee report:[12]

  • President Roosevelt asked the FBI to put in its files the names of citizens sending telegrams to the White House opposing his “national defense” policy and supporting Col. Charles Lindbergh.
  • President Truman received inside information on a former Roosevelt aide’s efforts to influence his appointments, labor union negotiating plans, and the publishing plans of journalists.
  • President Eisenhower received reports on purely political and social contacts with foreign officials by Bernard Baruch, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
  • The Kennedy administration had the FBI wiretap a congressional staff member, three executive officials, a lobbyist, and a Washington law firm. US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy received the fruits of an FBI “tap” on Martin Luther King, Jr. and a “bug” on a Congressman, both of which yielded information of a political nature.
  • President Johnson asked the FBI to conduct “name checks” of his critics and members of the staff of his 1964 opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater. He also requested purely political intelligence on his critics in the Senate, and received extensive intelligence reports on political activity at the 1964 Democratic Convention from FBI electronic surveillance.
  • President Nixon authorized a program of wiretaps which produced for the White House purely political or personal information unrelated to national security, including information about a Supreme Court justice.

The COINTELPRO documents disclose numerous cases of the FBI’s intentions to stop the mass protest against the Vietnam War. Many techniques were used to accomplish the assignment. “These included promoting splits among antiwar forces, encouraging red-baiting of socialists, and pushing violent confrontations as an alternative to massive, peaceful demonstrations.” One 1966 Cointelpro operation attempted to redirect the Socialist Workers Party from their pledge of support for the antiwar movement.[13]

The FBI claims that it no longer undertakes COINTELPRO or COINTELPRO-like operations. However, critics claim that agency programs in the spirit of COINTELPRO targeted groups such as the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador,[14] the American Indian Movement,[2][15] Earth First!,[16] the White Separatist Movement,[17] and the Anti-Globalization Movement.[citation needed]

[edit] Methods

Body of Fred Hampton, national spokesman for the Black Panther Party, who was assassinated by members of the Chicago Police Department, as part of a COINTELPRO operation

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four main methods during COINTELPRO:

  1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
  2. Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used a myriad of other “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.
  3. Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.[18]
  4. Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[18][19][20] The object was to frighten, or eliminate, dissidents and disrupt their movements.

The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various factions in the black militancy movement, for example between the Black Panthers, the United Slaves and the Blackstone Rangers. This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were the United Slave assassinations of San Diego Black Panther Party members Jim Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[18]

The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homes—often with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws—which resulted directly in the police killing of many members of the Black Panther Party, most notably the assassination of Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[18][19][20]

In order to eliminate black militant leaders whom they considered dangerous, the FBI conspired with local police departments to target specific individuals,[21] accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them. One Black Panther Party leader, Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt, was incarcerated for 27 years before a California Superior Court vacated his murder conviction, ultimately freeing him. Appearing before the court, an FBI agent testified that he believed Pratt had been framed because both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department knew he had been out of the area at the time the murder occurred. [22][23]

The FBI conducted more than 200 “black bag jobs“,[24][25] which were warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[26]

In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black Panther Party (BPP) revealed that in his city, at least, the Black nationalists were primarily feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the career ambitions of the agent were directly related to his supplying evidence to support Hoover’s view that the BPP was “a violence-prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means”.[27]

Hoover was willing to use false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: “Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge.”[28]

In one particularly controversial 1965 incident, civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered by Ku Klux Klansmen who gave chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a young black man; one of the Klansmen was acknowledged FBI informant Gary Thomas Rowe.[29][30] Afterward COINTELPRO spread false rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americans involved in the civil rights movement.[31][32][33][34] FBI informant Rowe has also been implicated in some of the most violent crimes of the 1960s civil rights era, including attacks on the Freedom Riders and the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.[29] In another instance in San Diego the FBI financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former Minutemen, transforming it into a group called the Secret Army Organization which targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement for both intimidation and violent acts.[35][36][37][38]

Hoover ordered preemptive action “to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence.”[6][39]

[edit] Illegal surveillance

The final report of the Church Committee concluded:

Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone “bugs”, surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous — and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations — have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.
Groups and individuals have been harassed and disrupted because of their political views and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory and vicious tactics have been employed — including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.
Governmental officials — including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law –have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.
The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.[40][41]

[edit] COINTELPRO tactics continue

While COINTELPRO was officially terminated in April 1971, continuing FBI actions indicate that post-COINTELPRO reforms did not succeed in ending COINTELPRO tactics.[42][43][44] Documents released under the FOIA show that the FBI tracked the late Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author David Halberstam for more than two decades.[45]

“Counterterrorism” guidelines implemented during the Reagan administration have been described as allowing a return to COINTELPRO tactics.[46] Some radical groups accuse factional opponents of being FBI informants or assume the FBI is infiltrating the movement.[47]

The FBI improperly opened investigations of American activist groups, even though they were planning nothing more than peaceful civil disobedience, according to a report by the inspector general (IG) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The review by the inspector general was launched in response to complaints by civil liberties groups and members of Congress. The FBI improperly monitored groups including the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh-based peace group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Greenpeace USA, an environmental activism organization. Also, activists affiliated with Greenpeace were improperly put on a terrorist watch list, even though they were planning no violence or illegal acitivities. The IG report found the “troubling” FBI practices between 2001 and 2006. In some cases, the FBI conducted investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for “factually weak” reasons. Also, the FBI extended investigations of some of the groups “without adequate basis” and improperly kept information about activist groups in its files. The IG report also found that FBI Director Robert Mueller III provided inaccurate congressional testimony about one of the investigations, but this inaccuracy may have been due to his relying on what FBI officials told him.[48]

Several authors have accused the FBI of continuing to deploy COINTELPRO-like tactics against radical groups after the official COINTELPRO operations were ended. Several authors have suggested the American Indian Movement (AIM) has been a target of such operations.

A few authors go further and allege that the federal government intended to acquire uranium deposits on the Lakota tribe’s reservation land, and that this motivated a larger government conspiracy against AIM activists on the Pine Ridge reservation.[2][15][49][50][51] Others believe COINTELPRO continues and similar actions are being taken against activist groups.[51][52][53]

Caroline Woidat argued that with respect to Native Americans, COINTELPRO should be understood within a historical context in which “Native Americans have been viewed and have viewed the world themselves through the lens of conspiracy theory.”[54]

Other authors note that while some conspiracy theories related to COINTELPRO are unfounded, the issue of ongoing government surveillance and repression is nonetheless real.[55][56]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d “Quick Facts”. Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/quickfacts.htm. Retrieved 2009-11-20. 
  2. ^ a b c Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall, (1990), The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent, Boston: South End Press, pp. xii, 303.
  3. ^ COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens, Final Report of the Senate Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Acti…
  4. ^ Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. THE FBI, Yale University Press, 2008, p. 189
  5. ^ Various Church Committee reports reproduced online at ICDC: Final Report, 2A; Final Report,2Cb; Final Report, 3A; Final Report, 3G. Various COINTELPRO documents reproduced online at ICDC: CPUSA; SWP; Black Nationalist; White Hate; New Left; Puerto Rico.
  6. ^ a b COINTELPRO Revisited – Spying & Disruption – IN BLACK AND WHITE: THE F.B.I. PAPERS
  7. ^ “A Huey P. Newton Story – Actions – COINTELPRO”. PBS. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. http://www.webcitation.org/5uKqNOQFD. Retrieved 2008-06-23. 
  8. ^ a b “Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans”. United States Senate. http://www.archive.org/details/finalreportofsel03unit. Retrieved 2010-12-01. 
  9. ^ See, for example, Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (1984); Rugiero v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 257 F.3d 534, 546 (2001).[dead link]
  10. ^ A Short History of FBI COINTELPRO. Retrieved July 13, 2007. Archived September 28, 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
  11. ^ Video at YouTube
  12. ^ Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Final Report of the Senate Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities
  13. ^ Blackstock, Nelson. COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, Pathfinder, New York. 1975. p. 111.
  14. ^ Gelbspan, Ross. (1991) Break-Ins, Death Threats, and the FBI: The Covert War Against the Central America Movement, Boston: South End Press.
  15. ^ a b Churchill, Ward; and James Vander Wall. Agents of Repression: The FBI’s Secret Wars against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, 1988, Boston, South End Press.
  16. ^ Pickett, Karen. “Earth First! Takes the FBI to Court: Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney’s Case Heard after 12 Years,” Earth First Journal, no date.
  17. ^ The Railroading of Matt Hale by Edgar J. Steele
  18. ^ a b c d The FBI’S Covert Action Program to Destroy the Black Panther Party
  19. ^ a b FBI Secrets: An Agent’s Expose. M. Wesley Swearigan. Boston. South End Press. 1995. Special Agent Gregg York: “We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black nigger fuckers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.”
  20. ^ a b http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Chapter_History/pdf/Chicago/Murder_of_Fred_Hampton_1969.pdf
  21. ^
    Media_httpwwwicdccomp_xfziz
  22. ^ “Former Black Panther freed after 27 years in jail”. CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. http://www.webcitation.org/5uKqQinXr. Retrieved April 30, 2010. 
  23. ^ In re Pratt, 82 Cal
  24. ^ Alexander Cockburn; Jeffrey St. Clair (1998). Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press. Verso. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-85984-139-6. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s5qIj_h_PtkC&printsec=frontcover. 
  25. ^ FBI document, 19 July 1966, DeLoach to Sullivan re: “Black Bag” Jobs.
  26. ^ http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIf.htm. Retrieved August 14, 2005.
  27. ^ FBI document, 27 May 1969, Director FBI to SAC San Francisco. Available at the FBI reading room.
  28. ^ FBI document, 16 September 1970, Director FBI to SAC’s in Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New Haven, San Francisco, and Washington Field Office. Available at the FBI reading room.
  29. ^ a b Gary May, The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Luzzo, Yale University Press, 2005.
  30. ^ “Jonathan Yardley”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. http://www.webcitation.org/5uKqS0VOK. Retrieved April 30, 2010. 
  31. ^ Joanne Giannino. “Viola Liuzzo”. Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. http://www.webcitation.org/5uKqSe8XJ. Retrieved 2008-09-29. 
  32. ^ Kay Houston. “The Detroit housewife who moved a nation toward racial justice”. The Detroit News, Rearview Mirror. Archived from the original on 1999-04-27. http://web.archive.org/web/19990427180231/http://www.detroitnews.com/history/viola/viola.htm. 
  33. ^ Mary Stanton, FROM SELMA TO SORROW: The Life and Death of Viola Liuzzo, University of Georgia Press, 2000
  34. ^ planting media cash advance debt at plantingseedsmedia.com
  35. ^ Triumphs of Democracy, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Language and Responsibility)
  36. ^ Watergate and the Secret Army Organization – msg#00404 – culture.discuss.cia-drugs
  37. ^ 1972
  38. ^ http://www.start.umd.edu/data/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=4258[dead link]
  39. ^ OpEdNews – Article: J. Edgar Hoover personally ordered FBI to initiate COINTELPRO dirty tricks against Black Panthers in ‘Omaha Two’ case
  40. ^ “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Book II, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities United States Senate (Church Committee)”. United States Senate. http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm. Retrieved May 11, 2006. 
  41. ^ “Tapped Out Why Congress won’t get through to the NSA.”. Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/id/2135325/. Retrieved May 11, 2006. 
  42. ^ David Cunningham. There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI. University of California Press, 2005: “However, strong suspicions lingered that the program’s tactics were sustained on a less formal basis—suspicions sometimes furthered by agents themselves, who periodically claimed that counterintelligence activities were continuing, though in a manner undocumented within Bureau files.”; Hobson v. Brennan, 646 F.Supp. 884 (D.D.C.,1986)
  43. ^ Bud Schultz, Ruth Schultz. The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America. University of California Press, 2001: “Although the FBI officially discontinued COINTELPRO immediately after the Pennsylvania disclosures “for security reasons,” when pressed by the Senate committee, the bureau acknowledged two new instances of “Cointelpro-type” operations. The committee was left to discover a third, apparently illegal operation on its own.”
  44. ^ Athan G. Theoharis, et al. The FBI: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999: “More recent controversies have focused on the adequacy of recent restrictions on the Bureau’s domestic intelligence operations.. Disclosures of the 1970s that FBI agents continued to conduct break-ins, and of the 1980s that the FBI targeted CISPES, again brought forth accusations of FBI abuses of power — and raised questions of whether reforms of the 1970s had successfully exorcised the ghost of FBI Director Hoover.”
  45. ^ SEE: Associated Press. FBI tracked journalist for over 20 years. Toronto Star. Nov 07, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/533203 Retrieved November 23, 2008. SEE: Associated Press. Report: FBI kept file on writer David Halberstam. November 07, 2008. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHBk0Wtol8FN8SMpFQIYL5CPxXfwD94AF32O0 Retrieved November 23, 2008. QUOTE: “The FBI tracked the late Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author David Halberstam for more than two decades, newly released documents show.[dead link]
  46. ^ Bud Schultz, Ruth Schultz. The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America. University of California Press, 2001: : “The problem persists after Hoover….”The record before this court,” Federal Magistrate Joan Lefkow stated in 1991, “shows that despite regulations, orders and consent decrees prohibiting such activities, the FBI had continued to collect information concerning only the exercise of free speech.”
  47. ^ Mike Mosedale, “Bury My Heart,” City Pages, Volume 21 – Issue 1002 – Cover Story – February 16, 2000
  48. ^ The San Jose Mercury News, 2010 Sept. 20, “FBI Probes of Groups Were Improper, Justice Department Says,” http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_16128591?nclick_check=1 also reported at: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/headlines#2
  49. ^ Weyler, Rex. Blood of the Land: The Government and Corporate War Against First Nations.
  50. ^ Matthiessen, Peter, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Viking.
  51. ^ a b Woidat, Caroline M. The Truth Is on the Reservation: American Indians and Conspiracy Culture, The Journal of American Culture 29 (4), 2006. Pages 454–467
  52. ^ McQuinn, Jason. “Conspiracy Theory vs Alternative Journalism”, Alternative Press Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, Winter 1996
  53. ^ Horowitz, David. “Johnnie’s Other O.J.”, FrontPageMagazine.com. September 1, 1997.
  54. ^ Woidat, Caroline M. “The Truth Is on the Reservation: American Indians and Conspiracy Culture”, The Journal of American Culture 29 (4), 2006. pp. 454–467.
  55. ^ Berlet, Chip. “The X-Files Movie: Facilitating Fanciful Fun, or Fueling Fear and Fascism? Conspiracy Theories for Fun, Not for False Prophets”, 1998, Political Research Associates
  56. ^ Berlet, Chip; and Matthew N. Lyons. 1998, “One key to litigating against government prosecution of dissidents: Understanding the underlying assumptions”, Parts 1 and 2, Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law Report (West Group), 5 (13), (January–February): 145–153; and 5 (14), (March–April): 157–162.

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Books

  • Blackstock, Nelson (1988). Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom. Pathfinder Press. ISBN 978-0-87348-877-8. 
  • Carson, Clayborne; Gallen, David, editors (1991). Malcolm X: The FBI File. Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 978-0-88184-758-1. 
  • Churchill, Ward; Vander Wall, Jim (2001). The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States. South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-648-7. 
  • Cunningham, David (2004). There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23997-5. 
  • Davis, James Kirkpatrick (1997). Assault on the Left. Praeger Trade. ISBN 978-0-275-95455-0. 
  • Garrow, David (2006). The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Revised ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-08731-4. 
  • Glick, Brian (1989). War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It. South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-349-3. 
  • Halperin, Morton; Berman, Jerry; Borosage Robert; Marwick, Christine (1976). The Lawless State: The Crimes Of The U.S. Intelligence Agencies. ISBN 978-0-14-004386-0. 
  • Olsen, Jack (2000). Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-49367-3. 
  • Perkus, Cathy (1976). Cointelpro. Vintage. 
  • Theoharis, Athan, Spying on Americans: Political Surveillance from Hoover to the Huston Plan (Temple University Press, 1978).

[edit] Articles

  • Drabble, John. “The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Mississippi, 1964–1971”, Journal of Mississippi History, 66:4, (Winter 2004).
  • Drabble, John. “The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Alabama, 1964–1971”, Alabama Review, 61:1, (January 2008): 3-47.
  • Drabble, John. “To Preserve the Domestic Tranquility:” The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and Political Discourse, 1964–1971”, Journal of American Studies, 38:3, (August 2004): 297-328.
  • Drabble, John. “From White Supremacy to White Power: The FBI’s COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE Operation and the “Nazification” of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s,” American Studies, 48:3 (Fall 2007): 49-74.
  • Drabble, John. “Fighting Black Power-New Left coalitions: Covert FBI media campaigns and American cultural discourse, 1967-1971,” European Journal of American Culture, 27:2, (2008): 65-91.

[edit] U.S. government reports

  • U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Internal Security. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Operations for Internal Security Purposes. 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 1974.
  • U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Programs. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
  • U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Hearings on Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. 90th Cong., 1st sess. – 91st Cong. , 2d sess, 1967–1970.
  • U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
  • U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
  • U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.
  • U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book III, Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.

[edit] External links

[edit] Documentary

[edit] Websites

[edit] Articles

[edit] U.S. government reports

  • Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, April 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976. [AKA “Church Committee Report”]. Archived on COINTELPRO sources website. Transcription and html by Paul Wolf. Retrieved April 19, 2005.
  • Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book II
I. Introduction and Summary
II. The Growth of Domestic Intelligence: 1936 to 1976
III. Findings

(A) Violating and Ignoring the Law
(B) Overbreadth of Domestic Intelligence Activity
(C) Excessive Use of Intrusive Techniques
(D) Using Covert Action to Disrupt and Discredit Domestic Groups
(E) Political Abuse of Intelligence Information
(F) Inadequate Controls on Dissemination and Retention
(G) Deficiencies in Control and Accountability
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
  • Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports, Book III

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIi.htm

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIf.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Surveillance_scandals

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIi.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO