Fwd: Targeted: California Surveillance Ordinances

53 views
Skip to first unread message

White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

unread,
Oct 16, 2017, 8:42:39 AM10/16/17
to Hoop 6

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:33 AM
Subject: Targeted: California Surveillance Ordinances
To: Hoop 6 <indigocrys...@googlegroups.com>



Mind Control and Stalking.jpg

Voice to Skull Microwave Auditory Effect (Voice to Skull)
The P300 response is used at airports, shopping malls and in street cameras in order to check whether individuals have criminal tendencies.  Mobile phones and security cameras in the street get radio signals that can transmit modulated data even when the internet and cell networks are down. Security systems and companies are also able to get unique brain frequencies with the databases used for different purposes.  

There is little current legislation that appears capable of directly protecting neuroprivacy in Europe. There has not been a lot of detailed discussion of the privacy implications of neuroimaging technologies despite the fact that there are major information-gathering initiatives relating to brain data, such as the Human Brain Project (“HBP”) whose purpose is similar to that of the Human Genome Project (“HGP”). In contrast to the HGP, which devotes 3-5% of its budget toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) of the project, there appears to be little particular focus on, or funding for, the study of the social and ethical implications of gathering such information.

Directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation  against an object; or Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) by: electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.

Gang Stalking
The gang gets the unique brain frequency of neighbours, employers and other organisations in order to harass the individual, destroy their work, reputation and future. They tend to harass individuals that do not have a big network, wealth or have contacts within the military, police or security services.  The electronic harassment with voice to skull is used to groom, prostitute, sell organs, consume pre-paid phones, test and use illegal immingrants and any person electronically harassed to kill and manipulate.  

The frequency can be used very low and individuals might not be aware of being targeted. The gang could leave the individual  24/7 with voice to skull and psychotronic torture, and not switch off until they die.  The measurement of radiation, EEG and investigation of the gang's unique brain frequencies will assist in ending psychotronic torture. Some software such as Emotiv, Neurosky Mindwave or  Ibrain will be able to record brain to skull communication. Holograms, pictures and pre-programmed dreams can be recorded with video games. http://www.covertharassment.org/voice-to-skull.html



Psychotronic weapon effects.image00121.jpg



​satellitespies_01.jpg

The ACLU’s Marlow says that support for CCOPS-modeled legislation has largely been bipartisan. “We face neither resistance from the left or right,” Marlow says. “The only place we face resistance is from the police.”

In Pensacola, Florida, a version of the ordinance is being sponsored by City Council member Jewel Cannada-Wynn, and it is backed the state’s NAACP chapter, as well as libertarian and Republican groups.

(article below)


BRAINLINK NEURAL DECODING

Wireless brainlink tethering of non-consensual human beings to a neural decoder which is being monitored twenty four hours a day by a surveillance network is currently happening throughout the western world. A brainlink neural decoder is extremely advanced technology that can be made to read the mind of a human being thousands of miles from where that human mind is being read. People who have been selected to be micro surveilled and to have their minds read are being non-consensually implanted without their knowledge with bio-medical microchips in their brains, which are two-way radio communication devices and also brain mapping devices. Wireless brainlink tethering projects have been set up throughout the western world under the guise of doing research on non conformists and political dissidents , but in reality they are about enabling total lock down enslavement for all of humanity except the would-be enslavers whose names we don't know right now.. This wireless brainlink tethering is being enabled via each human being's unique brain signature which it is being claimed can now be accessed online by people in the know.
 
If you are one of the many people who are covertly tethered wirelessly to a brainlink neural decoder the biomedical implant in your brain can be seen with the aid of an electron microscope.
 
There is brainlink neural decoder technology under the auspices of every government in all NATO countries and most other countries throughout the world. Neural decoder technology is widely available in every government department and it is built into the smart engineered technology of all senior government officials but most government officials dont know they have this capability.
 
Government ministers and government officials who are in the know can only tell us about this brainlink neural decoder technology and how it is being used if we ask them directly. It is not enough to write to them about this matter. You must make direct access to a member of your government and provide written material containing relevant questions and only then are these government ministers obliged to answer your questions. Please do this as a matter of urgency.
Yours Sincerely,
Gretta Fahey


Greetings Everyone who is targeted, This is White Buffalo Calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother (TI). Be aware. Copy and paste and share with others. 

A few things you can do to help yourself with Electronic Harassment. 

Basic Blessing
This is a blessing for a spacial field. Brotherhood, 9 plus 4 is 13, golden cosmic sun. This is the end of the natural order of the evolutionary process, learning to become harmonic with the spacial fields around us. Two suns in the sky, twins, ensures it's proximity, the soul of the spiritual can sink or swim, but those with good eyes, fly in the wind. Welcome to the sacred ghost dance, where the dream is together (asleep, soul and resting and awake, sole and moving, but together a great dreaming, waves of delight, come into sight, a marriage of the heart and mind) once more!

Linear think of a hoop and  moving around it. red road of earth, light waves. 
Spacial field of a hoop from the center, flowing outwards in all directions at once. blue road of heaven, sound waves. 

to bless the spacial field, you would say. 
"I bless the sacred nine streams (light waves) and the four directions (all sound waves) with fire (pure light) and water (blessed sound) and holy dew (water and fire together breath of life)". 

~Drum (interferes with electronic signal) against the chest (until TI sleeps, awake with the drum and start beating). Everything is centered around the heart. 

~Once a day, shake it out with the ghost dance (helps to have others share this responsibility with music or drumming, sing all from the heart, nothing pre-recorded) this relieves the bombardment of signals (light frequencies). 

Grounding: Practice standing like a tree, rooting and limbing, bowing with sun, each child is different. 

[[[[excerpt: A few things you can do to help yourself with Electronic Harassment. 

1. Get a large hand drum and beat it against your body. Nothing will be able to get through. 
2. A signal to extremities, shake it about. It interrupts the signal. 
3. High frequency pitches in the ear, send it back. Just think it and you will know when to stop. All frequency is cancelled when you send it back. 
4. Meditate more than sleep. Meditate by slicing sections of the body to rest at a time (head to toes). When you complete the body, sit up quickly. It will take quite a while to learn. Do not quit and many times people fall asleep. Keep trying. When you are sleeping, they will do more harm to you. It gets faster the more you practice. 
5. Sing, dance and drum daily and when in need. This must be done once a day, to shake off and heal what has been done to you during the last 24 hour period. 
6. Smoke (sativa) cannabis as this effects the mind and heart more, while (indica) will make you sleep. 
7.  Often the throat and voice is targeted to stop you from singing, because this heals (purifies spacial fields). So one type of tone making you gulp feels like a wave that interrupts. Instead of feeling the wave, continue the wave and send it back, like the way computers ping to confirm. Remember that any frequency sent back is cancelled. The issue is it's constancy. So you need other methodologies too. 
8. Bless the mind controllers (talking into the mind) and send them powerful love. Laugh at them often. You laugh often. Listen to comedy. Happiness hurts them, because they do not have happiness. Bless and pray throughout the day. I sing or hit the drum throughout the day, every four hours to get a spiritual connection. To learn more about this way, you will have to practice and join me on a circle for more questions and answers. 
9. Yelling evils and disturbing the neighborhood. Right after they make their noise, you start to sing to cancel out and make it a blessing instead. 
10. Sway to and fro (while sitting and standing), which makes you a moving target, which is more difficult for them. Dance is even better. 

Electronic Harassment and Gang Stalking
(read more at linked sights)

Electronic Torture (Addendum)
🌈Military, Veterans, Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy

White Buffalo Calf Woman Puts Her Sacred Mind into Their Minds 
https://plus.google.com/+WhiteBuffaloCalfWomanTwinDeerMother/posts/8j1kkwx6ASw
🌈 White Buffalo Calf Woman knews & visions circle
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/112647294491367091490

Ani Kaspar - former Wall Street executive, now TI, to speak about her Targeting Awareness Action Letter found at this link:  https://www.facebook.com/notes/ani-kaspar/targeting-awarenessaction-letter-support-invitation/10155086544159653

Did you know?
...That the CIA has now opened a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Electronic Reading Room where you may search through CIA de-classified files on topics of interest? The site asks: "Do UFOs fascinate you? Are you a history buff who wants to learn more about the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam or the A-12 Oxcart? Have stories about spies always fascinated you? You can find information about all of these topics and more in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Electronic Reading Room."  https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/home

Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation. They are as follows:

The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
Permalink: http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/12/senate-passes-major-portman-murphy-counter-propaganda-bill-as-part-of-ndaa


Gang Stalkers use Smart Phones Remotely Operate Implants Skizit Gesture https://youtu.be/BfWPJqZh0Qc

Richmond City Counsel Member letter to Targeted Individuals
May 6, 2015 Jovanka-Beckles-Letter-for-TIs-1-1.pdf
(attached) and at Sister Amy's google drive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4CW0K48bFwYRkdrcFgyMHB0NU0/view

NSA (attached)

Torture Psychologists Settle Lawsuit
For Targeted Individuals' Family and Friends


2001 congressional
amy anderson, AMY L ANDERSON
Address: 425 29TH ST ,RICHMONDCA 94804
richmond

Richmond council passes resolution supporting ban on space-based weapons

May 20, 2015

The Richmond City Council passed a resolution Tuesday supporting a ban on space-based weapons after a lengthy discussion over whether individuals are being psychologically and physically harmed by exotic government-patented attacks from high in the sky.

Councilmember Jovanka Beckles, a member of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), introduced the resolution, saying it begins to address concerns of a Richmond resident who claims she’s been targeted by “remote transmission” from space-based weaponry. Others claiming to have suffered physical and psychological attacks traveled from around the country to speak at Tuesday’s council meeting. One speaker claimed to have been zapped multiple times right before his testimony at council.

The resolution supports the Space Preservation Act and Space Preservation Treaty permanently banning “space-based weapons,” even though the legislation first introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2001 has never gained traction in Congress. It appears that Richmond is the first municipality in the U.S. to take up this lofty issue in more than a decade. In 2002, the City of Berkeley passed a similar resolution supporting the ban.

Conspiracy theorists believe the resolution is a step toward ensuring secret weaponry such as chemtrails, which are trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft that supposedly emit a chemical or biological agent, can no longer target unwitting citizens. For RPA members on the council, the resolution is also an anti-war initiative.

RPA members on council, Gayle McLaughlin and Eduardo Martinez, also voted in favor of the resolution. Vice Mayor Jael Myrick and Councilmember Nat Bates were the final two yes votes, although Bates claimed he was confused by the discussion.

“I’m going to support the resolution for the simple reason that we have voted on a lot of dumb ideas,” Bates said.

Mayor Tom Butt voted no, saying he believes the conspiracy theory behind space-based weapons is above the heads of city leaders and has taken time away from more pressing city matters such as the budget deficit, potholes, and crime. Butt has complained in the past about the RPA attempting to hijack council sessions to push a radical agenda regardless of whether the issues are important to Richmond residents.

The mayor also pointed to a signed 1967 treaty banning the militarization of space.

The other dissenting vote came from Councilmember Vinay Pimple, who pointed out that supporting a limitation on the ability of the U.S. to defend against attacks from long-range missiles might not be wise.

Pimple disputed what he called “knee-jerk” reactions from RPA members who depicted President Ronald Reagan’s proposed space-based anti-missile program of 1983, known as the “Star Wars” initiative, as inherently evil. The Cold War initiative was intended to defend against USSR missiles during the Cold War and was shelved not for the project’s moral ambiguity but its perceived effectiveness, Pimple said.

The idea behind Star Wars, Pimple said, “is you can knock out someone’s weapons long before they enter your air space. The U.S. used Patriot missiles to knock out Iraqi Scuds targeting Israel and Saudi Arabia, he added.

RPA members, however, argued that this issue is not just about war but about the individuals in the U.S. who believe governments are using futuristic weapons in space for the purpose of inflicting pain and mind control. Martinez argued that they may very well be telling the truth. He recalled a science fiction novel he wrote a paper on during college that predicted truths 20 years in advance.

“It’s easy for me to see that things which are wrong can happen because we have the wrong mindset,” Martinez said.

Myrick said he supported the resolution because he doesn’t support war.

“The weaponization of space…is something I think is extremely immoral and we should not be as a nation engaging in,” Myrick said. “Maybe some wars are unavoidable, that may be true. But whatever we can do to get our country away from that mindset…..that’s why I support this resolution.”

Amy Lee Anderson, a “targeted individual” who brought the matter to Beckles’ attention, was thankful that the council took up the issue.

“No where in the United States, no targeted individual can get this support,” Anderson said. “We just needed one person, one city. Because of that, you all our heroes. We are dying within because the technology is so sophisticated. It’s hard for someone who has no experience to fathom it, it’s so sophisticated.”

http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/20/richmond-council-passes-resolution-supporting-ban-on-space-based-weapons-2/

Richmond Police Swamped by Calls from "Targeted Individuals"
May 31, 2015
 
 


If you find the Richmond Police Department slow to respond to calls for service these days, it may be because they are tied up taking police reports from the nation’s “targeted individuals,” for whom Richmond has become the last great hope. On May 29, Police Chief Chris Magnus wrote in frustration:

We just don't have the resources, including staff, to respond to all these people who are now contacting us because they believe they are being "targeted."  We are getting numerous inquiries and requests from individuals all over the country--some even from other countries related to the Council's recent resolution.  Richmond now seems to be known as the "resource or helpers" for folks from many states with a myriad of mental health and other problems. If these inquires come from actual Richmond residents, we do our best to be thoughtful, kind, and as helpful as we can be.  BUT--we cannot be the department that fields all these requests from around the nation and beyond.

Not only is the Police Department’s phone ringing off the hook; the Mayor’s Office is also getting inquiries, such as this one:

XXX called. She lives in her car. Currently in Carson City, NV. Formerly in Sacramento. Believes she’s being targeted, gang stalked, and electronically stalked. She believes she’s been stalked from Silicon Valley to Sacramento and now to NV where she lives in her car. She was in Laramie, Wyoming for a summer and believes she was stalked there as well.  She’s 60, has gone to the police and the FBI but no one has helped.  She’s been to the VA (she’s a veteran) and was told she needs medication.  She believes things happen when she’s asleep and that her energy is being stolen. She wants to know how she can take advantage of Richmond’s policy so she won’t be stalked and targeted. She’d also like to receive a copy of the policy that the Council passed.

I am trying to figure out how we can use this newfound fame to help market Richmond, much as desolate eastern Nevada has used the Extraterrestrial Highway to lure tourists to an otherwise deserted stretch of desert highway.

I have to confess that two weeks ago I had no idea what a “targeted individual” or “gang stalking” was. Thanks to my more enlightened City Council colleagues, I am now not only familiar with the terms, but Richmond has instantly become the worldwide ground zero for addressing the evils of this pernicious form of harassment.

It turns out that the space based weapons resolution passed by the City Council earlier this week had nothing to do with the future use of space, star wars or war and peace, in the conventional sense.

The resolution has been in the works for nearly a year and is closely tied with a group of people worldwide, commonly known as “targeted individuals,” who believe they are victims of illegal harassment and abuse, generally by intangible methods such as radiation and chemical releases. The Urban Dictionary defines “targeted individuals” as:

Targeted Individuals are people who are illegally and covertly harassed, abused, gang-stalked and spied upon 24/7 by organized groups of persons.

There are several reasons why people become targets and they usually have something to do with sex and money, in that order. The targeting may have to do with a messy divorce, child custody, unrequited love, whistle-blowing, revenge, differences in social, political, or religious beliefs, etc.

Targeting for monetary reasons can include anything from denying you social security benefits or workmen's comp. to outright stealing from your bank account, from sexual slavery to embezzelment, and so on.

Targets should vehemently resist all attempts at being denied any and all kinds of government benefits. Appeal any bad decisions and if you don't like the next decision, appeal it again.

Another claim being made and that is that people might be being targeted for experimental reasons by the military or security agencies, usually, to test out how certain mind-control techniques and weapons work, which goes back to money or sexual slavery.

The main purpose of the assaults is to discredit and control targets. Harassment and abuse is often set up by corporations, businesses, organized criminals, street gangs, right-wing extremists, doctors, dentists, lawyers, or anyone who stands a chance of making any money off of targets.

Targeted Individuals are often hit with gassing (blowing noxious bio/chemical fumes into the target's environment) and they are attacked psychologically, as well. These abuses often lead to the need for psychological and physiological medical attention, thereby providing a good cash flow for the medical community and for big pharma., while taking care of someone's personal problem at the same time. 
According to several Internet postings, Richmond first became the latest champion and best hope of targeted individual rights about a year ago (June 2014) when a “precedent setting meeting” was arranged by then Vice-mayor Jovanka Beckles between the Richmond Police Department and a number of targeted individuals. According to a post by Deborah Dupré, “BREAKING NEWS: Jaw Dropping What Calif. Police Just Did Regarding Targeted Individuals!” 
California has become the first state to pledge aid to targeted individuals (TIs), marking a major breakthrough to an estimated 350,000 innocent Americans suffering from what they say is organized spying or stalking, many of whom also say their perpetrators are covertly using new military grade weapons to attack them…
A breakthrough for TIs (targeted individuals) has occurred in the U.S. – if it holds.  Amy Anderson, a few activists met with Richmond, California vice-mayor and the Richmond police force captain, who pledged that they and their administrations’ will now be working alongside TI victims in their city to assist them, according to an email sent to Dupré. 
 Richmond survivors can now officially call the Richmond police dispatch number if/when they come under electronic attack and file a police report, according to White, a first in the United States.
 Not only that, the captain further stated that he is willing to work with medical personnel in the area informing them of this type of covert criminal activity. 
 Police departments and medical personnel historically dismiss targeted individuals’ reports under electromagnetic attack. They typically mock TIs when reporting for protection and aid, and sometimes worse: they attempt to have the target committed to psychiatric units. In some cases, they have succeeded, intensifying the living nightmare that targets reportedly experience every day of their lives.
TI’s in the Richmond area will soon be able to seek much-needed assistance from their local police or hospital emergency rooms as situations occur, according to White.
“This may lead to other initiatives which would come as we continue to work with the administration regarding our issues,” she said…
“The vice-mayor, police captain and their aides listened patiently to several victims as they recounted their stories in person in the vice-mayor’s office and by conference telephone, regarding the activities of covert harassment groups locally and nationwide,” recounted White. “Then, stunningly, the police captain revealed that he knew of two people who are also victims of this technology.”
The targeted individuals who met with the officials and police found a strategy that worked for them and against local terror groups, possibly state sponsored terror groups.
“Please note that this arrangement could ONLY have happened by meeting with administration officials first.  People have already met with police department personnel with no results,” White said. “Amy started by going directly to the city administration officers, the  vice-mayor and councilmembers (in private meetings, not at the public, televised council broadcasts).
“After the vice-mayor became informed and convinced of our issues in several meetings, she then brought the police department personnel into the discussion, who at that time also became concerned allies in helping victims deal with a covert community terror program. I believe our most available solution at this time will most likely come locally and from the top down.”
Amy’s boyfriend, a security guard with his own business, offered to establish a task force to help TI’s in Richmond. The police captain pledged the assistance of the city of Richmond police department in this effort.
 “We are hoping to get more communities of TI’s involved in organizing locally to get a handle on their stalking and electronic harassment scenarios.”
“The biggest hurdle for TIs is getting people to take their concerns seriously. A proposal made in 2001 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to ban “psychotronic weapons” (another common term for mind-control technology) was hailed by TIs as a great step forward. But the bill was widely derided by bloggers and columnists and quickly dropped,” according to veteran TI Harland Gerard reporting to the Washington Post in the article Mind Games.
“Doug Gordon, Kucinich’s spokesman, would not discuss mind control other than to say the proposal was part of broader legislation outlawing weapons in space. The bill was later reintroduced, minus the mind control. “It was not the concentration of the legislation, which is why it was tightened up and redrafted,’ was all Gordon would say.”
Police usually take no action when TIs report their victimization in hopes of protection and justice. This news today, therefore, comes as another Targeted Individual landmark case.
In June, California became the first state to pledge aid to targeted individuals (TIs), marking a major breakthrough to an estimated 350,000 innocent Americans suffering from organized spying or stalking, many of whom also say their perpetrators are covertly using new military grade weapons to attack their bodies and their minds.
The breakthrough for American TIs occurred when a group of TIs met with Richmond, California vice-mayor and Richmond police force captain, who pledged that they and their administrations’ will now be working alongside TI victims in their city to assist them, according to an email sent to Dupré. 
Richmond survivors can now call the Richmond police dispatch number if/when they come under electronic attack and file a police report, a first in the United States.
Another Internet post called the Richmond 2014 meeting a “milestone” and the “beginning of a trend:”
There is an interesting development from Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance FFCHS (FREEDOMFCHS.com), the human rights group.  A milestone has been reached because Richmond CA will now take crime reports from Targeted Individuals about Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) abuse and Organized stalking.  This is a first because prior to this, the police would ignore complaints about DEW and Organized Stalking and attribute it as a delusional disorder.  But all that has apparently changed.  I see this as the beginning of a trend and there is no going back.  When someone makes a DEW or Organized Stalking complaint in Richmond Ca and calls the police, a crime report will be written.  This will allow investigations, searches & seizures of weapons and ultimately,  arrests and convictions. 
A June 2, 2014, post, picturing then Vice-mayor Jovanka Beckles, Amy Anderson and others, called the meeting with Richmond Police “a major breakthrough for the T.I community,” 
Richmond T.I.'s and Vice Mayor 
NEW T.I. POLICY IN PLACE IN RICHMOND, CA!

Amy Anderson a longtime Richmond, California resident and Targeted Individual has worked tirelessly for years with her City Officials to increase awareness and to gain support for the T.I. Community.  She has successfully been able to get the Vice Mayor to agree not to allow the installation of additional cell phone towers  in the City since they have been known to be used as directed energy weapons.

The latest victory came on June 20, 2014 when Amy brought along several targeted individuals both in person and over the phone to explain the program and to share their stories with the Vice Mayor and the Police Captain.

The meeting began with the Vice Mayor recapping the previous meeting which included Amy Anderson, and leaders from other Human Rights Organizations.   Amy gave an overview of electronic harassment, Renata Murry, Israel, Gloria Welburn and Robert Brown spoke about Organized Stalking.  Miriam Snyder and Dorothy Mackey gave an overview of the Program and Joseph Whip explained how his Security Company will assist victims who report the crime to the Police.

The two hour meeting ended with the Captain thanking the T.I.’s for their information and explaining that helping the T.I Community would be a new experience for the police department since they are accustomed to dealing with evidence and witnesses.  In the case of Targeting, there is usually very little of either, nevertheless the Captain committed the Richmond Police Department to helping Targeted victims in any way they can, and stated that Targets reporting the crime in the City of Richmond will no longer be deemed mentally ill and placed in mental institutions.  Going forward when a Target reports a crime perpetrated against them, the Richmond Police will provide a safe environment for the victim, file a police report and give a copy of the report to the victim for their records.  The victim will also be referred to the newly formed T.I. Task Force made up of several of the victims present at the meeting.

This is a major breakthrough that has never been done in the T.I. Community; through Amy’s persistence, dedication and commitment to the T.I. Community she has been able to get results that major T.I. Organizations have not been able to accomplish.

This latest breakthrough should restore hope for all Targeted Individuals and should help us to realize that not everyone is involved in the targeting campaign. There is help out there but we must be willing to lose the fear and work hard to get it. This should also be a call to action for all T.I.’s to get active in their Cities so we can take our Cities back one City at a time!
A special thank you to Amy, the Vice Mayor, the Police Captain and the T.I. Community!

Update: The Captain has delivered on his promise to help the T.I. Community and has referred the first Electronic Harassment/Organized stalking victim to the T.I. Task Force….This is major! 
Finally, another 2014 post called the Richmond development a “true breakthrough:”
Richmond, California resident and veteran targeted individual Eleanor White, author of Tortured America, Coping With the Crime, says a true breakthrough for TIs (targeted individuals) has occurred in the U.S. – if it holds. Amy Anderson, a few activists, and White met with Richmond, California vice-mayor and the Richmond police force captain, who pledged that they and their administrations’ will now be working alongside TI victims in their city to assist them.
“The vice-mayor, police captain and their aides listened patiently to several victims as they recounted their stories in person in the vice-mayor’s office and by conference telephone, regarding the activities of covert harassment groups locally and nationwide,” recounted White. “Then, stunningly, the police captain revealed that he knew of two people who are also victims of this technology.”
Local terror groups 
The targeted individuals who met with the officials and police found a strategy that worked for them and against local terror groups, possibly state sponsored terror groups.
“Please note that this arrangement could ONLY have happened by meeting with administration officials first. People have already met with police department personnel with no results,” White said. “Amy started by going directly to the city administration officers, the vice-mayor and councilmembers (in private meetings, not at the public, televised council broadcasts).
“After the vice-mayor became informed and convinced of our issues in several meetings, she then brought the police department personnel into the discussion, who at that time also became concerned allies in helping victims deal with a covert community terror program. I believe our most available solution at this time will most likely come locally and from the top down.”
Amy’s boyfriend, a security guard with his own business, offered to establish a task force to help TI’s in Richmond. The police captain pledged the assistance of the city of Richmond police department in this effort.
“We are hoping to get more communities of TI’s involved in organizing locally to get a handle on their stalking and electronic harassment scenarios.”
Richmond survivors can now officially call the Richmond police dispatch number if/when they come under electronic attack and file a police report, according to White, a first in the United States.
Not only that, the captain further stated that he is willing to work with medical personnel in the area informing them of this type of covert criminal activity. 
Police departments and medical personnel historically dismiss targeted individuals’ reports under electromagnetic attack. They typically mock TIs when reporting for protection and aid, and sometimes worse: they attempt to have the target committed to psychiatric units. In some cases, they have succeeded, intensifying the living nightmare that targets reportedly experience every day of their lives.
TI’s in the Richmond area will soon be able to seek much-needed assistance from their local police or hospital emergency rooms as situations occur, according to White.
“This may lead to other initiatives which would come as we continue to work with the administration regarding our issues,” she said.
Innocent people of all walks of life are conveying that they are being targeted, many detailing what meets the criteria of torture. Some of these targets have not survived, as reported by Deborah Dupré.

Not everyone touched by the “targeted individual” community was happy to see Richmond’s embracement. The mother of a “targeted individual” wrote the following email to me:

Dear Mayor Butt,

I am sending some links below to articles my son sent me regarding an ordinance that he says the City Council voted for and that the Richmond Police will be taking reports for crime investigation for this type of weapon targeting.

My son suffers from mental illness and believes that Voice-Skull or electromagnetic waves generated by groups who target individuals as described in this article.  He keeps using this to support his theory that the reasons he hears voices is that he is being targeted!  Of course, I find this hard to believe but I can't convince him otherwise. He often refers to and site Richmond Police and City Council.

I am doing everything in my power to get him treatment but he holds on to this delusion that he is being targeted.  They Call it Voice-Skull or Synthetic Telepathy

So why am I a writing to you?  I think he is misinterpreting that the Richmond Police are now taking this seriously.  Can you please tell me whether this is true or not.  I need to try to break through his delusion in order to get him to take appropriate medication otherwise he will never be well enough to function again.  This is a young man with a BA MA, very intelligent and very talented who is decompensating and throwing his future away because of this. Part of delusional disorder or Psychosis is that they cannot see that they are delusional and have a problem. This is a serious issues.  I don't see him as any danger other than this destroying his life or  possibly to himself.

Here are the links:  I would greatly appreciate a response from your or someone in your office or the Police Force.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/city-council-votes-to-ban-mind-control-weapon-use-against-residents/5450998

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/mariosorrentino79%40yahoo.com/14d7ae79df748525?compose=14d7cd6a31db5364

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/06/breaking-news-targeted-individual-major-breakthrough-calif-officials-pledge-aid-to-survivors-of-local-terror-groups-2978942.html

Respectfully, 

XXX
http://www.sfgate.com/img/pages/article/opengraph_default.png
Chip Johnson
Richmond Council saves us from space attacks (by 5-2 vote!)
By Chip Johnson on May 26, 2015 6:28 PM 
Dying star --- or space attacker? 
Photo By Getty
Dying star — or space attacker?
The Richmond City Council, in all its wisdom, last week addressed an unforeseen threat to California residents. A silent stalker that travels at light-speed from the heavens above and watches the world with an omniscient, unblinking, unrelenting eye.
I’m talking about space-based mind control weapons, people! Where have you been?
After listening to horror stories from more than a dozen people who believe that government agencies and other parties are watching them from outer space –including one speaker who was “targeted” just before arriving at Richmond City Hall– the council voted 5-2 to approve a resolution to discourage the use of space weapons on earth dwellers.
The resolution approved on May 19 refers to an attempt by a U.S. Congressman 14 years ago to ban space-based weapons. In 2001, then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich, DOhio, introduced the “Space Preservation Act” and “Space Preservation Treaty” that would have banned spaced-based weapons.
The Richmond resolution from Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles doesn’t merely support those attempts to ban space-based weapons, it does so “to ensure that individuals will not be targets of space-based weapons.”
Beckles said in a memo she was introducing the resolution because she had met a Richmond woman who “informed me she was a survivor of such horrible attacks. According to her description, these government patented technologies and weapons interfere and disrupt the targeted individual’s health physically and psychologically by remote transmission.” Beckles said it was a shame that city officials have dismissed their claims.
The way I read this, if I had access to space-based weapons, I could use them to control my editor’s mind — maybe score a couple of extra weeks vacation. Or I could use them to manipulate Ticketmaster and get free tickets to the Warriors playoff game. I’m warming up to the idea of space-based weapons.
Even so, as a public policy matter, I wouldn’t have supported this.
It’s not real.
It may be real in the minds of some people — but it’s not what you’d call a widespread public problem. Yet five councilmembers voted for and passed it. In addition to Beckles, they were Eduardo Martinez, Gayle McLaughlin, Vice Mayor Jael Myrick and Nat Bates. Voting no were Vinay Pimple and Mayor Tom Butt.
“For a moment I was inclined to support it simply because of the symbolic relief it would bring to (people), and I could see no downside,” Butt wrote in his weekly newsletter. “On the other hand, I considered the message this would send to the hundred thousand or more Richmond residents who are not “targeted” by mind control technology and do not suffer routine physical pain from space-based weapons.”
Butt said he didn’t think most people would want their elected officials to dwell on this matter. For the council to do so, “especially based on the testimony of  a dozen, mostly out-of-town speakers of questionable credibility, worries me,” he said.
Butt originally viewed the issue as harmless. But he received a letter after the vote that changed his mind.
“My son suffers from mental illness and believes that Voice-Skull or electromagnetic waves generated by groups who target individuals” plague him, the woman told Butt. “He keeps using (the council’s decision) to support his theory that the reasons he hears voices is that he is being targeted! Of course, I find this hard to believe, but I can’t convince him otherwise. He often refers to and cites the Richmond Police and City Council.”
She said the council’s vote is helping her son justify his beliefs and avoid taking his medication.
In all, it’s going to take a lot more than a vote by the Richmond City Council to save us from a space attack. The real question is, what will save us from the Richmond City Council?
Categories: RichmondWacky things 
Barnidge: No more mind-control weapons targeting Richmond residents
By Tom Barnidge Contra Costa Times Columnist
Posted:   05/20/2015 11:25:41 AM PDT# Comments
Everything on today's menu is low-fat and high-fiber. Consume as much as you wish:
Few societal threats escape the watchful eye of the Richmond City Council, so it was no surprise Tuesday night that it voted its opposition to airborne weapons systems that have allegedly targeted residents with mind-control technology. You read that correctly.
After a dozen professed victims told of pain suffered from chemtrails, particle beams and electromagnetic radiation, the council voted 5-2 in favor of Councilwoman Jovanka Beckles' resolution "in support of the Space Preservation Act and the Space Preservation Treaty to permanently ban spaced-based weapons," with Mayor Tom Butt and Councilman Vinay Pimple dissenting.
"I'm just a dumb city council person," Butt said, "and this is way, way over my head. I frankly think it's way out of the purview of what this city council should be taking up."
Colleague Nat Bates was more understanding: "I'm going to support the resolution for the simple reason that we have voted on a lot of dumb ideas."

http://www.tombutt.com/forum/2015/15-05-31.htm




CA Assembly Public Safety Comm Supports SB 21- A Statewide Surveillance Transparency Ordinance

by JP Massar •  • 

“California spends more time regulating barber shops and taco trucks than on regulating surveillance.”

Brian Hofer, Chair of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission and member of Oakland Privacy, testified before the California State Assembly Public Safety Committee in Sacramento on June 27th, 2017.  The Committee later passed by measure with a 4-2 vote.  It goes now to the Assembly Privacy Committee and, assuming continued favorable votes, ultimately to the Assembly floor. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Hill, has already passed the California Senate.

Below is a transcript of Brian’s words before the Committee and a video of the SB-21 Hearing

SB 21 - No More Secret Surveillance in California - June 27 APS Hearing

https://youtu.be/TBUtCtRt8uo

Tracy Rosenberg

Published on Jun 28, 2017
June 27 hearing in the CA Assembly Public Safety committee on SB 21, a bill to end secret surveillance in California. The bill passed on call with a 4-2 vote with Ass Bill Qwirk absent but indicating support. Testifying in support of the bill is Dave Maas of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Brian Hofer of Oakland Privacy. Testifying in opposition are representatives from the CA State Sheriffs Assn, CA State Police Officers Assn, CA State District Attorneys Association and the League of California Cities.

Hon. Assemblymembers,

My name is Brian Hofer. I’m a member of Oakland Privacy, and I chair the City of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission. I have worked with the counties of Santa Clara and Alameda, the cities of Berkeley, Palo Alto, Richmond, and Oakland, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District on similar legislative efforts as the proposal before you. Counting votes at the procurement stage, or at the second stage, the underlying use policies themselves, I’ve been a part of thirteen consecutive unanimous yes votes throughout the greater Bay Area, which I highlight to demonstrate that SB21’s approach is reasonable, collaborative, and politically viable. I thank Senator Hill for his leadership in moving this bill, and ask that you support it.

As someone that has been to the finish line, I can share with you what the impact of SB21 adoption will look like. What we have seen in practice, even in a place as politically aggressive as Oakland, is not a prohibition on surveillance equipment or the educating of criminals as some fear, but rather a narrowing of use. SB21 will encourage mindfulness, forcing us to think about potential impacts and consequences of use prior to implementation.

Senator Hill’s SB741 and 34 are proof that such oversight and transparency is not fatal to legitimate police work. Although the District Attorney’s association is opposing SB21 for what I assume are typical turf battle reasons, they would be wise to look to Alameda County. I had the pleasure of working with DA O’Malley on a use policy for the new cell site simulator she was acquiring. After a public discussion and feedback, which resulted in a strengthened policy and an annual report requirement for added transparency, we went to the Board united and received a unanimous yes vote.

Oakland also implemented a ground-breaking policy after a public discussion before the Privacy Commission and collaborating with our police department. In both instances, the public participation resulted in the proponent acquiring controversial equipment, the political buy-in generated good will, and the increased transparency from the public discussion and accountability led to improved trust of law enforcement. This trust, good-will, and cooperation with and from law enforcement should themselves be seen as valuable public safety goals, and benefits of SB21 adoption.

In response to several of the opposition arguments:

No law enforcement agency in California has quit using cell site simulators or license plate readers due to SB741 or 34’s passage into law last year.

Nowhere in the language of SB21 does it require LE to reveal the technical capabilities of the equipment; it only requires that you describe potential use. None of the policies I’ve written provide more than a cursory explanation of how the equipment works, which makes sense because it’s a use policy, not a technical manual. The opposition letters contain very misleading language on this point.

At the county and city level, equipment acquisition is already publicized and publicly noticed on an agenda, when accepting or allocating funds, or requesting Board or Council sign-off to enter into a contract or purchase agreement. SB21 does not add publicity where it did not previously exist.

There is nothing radical about SB21 per se, other than it hasn’t been done before as to surveillance equipment. California spends more time discussing and imposing regulations on barber shops and taco trucks than on equipment capable of tracking my whereabouts in real time, locating me within my own home, place of worship or doctor’s office, tracking my face as I walk about town. We have use policies for automobiles, office equipment, and other government owned property, requests for proposals and contracting guidelines, annual reports and audits of budgets, crime statistics, and so on. SB21 treats surveillance equipment like any other proposal. Come to the governing body and justify your proposal. Come back later and tell us how you used the equipment. By what standard is this controversial or unreasonable?

I’m happy to answer questions. Thank you for listening.

https://oaklandprivacy.org/2017/06/27/testimony-before-the-ca-assembly-public-safety-committee-on-a-statewide-surveillance-equipment-regulation-ordinance/


Just Approved: Surveillance Technology Regulation Ordinance.

Posted by LaborSolidarityCommittee

Categories: Front PageOpen Mic

It’s been almost a year in the making. The Oakland City Council approved the creation of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission (OPAC) a year ago on January 19th, 2016. It held its first meeting on July 14th, 2016 and immediately began work on drafting the surveillance equipment regulation ordinance that it passed on Thursday, Jan 5th, 2017.

Oakland's Privacy Advisory Board just approved surveillance tech ordinance. Goes to council now for final approval.

  •  
  •  

The ordinance (OPAC-Surveillance-Ordinance-Adopted – PDF) demands that existing surveillance equipment have a use policy created, vetted by the OPAC, and approved by the City Council. It also requires that any proposed new surveillance equipment be brought to the attention of the OPAC, that a public hearing be held, and that the City Council only approve of it if the Council

[makes] a determination that the benefits to the community of the surveillance technology outweigh the costs; that the proposal will safeguard civil liberties and civil rights; and that, in the City Council’s judgment, no alternative with a lesser economic cost or impact on civil rights or civil liberties would be as effective.

Finally, the ordinance stipulates that use of each piece of equipment have a log of uses kept, that a yearly summary be available for public inspection, and that the use of the equipment be reviewed periodically to determine whether it is cost-effective and not being abused.

A similar ordinance was passed by the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors in late spring of 2016, while others are in various stages of being considered in Berkeley, by the BART Board, by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and by Cambridge, MA.

The Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission arose out of protests against the Domain Awareness Center in 2013 and 2014, catalyzed by Oakland Privacy (nee Oakland Privacy Working Group).  The protests led to the creation of an Ad Hoc Privacy Commission to draft a privacy policy for the non-significantly-scaled-back Domain Awareness Center. In addition to drafting that document, they recommended to the City Council the creating of a standing Privacy Advisory Committee, a recommendation ultimately approved by the Council.

The just-assed ordinance will now go to the Oakland City Council for consideration.

 

—–

Some tweets from the public hearing and vote on the ordinance in the Privacy Advisory Commission meeting on January 7th, 2017.

https://occupyoakland.org/2017/01/just-approved-surveillance-technology-regulation-ordinance/


Date Published: 08/21/2017 04:00 AM

BILL START

SB-21 Law enforcement agencies: surveillance: policies.(2017-2018)

AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  AUGUST 21, 2017
AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  JULY 13, 2017
AMENDED  IN  ASSEMBLY  JULY 03, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  MAY 26, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  MAY 03, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  APRIL 17, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  MARCH 23, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  MARCH 14, 2017
AMENDED  IN  SENATE  MARCH 07, 2017

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILLNo. 21


Introduced by Senator Hill
(Coauthor: Senator Bradford)

December 05, 2016


An act to add Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 54999.8) to Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, relating to law enforcement agencies.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 21, as amended, Hill. Law enforcement agencies: surveillance: policies.
Under existing law, a city or county is empowered to perform duties including providing for public safety and law enforcement. A city or county is authorized, either directly or indirectly, to prescribe policies and regulations for law enforcement agencies under its jurisdiction.
This bill would, beginning July 1, 2018, require each law enforcement agency, as defined, to submit to its governing body at a regularly scheduled hearing, open to the public, a proposed Surveillance Use Policy for the use of each type of surveillance technology and the information collected, as specified. The bill would require the law enforcement agency to cease using the surveillance technology within 30 days if the proposed plan is not adopted. The bill would require the law enforcement agency to submit an amendment to the surveillance plan, pursuant to the same open meeting requirements, for each new type of surveillance technology sought to be used. The bill would require the policy and any amendments to be posted on the agency’s Internet Web site. The bill would also require the agency to make specified reports, at approved intervals, concerning the use of surveillance technology, and to make those reports available on the agency’s Internet Web site. The bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from selling, sharing, or transferring information gathered by surveillance technology, except to another law enforcement agency, as permitted by law and the terms of the Surveillance Use Policy. The bill would provide that any person could bring an action for injunctive relief to prevent a violation of these provisions and, if successful, could recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The bill would require an agency to discipline an employee who knowingly or intentionally uses surveillance technology in violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would authorize an agency to temporarily use surveillance technology during exigent circumstances, as specified, without meeting the requirements of these provisions, provided that, among other things, the agency submits a specified report to its governing body within 45 days of the end of the exigent circumstances. circumstances, except as specified.
The bill would establish separate procedures for a sheriff’s department, department or a district attorney, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the Department of Justice attorney to establish their own Surveillance Use Policies, instead of submitting them through their governing body. The procedures would include holding a noticed public hearing on the proposed policy, posting the policy on the department’s Internet Web site, amending the policy to include new types of surveillance technology, and publishing a biennial report regarding the department’s use of surveillance technology, as specified.
The bill would also establish procedures for the Department of the California Highway Patrol and the Department of Justice to establish their own Surveillance Use Policies. The bill would, among other things, require that these agencies ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individual privacy and civil liberties, and that the policy be publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site. The bill would also require that if these agencies intend to acquire surveillance technology, they provide 90 days advance notice on the agency’s Internet Web site, as specified.
The bill would make legislative findings in support of these provisions.
Because this bill would impose additional requirements on local public agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, with regard to certain mandates, no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

DIGEST KEY

Vote: majority   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: yes  

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1.

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) While law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on surveillance technologies because those technologies may enhance community safety and aid in the investigation of crimes, those technologies are often used without any written rules or civilian oversight, and the ability of surveillance technology to enhance public safety should be balanced with reasonable safeguards for residents’ civil liberties and privacy.
(b) Promoting a safer community through the use of surveillance technology while preserving the protection of civil liberties and privacy are not mutually exclusive goals, and policymakers should be empowered to make informed decisions about what kind of surveillance technologies should be used in their community.
(c) Decisions about whether to use surveillance technology for data collection and how to use and store the information collected should not be made by the agencies that would operate the technology, but by the elected bodies that are directly accountable to the residents in their communities who should also have opportunities to review the decision of whether or not to use surveillance technologies.

SEC. 2.

 Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 54999.8) is added to Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, to read:
CHAPTER  15. Surveillance Policies for Law Enforcement

54999.8.
 The following definitions apply for purposes of this chapter:
(a) “Exigent circumstances” means a law enforcement agency’s good faith belief that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires use of a surveillance technology or the information it provides.
(b) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees the law enforcement agency or an appointed overseeing body if there is no elected body that provides direct oversight of the law enforcement agency.
(c) “Law enforcement agency” means any police department, sheriff’s department, district attorney, county probation department, transit agency police department, school district police department, the police department of any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the Department of Justice.
(d) (1) “Surveillance technology” means any electronic device or system with the capacity to monitor and collect audio, visual, locational, thermal, or similar information on any individual or group. This includes, but is not limited to, drones with cameras or monitoring capabilities, automated license plate recognitionsystem, systems, closed-circuit cameras/televisions, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) trackers, global positioning system (GPS) technology,software designed to monitor social media services or forecast criminal activity or criminality, radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, body-worn cameras, biometric identification technology, hardware or software, and facial recognition technology. hardware or software.
(2) “Surveillance technology” does not include standard public agency computers and software, hardware and software in widespread public use and not used by the law enforcement agency for any surveillance or surveillance-related functions, such as televisions, computers, printers, parking ticket devices, case management databases, medical equipment used to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease or injury, fingerprint scanners, ignition interlock devices, cellular or standard telephones, and two-way radios, or other similar electronic devices.

54999.85.
 (a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), on or before July 1, 2018, a law enforcement agency that uses, or accesses information from, surveillance technology shall submit to its governing body a Surveillance Use Policy to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The policy shall be in writing and made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site prior to the public hearing and after adoption.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the governing body, at a regularly scheduled hearing pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), shall consider the policy for adoption by resolution or ordinance on the regular, nonconsent calendar and shall provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting the resolution or ordinance.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), if a submitted Surveillance Use Policy is not adopted by resolution or ordinance by the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease use of surveillance technologies within 30 days of the hearing and until the time that a Surveillance Use Policy is adopted.
(4) (A) On or before July 1, 2018, a sheriff’s department, district attorney, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the California Highway Patroldepartment or a district attorney that uses or accesses information from a surveillance technology shall hold a properly noticed public hearing and provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting a Surveillance Use Policy, which shall ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individuals’ individual privacy and civil liberties. The policy shall be in writing and shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site prior to the public hearing and after adoption.
(B) On or before July 1, 2018, if the Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol use or access information from a surveillance technology, the agency shall adopt a Surveillance Use Policy, which shall ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individual privacy and civil liberties. The policy shall be in writing and shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or repeal any obligation of the Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol to comply with any requirement found in any other law.
(b) The policy shall pertain to any surveillance technologies already in use or relied upon for information by the law enforcement agency and shall include, in separate sections specific to each unique type of surveillance technology, a description of each surveillance technology used or relied upon for information by the law enforcement agency. Each section covering a separate technology shall, at a minimum include the following:
(1) Authorized purposes for using the surveillance technology.
(2) Types of data that can be and is collected by the surveillance technology.
(3) A description of the job title or other designation of employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use the surveillance technology or to access data collected by the surveillance technology. The policy shall identify and require training for those authorized employees and independent contractors.
(4) Title of the official custodian, or owner, of the surveillance technology responsible for implementing this section.
(5) A description of how the surveillance technology will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.
(6) The length of time information gathered by the surveillance technology will be retained, and a process to determine if and when to destroy retained information.
(7) Purposes of, process for, and restrictions on the sale, sharing, or transfer of information to other persons and whether, if so, how the collected information can be accessed by members of the public, including criminal defendants.
(8) A process to maintain a record of access of the surveillance technology or information collected by the surveillance technology. At a minimum, the record shall include all of the following:
(A) The date and time the technology is used or the information is accessed.
(B) The data elements the employee used to query the information.
(C) The username of the employee who uses the technology or accesses the information, and, as applicable, the organization or entity with whom the person is affiliated.
(D) The purpose for accessing the information or using the technology.
(9) The existence of a memorandum of understanding or other agreement with another local agency or any other party, whether or not formalized, for the shared use of the surveillance technology or the sharing of the information collected through its use, including the identity of the parties.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4), after July 1, 2018, if a law enforcement agency intends to acquire a new type of surveillance technology after the adoption of the policy required by subdivision (a), the agency shall submit an amendment to the policy to include the new type of technology as a new section of the policy and submit the amendment to its governing body for approval consistent with subdivision (a).
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (4) and Section 54999.95, the amendment shall be submitted prior to requesting funds for acquiring, using, or accessing information from the technology and shall be submitted to the governing body at a properly noticed public meeting on the regular, nonconsent calendar and the governing body shall provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting the amendment.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the amendment shall be in writing and made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site prior to the public hearing and after adoption. The governing body has 30 days to consider an amendment. If a submitted amendment is not adopted by the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall not request funds for, acquire, use, or access information from the new surveillance technology.
(4) (A) (i) After July 1, 2018, if a sheriff’s department, district attorney, the Department of Justice, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol intends to acquire a new type of surveillance technology after the adoption of the policy required by subdivision (a), that agency shall draft an amendment to the policy to include the new type of technology as a new section of the policy. That agency shall
(ii) A sheriff’s department or a district attorney shall hold a properly noticed public hearing and provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting such an amendment. The amendment shall be in writing and shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site prior to the public hearing and after adoption.
(iii) The Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol shall post the amendment in writing and make it publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site.
(B) If a sheriff’s department, department or a district attorney, the Department of Justice, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol attorney is not in possession of surveillance technology on or before July 1, 2018, and intends to acquire surveillance technology after that date, that agency shall hold a properly noticed public hearing and provide an opportunity for public comment before adopting a Surveillance Use Policy, which shall ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The policy shall be in writing and shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site prior to the public hearing and after adoption.
(C) (i) If either the Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol is not in possession of surveillance technology on or before July 1, 2018, and intends to acquire surveillance technology after that date, that agency shall prominently post on the agency’s Internet Website a public notice of its intention to commence the process of acquiring surveillance technology not less than 90 days before taking any such steps. The notice shall include a description of information describing the surveillance technology and how it works, including product descriptions from manufacturers, information on the proposed purpose for the surveillance technology, and type of data collected.
(ii) If either the Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol is not in possession of surveillance technology on or before July 1, 2018, and acquires it after that date, that agency shall adopt a Surveillance Use Policy, which shall ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of information or data collected with surveillance technology is consistent with respect for individual privacy and civil liberties. The policy shall be in writing and shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or repeal any obligation of the Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol to comply with any requirement found in any other law.
(d) If, before July 1, 2018, a law enforcement agency has implemented the requirements for an automated license plate recognition system, pursuant to Title 1.81.23 (commencing with Section 1798.90.5) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code or for cellular communications interception technology pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 53166) of Chapter 1, the law enforcement agency shall include the required information as part of the Surveillance Use Policy required by subdivision (a).
(e) If a law enforcement agency is not in possession of surveillance technology on or before July 1, 2018, and intends to acquire surveillance technology after that date, the law enforcement agency shall submit a Surveillance Use Policy to its governing body pursuant to subdivision (a) for consideration. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of a governing body to exercise its budgetary authority in any way if a law enforcement agency makes a budget request to acquire surveillance technology.
(f) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), at a time interval agreed to by the law enforcement agency and the governing body, but not less often than every two years, a law enforcement agency that uses surveillance technologies and which has an approved Surveillance Use Policy shall submit to its governing body a written Surveillance Technology Use Report. The report shall be made publicly available on the agency’s Internet Web site, and shall, at a minimum, include the following:
(A) The acquisition costs for each surveillance technology, as well as the annual operating cost, including personnel costs.
(B) A description of how many The total number of times each type of technology was used in the preceding year and how many the total number of times each type of technology helped apprehend suspects or close a criminal case.

(C)A description of the type of data collected by each surveillance technology, including whether each technology captured images, sound, or other data.

(D)If

(C) The total number of times the surveillance technology was borrowed from or lent to another agency, the identity of that agency, the number of times and the purposes for which the surveillance technology was shared, including any exigent circumstances.

(E)

(D) The total number and classification of the agency employees trained and authorized to use each type of surveillance technology, along with a description of the training provided to agency employees on each type of surveillance technology and how often the training was provided. technology.

(F)Disclosure of whether

(E)  The total number of times any surveillance technology was used in a manner out of compliance with the agency’s Surveillance Use Policy, whether data collected through the use of surveillance technology was inappropriately disclosed, released, or in any other way revealed for a nonapproved reason, and the steps the agency took to correct the error.
(2) Not less than every two years, a sheriff’s department, district attorney, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the California Highway Patrol shall each publish and post on their Internet Web sites, a written Surveillance Technology Use Report containing the information required by subparagraphs (A) through (F).
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to do either of the following:
(1) Limit the authority of a governing body to exercise its authority in any way if a law enforcement agency makes a request to acquire surveillance technology.
(2) Prohibit a governing body from holding any public meeting required by this section jointly with another law enforcement agency or governing body.
(h) A governing body may reevaluate any existing Surveillance Use Policy it has previously approved at a properly noticed public meeting on their regular nonconsent calendar.
(i) A law enforcement agency shall not sell, share, or transfer information gathered by surveillance technology, except to another law enforcement agency, and only as permitted by law and as allowed by an approved Surveillance Use Policy. For purposes of this subdivision, the provision of data hosting shall not be considered to be the sale, sharing, or transferring of surveillance technology information.

54999.9.
 (a) In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, any person may seek injunctive relief to prevent a violation under this chapter. The court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred by a prevailing plaintiff.
(b) A law enforcement agency shall take appropriate disciplinary action, consistent with the agency’s existing disciplinary procedures, against an employee who knowingly or intentionally uses surveillance technology in a manner that is not consistent with this chapter or with the agency’s approved Surveillance Use Policy.

54999.95.
 (a) A law enforcement agency may temporarily acquire or temporarily use a surveillance technology in a manner not expressly allowed by a Surveillance Use Policy in exigent circumstances without following the provisions of Section 54999.85 before that acquisition or use unless that acquisition or use in exigent circumstances conflicts with, or is preempted by, other state or federal law.
(b) If a law enforcement agency acquires or uses a surveillance technology in exigent circumstances pursuant to subdivision (a), the agency shall:
(1) Use the surveillance technology to solely respond to the exigent circumstances.
(2) Cease using the surveillance technology when the exigent circumstances end.
(3) Only keep and maintain data related to the exigent circumstances and dispose of any data that is not related to the exigent circumstances.
(4) Report (A) For a law enforcement agency other than the Department of Justice, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol, report that acquisition or use to the governing body within 45 days following the end of the exigent circumstances.
(B) The Department of Justice or the Department of the California Highway Patrol shall publicly disclose that acquisition or use within 45 days following the end of the exigent circumstances in writing on the agency’s Internet Web site.
(c) Any technology temporarily acquired in exigent circumstances shall be returned within seven days following its acquisition, or when the exigent circumstances end, whichever is sooner, unless the technology is submitted to the governing body for approval pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusiveinclusive, of Section 54999.85, and is approved. If the agency is unable to comply with the seven-day timeline, the agency shall notify the governing body, who may grant an extension.

SEC. 3.

 The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 54999.8) to Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:
By requiring law enforcement agencies to submit their proposed Surveillance Use Policy for consideration by their governing body at a public hearing, this act furthers the purposes of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
The Legislature also finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 54999.8) to Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of Section 1 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the inalienable and enforceable right of privacy held by all Californians.

SEC. 4.

 No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

SB-21, A Statewide Surveillance Transparency Law, Passes CA State Senate

by Tracy Rosenberg •  • 0 Comments
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

SB-21 is a bill that would end secret surveillance by CA law enforcement agencies by mandating use polices, impact reports and biannual audits for all surveillance equipment and technology used in CA. SB-21 subjects all spying to an upfront process for local government approval and disclosure to the public. Before it’s used, not afterwards.

The bill just passed the CA State Senate on May 31 by a 21-15 vote and is headed to the Assembly. If you haven’t already emailed your state reps, do so here.

San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board endorsement of SB-21. 

A California Mayor’s First Hand Account Of The Need For Surveillance Transparency

San Diego Tribune Op-Ed on SB-21

 

Facebooktwitter
Related

CA Assembly Public Safety Comm Supports SB 21- A Statewide Surveillance Transparency OrdinanceJune 27, 2017
https://oaklandprivacy.org/2017/05/31/sb-21-a-statewide-surveillance-transparency-law-passes-ca-state-senate/

In the Face of Trump’s Surveillance Threats, Local Movements Demand Disclosure of Police Technologies

by Tracy Rosenberg •  • 

By Candice Bernd, Truthout

 

President Trump issued a proclamation on May 15 dedicating last week to law enforcement officers, saying he would make it a “personal priority” to ensure police are “finally treated fairly.” Meanwhile, around the country, a different set of priorities is taking shape: Cities, counties and even one state are working to push legislation that would force police agencies to disclose their acquisition and use of surveillance technologies to local lawmakers and communities.

At least 19 cities have introduced ordinances that would force transparency in local police departments’ acquisition and use of secretive surveillance technologies, which are disproportionately used to target communities of color. A statewide bill in Maine, sponsored by State Sen. Shenna Bellows, would take similar steps.

The measures being introduced around the country mandate that the acquisition and/or use of local police surveillance tools like “Stingray” cellphone tracking equipment, automated license plate readers, facial recognition technology and closed-circuit television cameras, among other surveillance tools, be explicitly approved by local city councils and subject to a public hearing process that would ensure public input in decisions that directly impact communities’ collective privacy and civil rights.

The multi-state effort is part of the Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) initiative, launched in partnership with a coalition of human and civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the NAACP, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Network for Arab American Communities and the Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, among others.

The 19 cities include Washington, DC; New York City; Seattle; Richmond, Virginia; Milwaukee; Miami Beach and St. Louis, among others. According to Chad Marlow, who is advocacy and policy counsel at the ACLU, another 46 cities are organizing to introduce the transparency legislation; many of them are now working to identify a potential sponsor. The growth of the initiative since its launch last year comes as local organizers, faced with the Trump administration’s repressive “law-and-order” agenda, work to find ways to protect vulnerable communities across the US.

Senator Bellows of Maine told Truthout that the bill there is being tabled until next year to allow legislators and stakeholders to work out the details for how a public hearing process will work for state-level law enforcement agencies, as well as to define surveillance technologies in more detail. When the legislation is complete, it could provide a model for other state legislatures to follow.

“A lot of times what happens is people find out after the fact that law enforcement has purchased this new surveillance technology with this unanticipated surveillance capability; and then there’s outrage, and … as legislators we are responding to that outrage rather than getting out in front of it,” Bellows told Truthout.

Bellows’ sponsorship of the bill was, in part, motivated by concerns over the Trump administration’s advocacy for increased surveillance and abuses of power. “In that context, looking at state and local levels, I think putting those safeguards in law now is particularly important, but it matters regardless of who is in power,” she said.

According to Marlow, the Trump administration has been a big factor in the spread of CCOPS legislation and ordinances across the nation. “Certainly, when Trump got elected, it really added an additional level onto the work,” he said. “Our concern was that they wanted to go after particular groups like Muslims, like immigrants, but … given the size of these groups and the size of the country, there’s no way that the federal government has the resources on its own to accomplish the goal that the Trump administration was laying out. So what that means is that they’re going to have to use local law enforcement to help them.”

The Trump administration has an enhanced ability to target vulnerable communities, thanks to an Obama-era practice of providing federal grants to localities to buy surveillance technologies on the condition that the locality provide the federal government with access to its surveillance data. However, CCOPS holds the possibility of interrupting that process.

“What we found is that the CCOPS effort, by requiring an approval process not just for acquiring and using the surveillance technologies, but also for sharing their data, is going to move the city council and the public into the process of reviewing and approving or disapproving … these agreements,” Marlow told Truthout.

That includes many sanctuary jurisdictions that have promised not to comply with the Trump administration’s mass deportation and immigration policies. Moreover, the legislation could provide an additional layer of protection in red states that have passed anti-sanctuary-city legislation. Under the CCOPS ordinances, even if local police participate in assisting federal immigration enforcement, they may not be able to provide access to surveillance technologies, share that surveillance data, or use the technologies for purposes that haven’t been explicitly approved by local lawmakers.

Since the model ordinance does not specifically contain language regarding sanctuary status, it could have a positive impact in protecting targeted communities in a way that doesn’t run afoul of anti-sanctuary laws. Still, the local legislation would not have an impact on what state and federal police agencies can do with surveillance technologies, except potentially in Maine, if Senator Bellows’ legislation eventually passes.

Federal agents are already using counterterrorism surveillance technologies, such as cell-site stimulators, known as “Hailstorm” or “Stingray” devices, to hunt undocumented immigrants amid President Trump’s immigration crackdown. FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents used one such device in March to track down Rudy Carcamo-Carranza in Metro Detroit. Privacy and civil liberties advocates warn the practice could become adopted more widely by local law enforcement agencies working to assist federal immigration enforcement.

So far, CCOPS legislation has already passed, or is poised to pass, in several jurisdictions that have outwardly labeled themselves as “sanctuary” localities, and have vowed to resist the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. For example, CCOPS ordinances have been adopted in Santa Clara County, California and Seattle, Washington. Neither locality has since received a request to acquire or use sensitive surveillance technologies, perhaps because police agencies anticipate such moves will be politically unpalatable to the public.

In Oakland, California, another sanctuary city, a CCOPS ordinance was unanimously approved by the city’s Public Safety Committee, and is slated for a vote by city councilors, with proponents largely expecting its adoption. Brian Hofer is chair of the city’s Privacy Advisory Commission. The Commission was established after controversy over the city’s effort to build a citywide surveillance hub (formerly known as the Domain Awareness Center) that would have monitored people’s activities from cameras and other sensors.

Hofer has been working on the draft ordinance with the city’s sanctuary status in mind, and told Truthout that the Privacy Advisory Commission’s last few meetings have all touched on ICE. He has examined the city’s relationship to ICE, and determined that the city’s license-plate-reader data has ended up in ICE’s hands via area fusion centers. He told Truthout, “We have a paper trail showing that.”

That’s where the draft ordinance comes in.

“Big data is here,” Hofer said. “These big fusion centers where we give everybody access to all our data, both public and private partners: It’s a huge concern. We have a municipal ID card in Oakland…. Secondly, there’s a debit card tied to it, so there’s the financial transaction paper trail. So there’s all these things right now that the Privacy Commission is looking at, how to minimize, to the extent possible, any exposure of Oaklanders to outside [agencies].”

If the ordinance passes, that kind of data sharing would have to be publicly disclosed and approved.

Hofer said the Privacy Advisory Commission used the ACLU’s model legislation and modified it to fit Oakland’s particular privacy needs. The commission proposed the ordinance in January. On Tuesday, May 9, the city’s Public Safety Committee approved it, sending it on to the full council for a vote.

Hofer is working to expand Oakland’s proposed ordinance across other jurisdictions in the Bay Area, and told Truthout that the legislation is now in play in Palo Alto, Berkeley and Richmond, as well as for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system.

Because the ordinance would be governing city employees, it requires dialogue with public unions, including Oakland’s police union. City attorneys are in the process of conferring with the union about the ordinance’s penalties; Hofer expects the union to advocate to eliminate or water down those penalties. After that process concludes, according to Hofer, the council will vote on the ordinance.

“[The union] has always been the elephant in the room,” Hofer said. “They’ve always carried a ton of weight, but recently … their endorsements have been the kiss of death. Candidates they wanted to run on council lost…. Their power has diminished.”

Hofer noted that the union could potentially influence the legislation’s accompanying misdemeanor penalty, but he expects most of the penalty components to survive.

“We’re definitely in this very aggressive, anti-Trump, self-defense mode out here in Oakland,” he said.

But draft CCOPS ordinances haven’t been limited to liberal-leaning localities and sanctuary jurisdictions. They are also cropping up in cities in southern states, including Florida and Mississippi, where civil libertarian-minded conservatives have provided some support.

“People on the political right are as supportive of this bill as people on the political left. It crosses the spectrum, which is why you see it in places like [Pensacola and Hattiesburg],” Marlow tells Truthout.

In Pensacola and Miami Beach, Florida, ACLU staffers are meeting with local law enforcement officials to encourage their support for the CCOPS ordinances, according to Sara Latshaw, who is the ACLU’s director for North Florida.

“Our ordinance in Pensacola has support from both sides of the aisle,” Latshaw told Truthout.

Latshaw explained that while some communities are most concerned about privacy violations, others are more concerned about the disproportionate use of surveillance technologies to target people of color and activists.

“Everyone is at the table for a different reason, which makes it unique and also an opportunity to work with unlikely allies,” Latshaw said. “But certainly for some folks, they are concerned about some of the troubling policy objectives that Trump has brought forward.”

 https://oaklandprivacy.org/2017/05/30/in-the-face-of-trumps-surveillance-threats-local-movements-demand-disclosure-of-police-technologies/

Oakland Privacy Endorses Legislation to Make California a Sanctuary State.June 12, 2017



The West Coast Society For All Victims Of
Organized Stalking And Electronic Harassment

The Vancouver Film School has offered to produce a video campaign to bring public awareness to organized stalking and harassment. Ti involvement entails the following: meeting and speaking with teachers and students to educate them about OS and to steer the film's content. If you are in the Vancouver, Canada, area and wish to take part, please email Mary: westcoa...@gmail.com

GangStalking IS Community Oriented Policing
https://youtu.be/Q73oOUE2gik

James Harken
Published on Jun 23, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/user/FreeTheM... 
“Gang Stalking” is, very likely, a disinformation term created byU.S. intelligence agencies. It refers to the intense, long-term, unconstitutional surveillance and harassment of a person who has been designated as a target by someone associated with America’s security industry. Such operations have nothing to do with criminal gangs. Officialdomestic counterintelligence operations of this type are – apparently – perpetrated by secret society members, community based agents, federal agents and intelligence/security contractors, sometimes with the support of state and local law enforcement personnel. Unofficial operations of this type are, apparently, perpetrated by private investigators and vigilantes – including former agents and cops, some of whom are members of the quasi-governmental Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Units (LEIU), sometimes on behalf of corporate clients and others with connections to the public and private elements of America’s security industry. The goal of such operations – in the parlance of counterintelligence agents – is “disruption” of the life of an individual deemed to be an enemy (or potential enemy) of clients or members of the security state. Arguably, the most accurate term for this form of harassment would be “counterintelligence stalking.” Agents of communist East Germany’s Stasi (state police) referred to the process as Zersetzung (German for “decomposition” or “corrosion” – a reference to the severe psychological, social, and financial effects upon the victim). American and British victims have described the process as “no-touch torture” – a phrase which also captures the nature of the crime: cowardly, unethical (and often illegal), but difficult to prove legally because it generates minimal forensic evidence. Tactics include – but are not limited to – slander, blacklisting, “mobbing” (intense, organized harassment in the workplace), “black bag jobs” (residential break-ins), abusive phone calls, computer hacking, framing, threats, blackmail, vandalism, “street theater” (staged physical and verbal interactions with minions of the people who orchestrate the stalking), harassment by noises, and other forms of bullying. Both the facts and the geographical distribution of relevant published news reports – as well as other evidence cited on this website – suggest that such stalking is sanctioned (and in some cases, orchestrated) by federal agencies; however, news reports, credible anecdotal information, and my own experiences, indicate that such stalking is also sometimes used unofficially for personal and corporate vendettas by current and former corrupt employees of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, private investigators, and their clients.Since counterintelligence stalking goes far beyond surveillance – into the realm of psychological terrorism, it is essentially a form of extrajudicial punishment. As such, the harassment is illegal – even when done by the government. It clearly violates, for example, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unwarranted searches, and the Sixth Amendment – which guarantees the right to a trial. Such operations also violate similar fundamental rights defined by state constitutions. Stalking is also specifically prohibited by the criminal codes of every state in America. Crimes against Americans at the hands of corrupt government agents and private security thugs have a long history in the U.S. The FBI’s COINTELPRO (“Counterintelligence Program”) scandal in the 1970s was the most notorious high-profile example, but similar abuses of power by “Red Squads” (state and local Law Enforcement Intelligence Units) and private detectives date back to the 19th century.



NEWS & VIEWS
 
NEWS
This former Google executive is building a high-tech hat that she says will make telepathy possible in eight years
 
NSA Surveillance
 
PETITION
Ban Remote Attacks on the Human Nervous System
VIDEOS
Henning Witte Interview
 
Gangstalking is Community-Oriented Policing
 
What is Earthing?

 
Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission
 
Greetings, everyone.
 
Oakland, California is one of the few cities in the country that I'm aware of that has a Privacy Advisory Commission.  And according to their website, this committee "provides advice to the City of Oakland on best practices to protect Oaklanders' privacy rights in connection with the City's purchase and use of surveillance equipment and other technology that collects or stores our data."
 
The commission has been around since March, 2014 and was created by Oakland's City Council to "develop and advise on citywide privacy concerns."
 
In accordance with their mission, they have recently drafted legislation designed to ensure the privacy rights of its residents. It is called "The Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance" and can be found at this link: 
 
 
It basically requires law enforcement or any "city entity" to present surveillance equipment to the City Council for review and a public hearing before purchase.  The legislation goes even futher.  Not only does it require Council approval before future surveillance technology purchases, it will also require that such technologies currently in use by its city entities be reviewed to ensure that  "in the City Council's judgment, no alternative with a lesser economic cost or impact on civil rights or civil liberties would be as effective."
 
According to the proposed law: “Surveillance technology” means any electronic device, system utilizing an electronic device, or similar used, designed, or primarily intended to collect, retain, process, or share audio, electronic, visual, location, thermal, olfactory, biometric, or similar information specifically associated with, or capable of being associated with, any individual or group."
 
Will this mean that Oakland's Police Department if they have such weaponry,  will have to fork over its directed energy weapons, voice-to-skull, mind-reading, phantom touch, and dream manipulation technologies?
 
This ordinance even requires publication of surveillance technology complaints from the public and forbids and nullifies non-disclosure agreements with the federal government.  It also includes whistleblower protections.  It is quite comprenensive in its scope.
 
We will see in the coming weeks or months if this ordinance is adopted.  Meanwhile, the County of Santa Clara in California has similar legislation already on the books and the City of Berkeley has proposed a similar bill as well. 
 
More importantly, similar legislation is currently making its way through the California state legislature and so far has been easily scaling the many procedural hurdles on its way to becoming a state law. 
 
If there are TI's in Oakland, we need to be in contact and begin to organize to present your privacy rights violations before your Privacy Advisory Commission representatives for assistance.  Please call or write me ASAP so we can begin this process immediately at:  
 
in...@pactsntl.org or call at:
 
California is starting to lead the nation in standing up to government surveillance technologies.  Hopefully other states will soon follow suit as well. 
 
This email was sent to twindeermother@whitebuffalocalfwoman.org

Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs)

AUG262015

Remote Neural Monitoring for Covert Control of Society

In the modern times of the internet and digital devices permeating our daily habits and routines, the issue of privacy is becoming more and more of a hot button issue. One needs to just look at how Facebook is increasingly encroaching upon the vast amounts of personal information that is recorded willingly and correlated with friends and family to understand that there is a huge amount of our personal lives available for review, whether it be for commercial marketing reasons or for legal justifications. Many scandals have come out regarding AT&T working with our government to intercept our phone calls, our text messages and other private communications. Such breaches of privacy have even come with legislation giving these companies retroactive immunity from prosecution for snooping around in our personal lives, regardless of their motivations.

But what if such ways of obtaining personal information were considerably outdated?

The NSA may think so.

Remote Neural Monitoring is a way to measure the EMF (electromagnetic frequency) waves of an individual and are able to translate them into the words heard/spoken and the images seen by an individual. Labeled under the Signal Intelligence department, remote neural monitoring is a technology that has been around and used for quite some time and has been kept secret from the public along with all other developments of electronic weaponry, research and development of paid for by the taxpayers.

While it may seem a bit of a stretch to consider that it is possible for technology to read our minds and that this technology would be kept from the public, there has been a lawsuit against the NSA claiming remote monitoring and manipulation. John St. Claire Akwei filed a lawsuit detailing his comprehension of the secretive NSA technology and its covert operations against unwitting citizens.

How does the technology work?

Remote neural monitoring focuses on the audio and visual portions of the brain by sending signals which are then transmitted back to the origin and analyzed by a computer. While the decoding and encoding of brain signals for surreptitious communication with someone’s brain is certainly a complex feat, there is much that can be done from a remote vantage using this technology. The technology can measure sounds that an individual hears, can transmit its’ own words and images into the brain and can manipulate emotions and behavior. A prison study in Vacaville, conducted by IBM was able to cause complete lethargy in prisoners to the point where sleep was imposed for 18-20 hours per day. Indeed, the spectrum of human emotion and reaction is up for remote manipulation. Paranoia can be instilled as easily as anger. The ability to force emotional reactions on people is a very important consideration as it is a dangerous tool which opens the possibility for people to force criminal behavior without culpability. Forcing a suicide in a depressed individual, as some people have considered the possibility, constitutes remote murder and would be untraceable.

The type of research for this is certainly invasive and due to the manipulations possible the secrecy for it is indeed paramount as they would send every human rights organization into a frenzy. Cloaked under reasons of national security (but developed by the corporate and university worlds), the information and technology has been ridiculed in official mainstream media to dissuade any actual consideration. Thusly, the technology is now free to be used in secret and without any oversight or transparency.

But the concerns aren’t just based on privacy rights. Many scientists and human rights advocacy groups are claiming that the unknown risks imposed on a person when targeted could be hazardous to ones health. Sources cite a Cold War example, from the 1960’s in which the Soviet Union beamed radiation into the American Embassy in Russia, causing health problems that were studied by the Americans in an operation dubbed ‘Project Pandoa’. The Soviet Union, along with the United States, were developing electromagnetic weapons in what was the Cold War era – developing psychotronic weapons as opposed to solely developing nuclear weaponry as the mainstream media focused upon.

In essence, the reality of remote neural monitoring is the result of decades of research into behavioral modification of human beings, with the goal to be able to remotely influence the actions and mental perception of any given individual. The reality of such a goal really brings a lot of very human ideas to the forefront. Such as, what is consciousness and what constitutes the individual. Is it okay for people to understand the very nature of the human animal and how it reacts without sharing such knowledge? Is it okay to manipulate someone into believing a false reality? Is it okay to create a false reality to further these aims, such as Fox news recently winning a case against a whistleblower asserting its’ rights to mislead the public intentionally as a protection of free speech?

The list goes on and while there is a subsection of the population fighting to expose this technology and the implications it has for humanities future, there are still a lot of people who aren’t even aware that remote neural monitoring is even possible. Others that have heard of it have no idea how to incorporate the knowledge as the effects, if one were targeted, are on such a subtle level as to make conscious awareness a very difficult endeavor especially when society has already been conditioned to consider that these types of concerns are born of mental illness.

The persuasion of opinion has long been a goal of authority. To remain in the position of authority, one must have the agreement of the populace. Can it be considered agreement if the populace is subconsciously manipulated into agreement? Or does it matter if the populace does not comprehend or recognize that their agreement was predetermined and manufactured beforehand?

Such basic questions are exactly what we consider human rights and to keep such weapons in secret for the consideration of only an elite few is certainly an epic travesty and breach of humanity. No longer must we be concerned about the lies we are being fed from mainstream media and even our leaders. Now we must consider whether or not our opinion and agreement were perhaps manufactured by them.

This article is written by Ryan Watton for Mind Power World: http://www.mindpowerworld.com/remote-neural-monitoring-for-covert-control-of-society

Social Media Surveillance survey (Richmond Police Department)

Share

Beryl Lipton filed this request with the Richmond Police Department of RichmondVA.
SubmittedJan. 18, 2017
STATUS
Completed

MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.

From: Beryl Lipton

Subject: Freedom of Information Act Request: Social Media Surveillance survey (Richmond Police Department)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Virginia Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

Any and all contracts (as well as all associated amendments, exhibits, and materials), memorandums of understanding, and other equivalent agreements entered into by this agency with or any other social media surveillance software or equipment company, including but not limited to:

• BrightPlanet
• Geofeedia
• Intrado Inc.
• LifeRaft
• Magnet Forensics
• Media Sonar
• Signal Corporation
• ZeroFOX

Responsive materials should include but not be limited to:

• the initial Invitation to Bid, Request for Proposal, or equivalent call for contractors
• the responsive materials provided by the winning bidder
• other bidder responses
• the current contract
• all exhibits
• all amendments
• all performance work statements
• all deliverables inventories
• all invoices related to the deliverance of software, services, or goods

Please also include:

• all policies related to the acquisition and use of social media and surveillance software by individual officers and representatives of this agency
• all materials related to the use of any other social media platform, including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Beryl Lipton

    From: Peters, Karla E. - Police

    Subject: Richmond Police FOIA Extension Request

    Mr. Lipton,

    Attached please find the Richmond Police Department's request for an
    extension regarding FOIA requests pertaining to the Department's
    contracts, MOUs and/or agreements with any social media surveillance
    software or equipment company.

    Thank you,

    Karla E. Peters

    Richmond Police Department

    Office of General Counsel

    (804) 646-5147

    The contents of this email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be protected by
    attorney-client privilege. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
    by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
    error, PLEASE NOTIFY ME and PROMPTLY DELETE this email.

    • Lipton FOIA Extension 012417

      •  View
      •  
      •  Embed
      •  
      •  Download
        • https://www.muckrock.com/foi/richmond-151/social-media-surveillance-survey-richmond-police-department-32045/

          FLORIDA

          Inside the ACLU’s nationwide campaign to curb police surveillance

          ‘The only place we face resistance is from the police’

          by Roshan Abraham 

          In summer 2014, an intern at the ACLU found a memo from a public meeting in which the San Jose Police Department asked to be reimbursed for a “UAV,” which he immediately recognized as a type of drone.

          “It was tucked in the back of an agenda item,” says Nicole Ozer, director of technology and civil liberties policy for the ACLU of California. The City Council approved the purchase of the $8,000 drone as part of a million-dollar federal grant, but there had been no public debate over the merits of acquiring such a controversial piece of equipment.

          Ozer asked community members if they knew about the drone purchase. “We thought maybe we just missed it but everyone else knew about it,” Ozer says. But no one they reached out to had any idea.

          The incident confirmed a fear shared by civil liberties advocates: police departments around the country were buying surveillance equipment with FEMA homeland security grants with little oversight. Each year, over $1 billion of these grants are funneled to municipalities across the country, bypassing local budget processes and leaving community members in the dark about the acquisition of advanced surveillance arsenals. Cities in California have purchased or attempted to acquire dronescellphone tower simulators, and other tools previously reserved for the federal government.

          “We found, across the board, that even basic public conversation and debate was absent,” Ozer says.

          The drone discovery was one of the events that led California’s Santa Clara County to become, in June 2016, the first in the country to pass an ordinance requiring transparency for police surveillance technology based on a recent ACLU model. The law requires public input, an impact report, and a use policy with details about data sharing before equipment is purchased. (Seattle passed a similar law in 2013, also with ACLU involvement, but its scope was limited to video surveillance.)

          Last fall, the ACLU announced a nationwide strategy in partnership with over a dozen other civil liberties groups to promote similar bills in cities across the country. Called Community Control Over Police Surveillance, or CCOPS, the ACLU says there are bills with sponsors in 19 cities nationwide and one public transit system, the Bay Area’s BART. Chad Marlow, who is overseeing the nationwide strategy for CCOPS at the ACLU, says that organizing is underway in an additional 46 cities and one state, though he doesn’t expect them all to find sponsors.

          In California, bills are up for debate in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, and Palo Alto. Similar initiatives are underway in New York City, which will hold a hearing on June 14th, as well as smaller cities nationwide such as Somerville, Massachusetts; Madison, Wisconsin; and Richmond, Virginia.

          Nicole Ozer says that over and over again she has seen communities fight back against the creep of surveillance technology. She believes ordinances like the one the ACLU is pushing are a first step to accomplish this.

          “When communities know what’s happening, they are in a much better position to fight against it,” Ozer says. “You can’t fight what you don’t know.”

          In Santa Clara County, where the law has been enforced since June 2016, community members say it’s working as intended, though the quality of use policies vary. After the law was introduced, 16 use policies were submitted at once for new and existing equipment. Some policies passed quickly with little scrutiny, while others were rejected; at least one policy passed despite public criticism.

          When the Sheriff’s Department sought to fit officers with body-worn cameras, the ordinance required them to publicize a surveillance-impact statement and use policy before a scheduled public hearing. A draft use policy was deemed too broad by critics at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, and CAIR, who voiced their objections in a letter to the Board of Supervisors. They took issue with the policy’s year-long data retention period, the ability of officers to view footage before giving testimony in certain situations, and lack of protections against biometric analysis like facial recognition.

          Following an update on the use policy, the body-worn cameras were approved by the board of supervisors on January 24th, 2017. The new requirements prohibit the use of data for biometrics, requiring future approval from the county.

          But when questions arose over a purchase enabling aerial infrared surveillance, the input of civil liberties advocates through the CCOPS process was brushed aside. In 2016, the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Department proposed a $620,000 purchase of an integrated helicopter mapping system that included a Forward Looking Infrared Imaging System, or FLIR, a type of thermal camera. The technology has been controversial since the early ‘90s, when the Supreme Court ruled that thermal imaging constituted a search requiring a warrant.

          The use policy of the Sheriff’s Department and an early impact report approved a broad range of uses for the mapping system and thermal camera, and dismissed concerns about privacy as misinformed. Approved uses in the draft policy include “tracking suspects,” “evidence collection,” and, most vaguely, “other law enforcement or first responder uses not prohibited by law.”

          That triggered a critical letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that called into question the necessity of the mapping system, arguing that aerial recordings of civilians created significant civil liberties problems. The letter was not enough to sway Santa Clara’s Board of Supervisors, and the Sheriff’s Department’s use policy stayed as is.

          Adam Schwartz, a lead counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who authored the letter to the board, says that both the body cam and the FLIR case are evidence that CCOPS is effective.

          “We would never have known this was happening if it wasn’t for the ordinance,” Schwartz says. “In both instances, we think the system worked the way it’s supposed to work. We don’t just wake up as civilians and all of a sudden there’s a new mapping system on a helicopter, or a new body-worn camera on the officers. Rather there’s a notice to the public beforehand, and an opportunity for public discussion.”

          Other community members reiterated that merely being able to ask questions about surveillance technology and have them answered is reassuring.

          Sameena Usman is a coordinator at the Council of American-Islamic Relations’ Bay Area office, one of the groups that advocated for the ordinance in Santa Clara. Usman attended the hearing when the FLIR was discussed. To Usman, the value of the ordinance is that it mandates transparency.

          “That transparency has built trust,” Usman says.

          The ACLU’s Marlow says that support for CCOPS-modeled legislation has largely been bipartisan. “We face neither resistance from the left or right,” Marlow says. “The only place we face resistance is from the police.”

          In Pensacola, Florida, a version of the ordinance is being sponsored by City Council member Jewel Cannada-Wynn, and it is backed the state’s NAACP chapter, as well as libertarian and Republican groups.

          “How often do people from both parties agree on anything?” says Sara Latshaw, regional organizer for the ACLU in Northwest Florida, who is overseeing CCOPS in Florida.

          Bill Fetke is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a conservative grassroots group, and a supporter of the ordinance in Pensacola. He says he has confidence in local law enforcement, but opposes what he views as overreach by the state.

          “There’s a camera watching you every five feet,” Fetke says. “I don’t do anything wrong, but I don’t want a camera staring at me every five seconds.”

          Reaction from some conservatives he knows has been mixed, Fetke says.

          “Most people kind of think I’m wearing a tinfoil hat,” he says. “They don’t think it applies to them. Even the libertarians who are in the middle aisle.” But he believes conservatives who don’t support the ordinance are thinking short-term.

          “We need to force our government to follow rules,” Fetke says. “If we don’t stop them here, they’re going to trample all over our Fourth, Ninth, 10th Amendments.”

          The spread in the use of body cameras by police departments across the country, often implemented with poor use policies, is another reason the surveillance bill is finding support. Promoted as accountability tools, departments also view body cameras as tools for gathering incriminating evidence, and most use policies make it difficult for family members of a victim in an officer-involved shooting to acquire footage.

          In Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where a CCOPS ordinance is being sponsored, a police spokesman told the press that officers would use body cameras to gather evidence. “A lot of times we may not catch everything, but we can go back and look at it later,” the spokesman told the Hattiesburg American. A use policy for Hattiesburg’s body-worn cameras has never been made public. CCOPS legislation would force the department to release that policy.

          Zaki Manian, of Restore The Fourth, a Bay Area-based civil liberties group, says organizations like his have a complicated relationship with body cameras. Manian believes they can be a tool for accountability, but mounting evidence suggests they could be used as just another surveillance technology.

          “The only way you can ethically sort of balance these concerns is with consent of people in the community,” Manian says.

          But even supporters of CCOPS admit the legislation has its limits. One fear is that the law would merely legitimize surveillance technologies that now exist in legal gray zones.

          “When you pass a law, you create legality where there wasn’t,” says Malkia Cyril of the Center for Media Justice, a Bay Area nonprofit. “We create the legal framework where they can be legally abused.”

          Cyril is opposed to police body cameras, and is skeptical that use policies, such as those arbitrated through CCOPS legislation, will be enough to rein in the abuse of surveillance in over-policed communities.

          “Whether or not you have a use policy, does not mean there’s a way to enforce a use policy,” Cyril says.

          “I can’t reiterate enough how dangerous it would be to me to if we rested on the laurels of a municipal policy. It’s insufficient. It’s important and insufficient,” Cyril says.

          The limit of the ordinance is particularly visible in NYC, where the state’s constitution does not allow the City Council to veto NYPD purchases, and where pressure from a powerful police union has caused Mayor de Blasio, who campaigned on police reform, to bow to pressure more than once.

          NYC’s CCOPS ordinance, dubbed the POST Act, is sponsored by 15 council members and is set for a City Council hearing on June 14th.

          Like the ordinance in Santa Clara and bills elsewhere, it requires a use policy and public comment for the purchase of any surveillance equipment. But while the police commissioner would need to submit a use policy informed by public comments to the City Council, no city entity would need to approve a purchase. The only oversight would come from the NYPD Inspector General, an independent agency that audits the NYPD, which would be tasked with making sure the NYPD’s surveillance deployments are consistent with its own use policies. The process is similar to the public consultation that the NYPD undertook prior to rolling out a pilot body camera program in April. But that use policy came under criticism for not fully taking citizens’ opinions into account.

          Nevertheless, proponents argue the legislation will promote transparency and force police departments to think critically about surveillance.

          “It’s really about getting them to change the way they think,” says Brian Hofer of Oakland Privacy. He says in the months since the Santa Clara ordinance was put in place, he’s seen the use policies submitted by the police improve. It’s a sign, he suggests, that the law is working.

          But the uncertainty as to whether the NYPD, or any police department across the country, will adhere to strengthened guidelines for their surveillance gear may be why advocates like Center for Media Justice’s Malkia Cyril are skeptical about an over-reliance on policy, while also acknowledging it as a necessary first step.

          “Policy is one thing,” Cyril says. “Power is another.”

          https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/14/15795056/aclu-police-surveillance-curb-campaign-nationwide


          Associations International

          http://www.eucach.org

          People Against Covert Torture & Surveillance, International
          www.pactsntl.org





    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 8:46:06 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
     attachments
    Preservation Act 2001 Targeting and Space Trash.BILLS-107hr2977ih.pdf
    Richmond Police-support-TIs-in-Richmond-CA.docx

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 8:50:01 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    4 attachments

    On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:45 AM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
     attachments
    Oakland Surveilance oak061975.pdf
    Palo Alto Surveillance Application ID# 8180 6-13-2017 P&S.pdf
    Constitution Project Video_Surveillance_Guidelines_Report_w_Model_Legislation4.pdf
    NSA 201501-aclu_ca_surveillancetech_summary_and_recommendations.pdf

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 8:53:31 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    3 attachments



    On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:49 AM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    4 attachments
    ...

    [Message clipped]  

    Amy Anderson Richmond Investigator Report 121715.pdf
    Richmond Amy Anderson Police Report Electronic Torture . mk-ultra-projesi-telegram-kurbani-amy-andersonin-polis-raporu-abd-1100a991-953c-4d4c-a46b-2276d96fc6d6.pdf
    Santa Clara County's Surveillance Technology and Community Safety Ordinance 5-24-16.pdf

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 8:55:15 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    3 attachments
    Richmond City Council. Jovanka-Beckles-Letter-for-TIs-1-1.pdf
    Palo Alto Letter to Chief of Police Dennis Burns.rtf
    Berkley 2017-05-02 Item 30 Proposed Surveillance and Community.pdf

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 8:56:39 AM10/16/17
    to Karen Melton-Stewart, Hoop 6
    2 attachments

    On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:55 AM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    3 attachments
    Oakland Board of Supervisor Valle_251955 Surveilance Ordinance Committee.pdf
    Oakland City Council for Surveillance Ordinance. oak061975.pdf

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 9:04:25 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    Beloved Sister Karen and Hoop 6,
    14 attachments all together. The email was too large and had to send in pieces. Looking forwards to viewing your pamphlets. 

    For everyone, we are working hard to help, heal and promote unity across the world.

    PLEASE, PLEASE, no matter how tired you are, plug up all the holes in the walls and ceilings, 
    because nanites/morgellons and poisons can get in. And if you leave your car or your house
    they will be violated, including vandalism (broken locks/ doors/ exhaust, etc.). No matter how small
    get it plugged up. Use elmers (school or white) glue which sticks to almost everything and is safe. Use toilet paper
    with glue in bigger holes. Some of you have yellow stuff on the walls, it is poison and you need
    get it off your walls. Wash it off, because they shoot it and it is released, especially if you are in the 
    room. 

    Blessings and prayers for all of our TI's Targeted Individuals. We know you are the honorable
    your devoted servant,
    White Buffalo calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother


    On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:56 AM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    2 attachments

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 9:07:01 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    ps. yellow poison stuff on walls, wash with pure alcohol (rubbing 91%) and use rubber gloves. It is time
    to live in groups, at least 16 people. Time to look at larger homes where groups can live together to watch 
    over each other as well. Time to swell, the heart trail. Twin Deer Mother wails, the tears of the targeted, 
    spiritual revolution.

    On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:04 AM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Beloved Sister Karen and Hoop 6,
    14 attachments all together. The email was too large and had to send in pieces. Looking forwards to viewing your pamphlets. 

    For everyone, we are working hard to help, heal and promote unity across the world.

    PLEASE, PLEASE, no matter how tired you are, plug up all the holes in the walls and ceilings, 
    because nanites/morgellons and poisons can get in. And if you leave your car or your house
    they will be violated, including vandalism (broken locks/ doors/ exhaust, etc.). No matter how small
    get it plugged up. Use elmers (school or white) glue which sticks to almost everything and is safe. Use toilet paper
    with glue in bigger holes. Some of you have yellow stuff on the walls, it is poison and you need
    get it off your walls. Wash it off, because they shoot it and it is released, especially if you are in the 
    room. 

    Blessings and prayers for all of our TI's Targeted Individuals. We know you are the honorable
    your devoted servant,
    White Buffalo calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 16, 2017, 9:13:56 AM10/16/17
    to Hoop 6
    We are here
    Targeted: California Surveillance Ordinances

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Oct 25, 2017, 6:25:58 PM10/25/17
    to Hoop 6


    US: New Evidence Suggests Monitoring of Americans

    Documents Point to Warrantless Surveillance



    Pentagon An aerial view of the Pentagon building in Washington, June 15, 2005. © 2005 Reuters 201709usp_pentagon_presserplus.jpg


    ​  (New York) – Newly released documents reveal a US Defense Department policy that appears to authorize warrantless monitoring of US citizens and green-card holders whom the executive branch regards as “homegrown violent extremists,” Human Rights Watch said today. Separately, the documents also reinforce concerns that the government may be gathering very large amounts of data about US citizens and others without warrants. Both issues relate to a longstanding executive order that is shrouded in secrecy and should be a focus of congressional inquiry.

    The new materials, which Human Rights Watch obtained through a freedom of information request https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/23/human-rights-watch-asks-us-about-use-secret-surveillance-drug-immigration-purposes, are training modules that primarily concern Executive Order 12333 https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf (EO 12333). That order broadly governs the US intelligence agencies’ activities, and includes provisions allowing the agencies to collect information on US persons – meaning US citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as some corporations and associations – in a manner the government has never fully explained to the public https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html?utm_term=.8eb0644b1589. The training slides largely summarize Defense Department procedures http://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf?ver=2016-08-11-184834-887 concerning EO 12333 that were released in 2016 https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/910089/dod-releases-update-of-manual-governing-defense-intelligence-activities/, updating a 1982 version. Using plain language to demystify the procedures’ phrasing, the slides offer hints about Defense Department intelligence practices that require further inquiry and exposure.

    “These documents point to just how thoroughly the public has been kept in the dark about warrantless surveillance under Executive Order 12333,” said Sarah St.Vincent https://www.hrw.org/about/people/sarah-stvincent, US surveillance and national security researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Their explanations of the order suggest that the government may be carrying out monitoring that poses serious problems for human rights, and Congress should seek more information about what the intelligence agencies are doing in this respect.”

    One of the documents’ most troubling aspects is the indication that the Defense Department has authorized its intelligence components to carry out at least some forms of monitoring of US persons without a warrant, based on designations that use unknown and potentially discriminatory criteria. Specifically, one of the training documents indicates that this monitoring is permitted for US persons whom the government regards as “homegrown violent extremists” (referred to as “HVEs” in the slides) – even when they have “no specific connection to foreign terrorist(s).” The government’s basis for this authorization is a revised definition of “counterintelligence” collection found in the 2016 procedures.

    The procedures address several forms of surveillance, and it is unclear which types the government plans to use when monitoring “homegrown violent extremists.” However, a current senior Defense Department official who provided comments to Human Rights Watch on condition of anonymity stated that “the [Department’s] counterintelligence elements would be unable to collect necessary information on potential HVEs” without this change.

    The Defense Department official did not respond to a question from Human Rights Watch about whether the monitoring of US persons under this policy may include electronic surveillance. If it does, this would raise concerns that the government is violating – or believes it is exploiting a possible loophole in – federal law, which generally prohibits deliberate spying on the content of US persons’ telephone or internet communications without a warrant.

    The authorities may only obtain such a warrant if they show probable cause to believe that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, or that the person is “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1805.” The disclosure of the government’s policy regarding the surveillance of “homegrown violent extremists” who are not connected to a foreign group raises concerns about whether intelligence and/or law enforcement bodies are using EO 12333 to do an end-run around these legal protections.

    Human Rights Watch is also concerned about the methods and criteria the government may be using to define and identify “homegrown violent extremists,” and particularly about the risk that people who are exercising their legitimate free-expression rights will be targeted for monitoring in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. As an example of “homegrown violent extremists,” the Defense Department official who commented to Human Rights Watch pointed to individuals who “may be self-radicalized via the internet, social media, etc., and then plan or execute terrorist acts in furtherance of the ideology or goals of a foreign terrorist group.” However, the official did not respond to a question about the criteria the executive branch uses when designating a US person a “homegrown violent extremist” for the purposes of this policy.

    Additional questions remain about the range of agencies that may warrantlessly monitor such individuals. The Defense Department official’s comments imply that the policy disclosed in the slides applies to the Department’s “counterintelligence elements,” such as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. These bodies, the official stated, “investigate activities by active duty military members of their Service or [Defense Department] civilian personnel engaged in activities targeted against interests of their Service.” The official noted, “If the military counterintelligence elements conduct investigations of persons other than active duty military members, they do so jointly with the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation].”

    Although the official’s remarks focused on the military counterintelligence bodies, further information is needed about whether other agencies – such as the National Security Agency (“NSA”) or the FBI – may rely on similar policies to identify and/or monitor US persons who do not have an affiliation with the military, Human Rights Watch said.

    The Defense Department official emphasized that “counterintelligence collection against these, or any other individuals or groups, must be predicated upon the ‘reasonable belief’ standard, which is reviewed through the operational and legal chain of command prior to initiation of any activity. Field personnel may not rely solely upon ‘hunches’ or intuition’ as justification for the initiation of counterintelligence activities.” However, the government’s failure to disclose its methods and criteria for designating US-person “extremists” makes the effectiveness of these stated protections difficult to evaluate.

    “The government’s authority to monitor people doesn’t depend on their beliefs, or what the government thinks they believe, but on specific evidence that gives sufficient reason to think a criminal offense is occurring or that the person is an agent of a foreign power,” St.Vincent said. “A secret determination that someone’s rights should be curtailed based on undisclosed criteria is incompatible with the rule of law. The government should explain what it’s doing as well as its legal basis for doing it.”

    A separate problem to which some of the newly released materials point is the potential volume of data collection – including collection affecting US persons – under EO 12333. The 2016 procedures created the category of “special circumstances collection” to encourage the authorities to consider whether surveillance activities “raise special circumstances” and merit extra safeguards based on “the volume, proportion, and sensitivity” of US-person information the government is likely to obtain. (The category itself does not authorize any surveillance that could not otherwise take place under the order.) However, the training documents use the informal term “big data” to describe “special circumstances collection,” raising the possibility that the government may be carrying out or contemplating surveillance on a massive scale.

    Documents revealed by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden beginning in 2013 have indicated that the government uses EO 12333 as the basis for bulk communications surveillance programs https://cdt.org/files/2014/09/cdt-aclu-upr-9152014.pdf overseas. However, these new references to “big data,” while fleeting, appear to represent one of the most direct acknowledgments yet by the government that warrantless monitoring under the order may entail seizing very large or systematic sets of data – including about US persons.

    Details regarding the newly released documents are provided below, and the documents themselves are posted on the Human Rights Watch website. Human Rights Watch shared the documents with Reuters, which published a related story on October XX.

    Human Rights Watch is also releasing documents obtained from the National Reconnaissance Organization and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

    To view the documents, please visit:

    Air Force Office of Special Investigations FOIA documents

    https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/supporting_resources/air_force_foia_documents.pdf

    National Reconnaissance Office FOIA documents

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/19/national-reconnaissance-office-foia-documents

    DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis FOIA documents

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/19/dhs-office-intelligence-and-analysis-foia-documents

    The following are elements of the training documents obtained by Human Rights Watch that give rise to new concerns.

    1. Expansion of warrantless Defense Department intelligence collection on US persons for “counterintelligence” purposes to include “homegrown violent extremists”

    One of the documents indicates that pursuant to a 2016 change in procedures http://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf?ver=2016-08-11-184834-887 concerning Executive Order 12333, the Defense Department may now extend the monitoring of US persons for “counterintelligence” purposes to people the government regards as “HVEs,” which a senior Defense Department official consulted by Human Rights Watch confirmed means “homegrown violent extremists.” The official indicated that the term is “shorthand … used in the counterintelligence community to describe people who may not have a specific connection to a particular foreign terrorist group but are engaged in violent extremist activities, often following engagement with these groups’ propaganda on the Internet or social media, etc.”

    The procedures themselves do not directly mention such “homegrown violent extremists,” instead providing in more general terms that the monitoring of US persons for “counterintelligence” purposes may extend to “[a]n individual, organization, or group reasonably believed to be acting for, or in furtherance of, the goals or objectives of an international terrorist or international terrorist organization, for purposes harmful to the national security of the United States.”

    In indicating that this category includes “HVEs,” the training document depicts this expansion of the “counterintelligence” collection definition as a “[k]ey” change in the new procedures. The document indicates that the change allows the collection of intelligence on US persons even in the absence of a “specific connection to foreign terrorist(s).” As examples, it alludes to the individuals who carried out mass shootings in San Bernardino, California in 2015, and in Orlando, Florida in 2016.


    Key Changes 1.201709usp_foia_documents_p_62.png


    ​Key Changes 2.201709usp_foia_documents_p_68.png

    The Defense Department’s methods and criteria for identifying “homegrown violent extremists” remain unclear, raising fears that the designation could be applied in ways that are arbitrary, inconsistent, or discriminatory. It is also unknown whether US persons who merely exercise their free-expression rights by visiting a controversial website, espousing certain political or religious views, or criticizing the government might be targeted.

    The government also has not yet disclosed its legal justification for this policy, especially insofar as it involves any warrantless monitoring of US persons that would normally require a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, other statutes, or Fourth Amendment case law. The government should fully disclose the policy, its legal underpinnings, the type(s) of monitoring to which it may lead, and its anticipated and actual application.

    Human Rights Watch remains concerned that several other aspects of this important policy change have not yet been publicly revealed. For example, as mentioned above, it is not yet clear whether the policy (or a similar one) may also apply to the NSA or non-Defense intelligence agencies, or whether people who have no affiliation with the Defense Department may be monitored.

    1. “Special circumstances” collection and references to “big data”

    The Defense Department procedures adopted in 2016 refer to the idea of “Special Circumstances Collection”: intelligence “collection opportunities” for which certain extra safeguards may be appropriate due to the “volume, proportion, and sensitivity of the [US person information] likely to be acquired,” as well as the “intrusiveness of the methods used to collect the information.” The Defense Department official Human Rights Watch consulted said the concept of special circumstances collection itself “does not provide any new or independent authority to conduct electronic surveillance”; that is, it does not give the Defense Department any powers it did not already have. However, the scope and scale of such collection is unknown, including the kinds of data that may be collected.

    Two of the newly disclosed training documents suggest that at least some of the collection the government may be carrying out that falls into the “special circumstances” category includes the gathering of “big data” – a term that lacks a settled definition but can refer https://datascience.berkeley.edu/what-is-big-data/ to enormous troves of information. These explicit references to “big data” raise renewed concerns that under EO 12333, the government may be sweeping up huge amounts of data containing private communications or other sensitive information – including information belonging to US persons. They may also be some of the most direct acknowledgments yet by the government itself of this possibility.


    ​Key Changes 3.201709usp_foia_documents_p_125.png


    ​​Key Changes 4.201709usp_foia_documents_p_191.png

    The possibility of the collection of “big data” is particularly troubling in light of the Defense Department’s power to disseminate “large amounts of unevaluated” information about US persons to entities both within and outside the federal government, as confirmed in the 2016 procedures.

    Congress should seek, and the executive branch should provide, detailed explanations of the scale and nature of all “special circumstances collection” activities, including their impact on US persons.

    1. “Physical surveillance” of non-US persons in the United States

    The 2016 Defense Department procedures define “physical surveillance” as the “deliberate and continuous observation … of a person to track his or her movement or other physical activities while they are occurring, under circumstances in which the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy,” and say this monitoring may include the use of “enhancement devices” such as “binoculars or still or full motion cameras.”

    The new training documents highlight a section of these procedures that allows the Defense Department’s intelligence components to conduct such physical surveillance of any non-US person in the US without a warrant, as long as the surveillance takes place for “an authorized foreign intelligence or [counterintelligence] purpose.” Non-US persons in the US include undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.

    By comparison, the Defense Department’s intelligence components may only subject US persons in the US to such physical surveillance if they are current or prospective employees of (or contractors for) those components, or if they are members of another element of the armed services.

     
    ​Key Changes 5.201709usp_foia_documents_p_140.png


    Key Changes 6.201709usp_foia_documents_p_213.png

    The senior Defense Department official Human Rights Watch consulted indicated that this new provision of the procedures “was needed to maintain [a] long standing rule that allows the physical surveillance of non-U.S. persons inside the U.S.” This rule was not stated explicitly in the earlier version of the procedures, although the government appears to view it as having been implicit.

    The rule raises troubling questions about whether the government, contrary to the general understanding that all persons in the territory of the US enjoy rights under the constitution, believes it has wider latitude to engage in national security or criminal surveillance of non-US persons in the US than it does to surveil US citizens and green-card holders in the country. The policy also prompts questions about its potential effect on any US persons who become caught in a dragnet intended for non-US persons.

    “Physical surveillance” does not include communications surveillance. However, some activities that may qualify as “physical surveillance” may have Fourth Amendment implications: for example, US federal courts are currently divided https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas as to whether the government needs a warrant for continuous video monitoring of areas that are visible to the public. The government should clarify what the manual means when it refers to “circumstances in which the person has no reasonable expectation of privacy”; it should also explain the specific types of monitoring that may take place under this policy as well as any rules for storing, searching, and sharing the data.

    As a general matter, the government should explain how it regards the Fourth Amendment as applying to people in the US who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

    1. Military law enforcement “Intercept Program” associated with Department of Defense Instruction O-5505.9

    One training document briefly refers to an “Intercept Program” associated with Department of Defense Instruction O-5505.9 – a document whose current version is not publicly available, although a 1995 version https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/d55059_042095/d55059p.pdf addressed the interception of wire, electronic, and oral communications for law enforcement by Defense Department entities. The Defense Department official said the program “pertains exclusively to DoD law enforcement entities” and that Instruction O-5505.9 “does not authorize any DoD intelligence activity.” The government should release this instruction along with information about its uses.


    Key Changes 7.201709usp_foia_documents_p_168.png


     
     
    1. National Security Letters

    A set of slides in one of the training presentations offers a stark illustration of the possible scope of warrantless National Security Letters, which the government may use https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/3414 to obtain financial and other records as part of foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations. While the information found in the slides was already publicly available, the array of records the FBI may seek through the letters without court approval – from bank account and credit card transaction histories to documents held by pawnbrokers, jewelers, travel agencies, car dealers, real estate agents, and casinos – is vividly on display.


    ​Key Changes 8.201709usp_foia_documents_p_229.png


     
     
    1. Recommendations to the US government

    The US executive branch should release clear and comprehensive information about the monitoring the intelligence agencies may conduct under Executive Order 12333 and other surveillance authorities.

    In response to specific concerns raised by the new materials, the executive branch should:

    • Ensure that all surveillance authorities, legal interpretations, and policies are clear, detailed, and publicly available. The language in these documents should enable the public to understand the circumstances in which surveillance may take place.
    • Release any legal interpretations or policies concerning the definition, designation and monitoring of US persons the government regards as “homegrown violent extremists.”
    • Provide explanations and legal justifications for all “special circumstances collection” activities, as well as an explanation of their scale.
    • Provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of the types of “physical surveillance” to which non-US persons in the US may be subjected as well as the sharing, storage, and usage of any resulting data.
    • Disclose Department of Defense Instruction O-5505.9 and explain the activities conducted under that authority.

    The US Congress should also ask for further information about each of the policies and activities detailed above, and ensure that all government surveillance complies with US constitutional and international human rights law and takes place within a statutory framework that is effective in preventing abuses. Congress should also ensure that as much information as possible is disclosed to the public.

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 4:00:32 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6
    Space Trash used for Targeting

    Dr. STEVEN GREER, MURDER ATTEMPT; NICOLAS SARKOZY - UFO/ET DISCLOSURE


    Relatives, suggest you view the whole video, however at this beginning start point, it talks about how space trash or psychonic weapons should not be used.
    Apparently congress did not outlaw (space trash) but only viewed the legislation, says Sister Karen previous NSA (national security agency). Sister Amy in Richmond used this legislation to get Oakland to start it's only ordinance. Now cities all over San Francisco bay area are creating no surveillance ordinances. Just this year June 27, 2017 all of California has created law statewide. WE are taking steps forwards. This video is taking us forwards into a time of plenty. IN the meantime there is lots to get accomplished in order to save our Targeted People around the world
    your devoted servant,White Buffalo Calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother
    Angel Services Around the World
    Sioux Task Force and Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
    Jews for the Ark of the Covenant, holy people of the rainbow

    Dr. STEVEN GREER feat. NICK BEGICH, PSYCHICS BEING ATTACKED BY THE CABAL - PART 2




    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 4:26:05 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6
    https://youtu.be/lp3i1tsxb3k?t=7m24s
    Mind Control Scripts

    Relatives,
    This is a great big issue about mind control.Without a stable spiritual daily life, one is not able to distinguish reality and planted dreamscapes. 

    They are defiling and put scripts right into your mind. The only way to combat this is through spiritual works.

    You have to use your right brain and right brain, to and fro. THis is why the ghost dance will save the people, teaching how to purify as well as stimulate other parts of the brain. Making your own pathways, rather than someone outside of you mindcontroling you, defiling you and down right nasty view of the world and society. All is free. All have great powers. All belong to the spiritual realm. Time to get cracking, because the spiritual fit are taking over the world.
    White Buffalo Calf Woman on the knoll (bump on a log)

    ps, closer to that manual for all Targeted and their cures. Time is coming and we will be taking back what belongs to the spiritual being, love and blessings all around. Thank you Mother Earth and Father Sky. We bow with the rainbow and cry, tears of joy and tears of sorrow. We long for paradise tomorrow.

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 5:16:18 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6

    MICROWAVE WEAPONRY'S USE ON PEOPLE EXPLAINED BY DR BARRIE TROWER


    On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:25 PM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    https://youtu.be/lp3i1tsxb3k?t=7m24s
    Mind Control Scripts

    Relatives,
    This is a great big issue about mind control.Without a stable spiritual daily life, one is not able to distinguish reality and planted dreamscapes. 

    They are defiling and put scripts right into your mind. The only way to combat this is through spiritual works.

    You have to use your right brain and right brain, to and fro. THis is why the ghost dance will save the people, teaching how to purify as well as stimulate other parts of the brain. Making your own pathways, rather than someone outside of you mindcontroling you, defiling you and down right nasty view of the world and society. All is free. All have great powers. All belong to the spiritual realm. Time to get cracking, because the spiritual fit are taking over the world.
    White Buffalo Calf Woman on the knoll (bump on a log)

    ps, closer to that manual for all Targeted and their cures. Time is coming and we will be taking back what belongs to the spiritual being, love and blessings all around. Thank you Mother Earth and Father Sky. We bow with the rainbow and cry, tears of joy and tears of sorrow. We long for paradise tomorrow.

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 5:33:02 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6
    Consciousness of the Human
    Beings of Light
    Crystalline Beings of Light
    Stones, star of david (beloved stones)
    Crystal Indigo Children
    Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
    Ark of the Covenant and promise of the Rainbow (sukkah, temporary dwelling, the sacred buffalo robe, four directions of light robe each being wears, the powers a being can cultivate).

    (south to west) Second orange phase of evolution (we the seed (orange hoop)) past appears to be
    meets with 
    (north to east) Fourth green phase of evolution (they the aliens from the stars (green hoop) future appears to be.
    together merges
    the 
    (west to north) Third phase of evolution (third leg of the sacred buffalo), the heaven and earthly, paradise, the yellow phase of evolution (yellow hoop), past, present and future)

    ​Evolution8Directions.jpg

    Relatives,
    This video talks about spiritual advancements, however talks about it in a physical way. So, you must understand it is through spiritual practice one cultivates a spiritual being. This means you have to spend half your day in spiritual works. Get to it, because that is the only way to get through with the loving practice of joy and abundance. Please understand, it's so much easier, just practice spiritual works daily not intellectual pursuits. There are not all those dimensions. There is Heaven and there is Earth. Light and shadow, density and buoyancy. The blue road is the sound wave, woman, heart, dark. The red road is the light wave, man, mind, light. The yellow road is moving from sound to light wave or to and fro, the dream.
    Your devoted servant
    White Buffalo Calf Woman

    Dr Steven Greer ★ TRANSDIMENSIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (November 7 2017)



    On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:16 PM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:

    MICROWAVE WEAPONRY'S USE ON PEOPLE EXPLAINED BY DR BARRIE TROWER

    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 5:42:10 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6

    On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:32 PM, White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother <whitebuffa...@gmail.com> wrote:
    Consciousness of the Human
    Beings of Light
    Crystalline Beings of Light
    Stones, star of david (beloved stones)
    Crystal Indigo Children
    Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
    Ark of the Covenant and promise of the Rainbow (sukkah, temporary dwelling, the sacred buffalo robe, four directions of light robe each being wears, the powers a being can cultivate).

    (south to west) Second orange phase of evolution (we the seed (orange hoop)) past appears to be
    meets with 
    (north to east) Fourth green phase of evolution (they the aliens from the stars (green hoop) future appears to be.
    together merges
    the 
    (west to north) Third phase of evolution (third leg of the sacred buffalo), the heaven and earthly, paradise, the yellow phase of evolution (yellow hoop), past, present and future)

    ​Evolution8Directions.jpg

    Relatives,
    This video talks about spiritual advancements, however talks about it in a physical way. So, you must understand it is through spiritual practice one cultivates a spiritual being. This means you have to spend half your day in spiritual works. Get to it, because that is the only way to get through with the loving practice of joy and abundance. Please understand, it's so much easier, just practice spiritual works daily not intellectual pursuits. There are not all those dimensions. There is Heaven and there is Earth. Light and shadow, density and buoyancy. The blue road is the sound wave, woman, heart, dark. The red road is the light wave, man, mind, light. The yellow road is moving from sound to light wave or to and fro, the dream.
    Your devoted servant
    White Buffalo Calf Woman

    Dr Steven Greer ★ TRANSDIMENSIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (November 7 2017)


    White Buffalo Calf Woman, your Twin Deer Mother

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2017, 5:43:58 PM11/27/17
    to Hoop 6