Gang Stalking F.O.I.A. Lawsuit
“Foia with the FBI is a street fight.”-Ryan Noah Shapiro
“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.”–Chris Hedges
This article examines a recent F.O.I.A. case brought against the FBI and DOJ in Brooklyn Federal Court on the subject of gang stalking. The Judge in the case has a close working relationship with the FBI. The Judge has handled the bulk of high level organized crime cases brought in Brooklyn Federal Court by the FBI over the past 10 years, including the case of the first Mafia Don, “Big Joey” Massino, to testify against his crime family.
The Judge was presented with an Affidavit in support of plaintiff’s request for materials the FBI maintained on the subject of gang stalking, organized stalking and flash mobbing:
The affidavit presented the following evidence as Exhibits:
“A”: The DOJ Stalking Report of January, 2009 stating that 13% of all stalking cases involved three or more stalking perpetrators.
“B”: A F.O.I.A. request response received by plaintiff from DOJ stating that 185,050 Americans are being stalked by multiple stalkers of between “3” and “50” stalkers acting in teams and groups.
“C”: Official government document stating that the FBI shares a criminal database with the very DOJ subdivision component that produced both the Stalking Report and the statistics released under the F.O.I.A. in Exhibit “B”.
“D”: An affidavit by Ted L. Gunderson & Associates stating that the FBI has records on gang stalking. Gunderson headed three FBI Field Offices in his 30 years with the FBI. Gunderson also had numerous contacts in the Intelligence Community as a California based licensed private investigator Gunderson also explicitly states in the affidavit that he personally referred numerous gang stalking victims to the appropriate authorities within the FBI to document their complaints.
“E”: A case in which a California Court chastised the FBI for lying to the court in a F.O.I.A. case.
“F” A news article detailing the FBI’s use of secret files to hide information from F.O.I.A. requesters.
“G” & “H”: News articles detailing government schemes to curtail internet “conspiracy theories”, including high level support for criminalizing speech on the internet.
“I”: The news report of the press conference in which Lieutenant Larry Richard of the Santa Cruz Police Dep’t stated that gang stalking predates social media, and, is becoming a larger, more sophisticated criminal problem.
“J”: An internal police Memo obtained by plaintiff from the Santa Cruz P.D., stating that gang stalking has “implications to workplace violence”.
“K”: A news report detailing gang stalking in San Antonio and stating that several felony cases related to gang stalking were active cases being investigated by both San Antonio police and the San Antonio Sheriff’s Office.
“L” An internet poll in which 367 participants reported being gang stalked for time periods including as long as over 10 years. The poll resembles a variation of the normal Bell Curve indicating statistical reliability.
“M”: A picture of a billboard adjacent to the L.A. Freeway advertising the problem of Organized Stalking.
“N” &”O”: Two news stories about the criminal problem of flash mobs.
“P”: A Press Release by the American Bar Association stating that the FBI is working with Philadelphia authorities on the problem of criminal flash mobs.
The Judicial Opinion:
In subsections (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of the Opinion, the Judge selectively reviews and mischaracterizes evidence from plaintiff’s affidavit. The Judge concludes with the Opinion that the FBI performed an adequate search of its records systems on the subject of gang stalking, organized stalking and flash mobs and found no records.
Keep in mind that the FBI’s Central Records System has over 100,000,000 records.
Simply comparing the Affidavit of plaintiff with the Judge’s Opinion evinces a dishonest opinion, smacking of hyper-partisanship. This decision does not pass the smell test.