Skip to content

Gang Stalking and FBI/CIA Intelligence Activities

I had met with the FBI in June of 1998 exactly two months before I started Fordham Law School. During that interview, memorialized in a 302 Memo I later obtained in F.O.I.A. litigation, they asked me only one question twice “are you sure that you are going to Fordham Law?”. I knew that they may have had the gall to monitor me there, but upon later reflection, it became apparent that they hijacked my law school education to my great detriment. Below is a link to my FBI interview, in June of 1998, just weeks before I started law school:


Click to access fbi.302.p1.pdf

Bottom line, I sat down with the FBI for thirty minutes and they hijacked my law school education (in cahoots with Fordham). I ended up with a sub fourth-rate education (if you can call it that). I mortgaged myself six-figures for a worthless degree. When I turned down a job as a probation officer for 38k (less than half of what an actual graduate received first year), I ended up facing mobbing by a vengeful FBI. They also made sure that I knew that, and that it would stalk me from then on. This was clearly programmatic, they did it to a lot of other people, and I know some of their names and stories.

In my second year, I had taken the bait and enrolled in Federal Criminal Law with Professor Daniel C. Richman. It became clear to me that there was directed communication and even threats from this weasel. Nonetheless, I had committed to taking out loans even having my now deceased father co-sign. I was in the game for a pound. I did my required “thesis paper” on intangibles prosecutions under the mail fraud statute with Richman. Below is my law school transcript, with the two courses I took with Comey’s co-conspirator, underlined:

transcript.lawschool 99

When an Asian student interrupted our conversation by suggesting that my paper could focus on the”intent”element of the statute, Richman corrected her with a glare. Later I would realize that I was being groomed not to develop too keen an insight into the law. They had altered the curriculum and the faculty. This was an intelligence operation, or at least part of a larger one. Richman was well connected to the deep state. This is evident in the fact, that if you Google James Comey adviser, your sole result will be one Daniel Charles Richman, currently ostensibly a tenured law professor at Columbia Law School (see link below).

James Comey testified that “a close friend of mine from Columbia Law School leaked his notes from his dinner with President Trump to the press.

That friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel C. Richman, happened to be the above-mentioned law school teacher of mine at Fordham law in 1999-2000 (classes in Federal Criminal Law and Evidence). Given that the CIA has enormous influence and contacts in the press, I believe that Richman is both CIA and a long-time CIA handler of Comey.

When I appealed my first FOIA lawsuit against the FBI to the Second Circuit, I had an epiphany about how my entire legal education was an FBI farce. Note that I have always had an excellent long-term memory. In that case, I argued for a more extensive NNCP search to be conducted pursuant to the FOIA, hoping that it would reveal FBI activity at Fordham Law related to my time there. The Chief Appellate Judge, Daniel Jacobs, asked me whether any of my briefed cases, specifically Ruotolo v. IRS, supported my contention  that the NNCP was subject to FOIA. What I realized, after the fact, was that the correct argument was that the burden was on the government to show that the system was exempted from the FOIA (the FOIA has a presumption that all records are open to release barring specific exceptions and exemptions). I had never been told to analyze any case starting with which side had the burden. This was huge, because it is so fundamental to any legal argument. In fact, my whole legal curriculum had been taught by rote, like primary school. There was no attention given to the Socratic method. I now believe that they did this purposefully, so that I would never be able to uncover what they did when they hijacked my law school education and replaced the faculty and curriculum.

Another flagrant covert operative was Professor Katherine M. Franke who currently is also ostensibly a professor at Columbia. Ms. Franke replaced Professor Gail Hollister, at last minute to become my “torts professor”. While I could write a tome about my odd experiences at Fordham Law, I am going to condense these vignettes with a few key facts (quick and dirty as Richman liked to say).  Franke was a complete fraud. By her own admission, she was being coached by Professor Deborah Denno. Once I had asked Franke if the statute of limitations on product liability cases were affected by the UCC? She said, “what’s that the Uniform Commercial Code?” Anyone who sat for any Bar examination would have that so drilled into their head that the very question from her was preposterous. Also, she did not teach a single class on defamation , libel or slander. Now, They have built her up into an international Human Rights Lawyer. Interestingly, she works in conflict areas like Palestine, teaching “women’s law and queer law”. Also, Franke is “Chair” of the Center for Constitutional Rights Board of Trustees; it is no wonder that advocacy groups, controlled by government, rarely take on issues of the deep state’s agenda such as the gang stalking Program, i.e., they are owned by the deep state! I guess it is all good cover for a spook:

Who’s playing Shemp?:

I also, at the time, had a therapist, Denise Trainer, who was obviously in on the game. It was clear that she had a dossier on me including my past sexual behavior. She obviously had a background in law enforcement:,LCSW,NCPsyA_New+York_New+York_68287

In my opinion, all of these people are still active in intelligence operations. They are all still “working” with gang stalking victims and others who are “at play”.

Richman is Comey’s official adviser, and most likely had a direct impact on the decision to re-open the Clinton emails, effectively placing Trump in the White House. Having taken two classes with Richman as Professor, I believe that Richman is more of a handler than adviser to Comey.  Comey was using Richman’s language when Comey stated that people have no absolute right to privacy “even in their thoughts”. Richman has a lot of influence over Comey, having invited Comey to teach at Columbia Law school for a short stint. Richman should be investigated by the Trump Administration because he is the unscrupulous sophist who is pulling Comey’s strings in the background. A good opening question would be what role Richman played, and is playing, in prepping Comey’s ongoing Congressional testimony.


Judge Nicholas Garaufis was assigned both of my FOIA cases against the FBI in Brooklyn federal court. Coincidentally, he has handled most of the high-profile cases brought by the FBI, against organized crime, in the EDNY. It’s just a little too coincidental that he is the second federal district court judge to rule against the Trump travel ban. There are 677 federal district court judges. Coincidence or an FBI insurance policy?

According to David M. Silvey (deceased at age 58), in his posthumously published book, Operation Artichoke, gang stalking is rampant on the campuses of the University of California. Silvey, a decorated Vietnam special forces soldier, wrote about the connection between Project Artichoke, the predecessor Program to MKULTRA, and gang stalking in the context of human behavioral experimentation. On page 140 of the preview to Project Artichoke linked below, Silvey explains that “gang stalking” was originated in U.S. prisons and U.S. College campuses where the CIA had abundant human and technological resources, based on his own observations attending several U.C. Colleges after his return from the Vietnam War:

%d bloggers like this: