Index of /Email

 Name                                                                                                                                        Last modified      Size  Description
 Parent Directory                                                                                                                                                 -   
 Gmail - Instant Treason - Federal Law Enforcement Policing Policy - United States Department Of Justice - Office Of Justice Programs_files/ 2022-04-16 07:05    -   
 Gmail - Instant Treason - Federal Law Enforcement Policing Policy - United States Department Of Justice - Office Of Justice Programs-1.ogg  2022-04-16 06:19   28M  
 Gmail - Instant Treason - Federal Law Enforcement Policing Policy - United States Department Of Justice - Office Of Justice Programs.html   2022-04-16 07:09  279K  
 Gmail - Instant Treason - Federal Law Enforcement Policing Policy - United States Department Of Justice - Office Of Justice Programs.ogg    2022-04-16 07:07   32M  

---

From: Real Up Human [.net] realuphuman.net@gmail.com>

Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 6:38 PM

Draft To: 303 Self Storage - RiNo rino@303selfstorage.com> Cc:  "Mama Fire Dancer" mama.firedancer@gmail.com TruthFinder Help help@truthfinder.com, Representative Barbara Lee Rep.Barbara.Lee@mail.house.gov, "Lee.Mockensturm : Writer / Editor - Office of Communications and Operations :" Lee.Mockensturm@ojp.usdoj.gov, "Brett Chapman: Social Science Analyst Office (OJP)" Brett.Chapman@ojp.usdoj.gov,  "Cheryl Crawford Watson: Office of the Chief Science Advisor" Cheryl.Crawford.Watson@ojp.usdoj.gov, askojp@ncjrs.gov,  Federal Law Enforcement Agency Information, https://www.ojp.gov/about About Us The Office of Justice Programs is a federal agency that provides federal leadership, grants, training, technical assistance, and other resources to improve the nation’s capacity to prevent and reduce crime, assist victims and enhance the rule of law by strengthening the criminal and juvenile justice systems.  Its six program offices support state and local crime-fighting efforts, fund thousands of victim service programs, help communities manage sex offenders, address the needs of youth in the system and children in danger, and provide vital research and data. Our Vision Safe, Just, and Engaged Communities Our Values Equal Justice Fairness and Transparency Community Engagement Strong Science Effective Stewardship Our Mission To provide leadership, resources, and solutions for creating safe, just, and engaged communities. OJP Goals Crime prevention Prevent and reduce crime through a comprehensive approach Engage and Empower Engage and empower those in at-risk environments Improved Justice System Advance systemic improvements in the justice system Delivery Deliver effective and outcome-driven services, capabilities, and programs. END OF AGENCY ABOUT INFO --  BACK TO EMAIL ADDRESSING: MORE CCs: "Former FBI Agent and Cousin, John Michael Talbot:" jmichaeltalbot@gmail.com,  Jaime.Melkonoff@prospectmedical.com,  "enable@un.org" enable@un.org,  cdcinfo@cdc.gov,  timothy.noonan@hhs.gov,  Supervisor.Rowe@bos.sbcounty.gov,   compliance@epiclp.com,  info@knightcolumbia.org

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Phone: 301-496-4000
E-mail: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/ask-nih

A Contact Message Will Be Generated to:

Ask NIH

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

Office of Communications
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6200, MSC 9663
Bethesda, MD 20892-9663
Phone: 1-866-615-6464
E-mail: nimhinfo@nih.gov

Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

6701 Rockledge Drive MSC 7768
Bethesda MD 20892-7768
Phone: 301-435-1111
E-mail: csrwebmaster@csr.nih.gov

Additionally, Email Addressing CCs are sourced from Relevant NIH Published Findings Researchers 

Gangstalking aExpert - Doctor Andrew Lustig andrew.lustig@camh.ca,

Lorraine.Sheridan@curtin.edu.au,

Finally, Self-Addressing For Resubmission Resending To EAll Email Contacts Addressing Using a New Email Address.

 ME James Martin Driskill Is Still Human Living, Else In The Care Of Mother if Human Dead: 

[ FactsDontLie.HatedOn.IDied@Gmail.com ]

END of Email Header Addressing Details.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE!

-----

In 1973, design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber introduced the term "wicked problem" in order to draw attention to the complexities and challenges of addressing planning and social policy problems. Unlike the “tame” problems of mathematics and chess, the wicked problems of planning

lack clarity in both their aims and solutions. In addition to these challenges of articulation and internal logic,  they are subject to real-world constraints that prevent multiple and risk-free attempts at solving. As described by Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 important characteristics:

1) They do not have a definitive formulation.

2)  They do not have a “stopping rule.” In other words, these problems lack an inherent logic that signals when they are solved.

3)  Their solutions are not true or false, only good or bad.

4)  There is no way to test the solution to a wicked problem.

5)  They cannot be studied through trial and error. Their solutions are irreversible so, as Rittel and Webber put it, “every trial counts.”

6) There is no end to the number of solutions or approaches to a wicked problem.

7) All wicked problems are essentially unique.

8) Wicked problems can always be described as the symptom of other problems.

9) The way a wicked problem is described determines its possible solutions.

10) Planners, that is those who present solutions to these problems, have no right to be wrong. Unlike mathematicians, “planners are liable for the consequences of the solutions they generate; the effects can matter a great deal to the people who are touched by those actions.”

Climate change, like problems in education policy and public health, is a wicked problem. It avoids straightforward articulation and is impossible to solve in a way that is simple or final.  

 Adinkras are symbols created by the Akan ethnic group in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire in West Africa. Adinkras are timeless symbols often used to communicate thoughtful and evocative messages that represent life’s deep proverbs, knowledge, and wisdom. They are used on fabrics,

walls, woodcarvings, logos, and poetry. The Adinkra symbols incorporated in our logo are the ones that part of the Adinkra symbols of the Ashanti people in southern Ghana. There are four hundred or more of these symbols in Ghana and are often designed and represented using objects such as

plants animals, shapes, hairstyles, and many more. Below, from left to right, are the three adinkra symbols that we used to create our logo along with their meanings.

The first Adinkra symbol, named “Kuronti ne Akwamu”, meaning “Kuronti and Akwamu, is the symbol of democracy, sharing ideas, and taking counsel. The Second symbol, “Nea Onnim No Sua A, Ohu” meaning “he who does not know, can know”  is the symbol of knowledge,

 life-long

education, and continued quest for knowledge. The third and last Adinkra, “Bo Me Na Me Mmoa Wo”, meaning “Help me and let me help you” is the symbol of cooperation and interdependence. We used these adinkras symbols to represent our primary core beliefs of being a network

where

 our affiliates and partners come together to not only exchange innovative ideas and knowledge, but to also create groundbreaking projects and initiatives that will transform the lives of disadvantaged people across the continent of Africa, in the United States and internationally, and lastly to contribute to

the preparation and nurturing the youth of today on their way to becoming the leaders of tomorrow.

The low hanging fruit of HIPAA enforcement: OCR deputy director discusses

Government officials are increasingly using social media to share information with the public, and to allow members of the public to communicate with them about matters relating to government. In a recent case, the Supreme Court described social media platforms as “the modern public

square,” noting that these platforms afford users the opportunity to “petition their elected representatives and otherwise engage with them in a direct manner.”

from:		303 Self Storage - RiNo <rino@303selfstorage.com>
to:		darrell.johnson@fuckeduphuman.net
date:		Apr 12, 2022, 3:44 PM
subject:		An important message from 303 Self Storage - RiNo
signed-by:		303selfstorage-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
security:		Standard encryption (TLS)
:		Important according to Google magic.

All this is done to discredit the victim of this crime, in a carefully planned and executed psychological assault.

The person will typically have been labeled, through slander, as having hidden dark secrets, or as having committed some heinous crime, by members of the meeting who are not part of the psychological harassment activity and have no knowledge of it. These members of the meeting,

 who may include members of a neighborhood watch, will be asked by those perpetrating the harassment, to observe the target when a monologue uses certain words, or when it goes into or touches on certain topics that are associated with the content of the slander.

All that is told to these people, the onlookers, and recipients of the slander, is that certain topics will be brought up on purpose to see whether the person, the victim, has some reaction. The victim, being sensitized to these topics related to the slander, through an array of psychological

harassments,  in an ongoing campaign over a long period of time, is utterly defenseless. 
After such a well-crafted psychological staging, the victim appears, in the eyes of these, perhaps invited onlookers, in the meeting, to have

committed some crime, for the victim will appear to have some sensitivity to the topics chosen, thus leading people to believe the slander. Typically, the victims in these assaults are innocent people, whose lives are being trashed and wrecked by criminals, members of AA/NA,

or fellow clients within recovery facilities.          

 
The recovery industry, Alcoholics Anonymous,  and other 12 Step Groups seem to be arenas where the phenomena of terror stalking are able to be orchestrated with precision. The moral health of many people in recovery has been battered through years of lying, cheating, stealing, and

other criminal activity. They can easily be led into the activities of terror stalking, cult revenge, and covert harassment. The victims of these crimes committed in 12 Step Groups, AA, and the recovery industry are usually helpless. Having no way to defend themselves from the slander, and

victims of the covert psychological harassment that is done to substantiate the slander, over a long period of time, they become the weak, preyed upon by vicious criminally inclined people, who by act as a group, are not only veiled from any possible acknowledgment of the terrible wrong

committed against an innocent defenseless person but are vindicated from any guilt that may derive from taking pleasures in such a dirty crime.

The substantiations of the slander that result from the craft of psychological sensitization and staged assaults in a structured environment are shallow and weak. Nonetheless, people are suffering and their lives are being destroyed by a group of people who validate some false moral

reformation that they seemingly have been brought through the group's ethos of AA/NA, by stalking, harassing, and partaking in psychological violence directed at defenseless innocent people, who become targets of hate.

PMCID: PMC7178134

PMID: 32268595

The Phenomenology of Group Stalking (‘Gang-Stalking’): A Content Analysis of Subjective Experiences

Lorraine Sheridan,1,* David V. James,2 and Jayden Roth1

1. Introduction

Stalking denotes a pattern of repeated, unwanted intrusion by one person into the life of another in a manner that causes distress, disruption, or fear [1,2]. The concept of stalking was introduced in the late 1980s to describe a form of interpersonal aggression that, although common through the ages, had come to be socially unacceptable in the western world after the recognition of equal rights for women and the prosecution of domestic violence. To that extent, stalking is a social construct that arose in a particular social and cultural context [3].

Since the turn of the millennium, another term linked to stalking has gained currency in the media and on the world wide web—that of ‘group’ or ‘gang’ stalking. Stalking generally involves a single stalker who may occasionally recruit others into stalking by proxy, their involvement usually being unwitting [4]. By contrast, reports of group or gang-stalking describe stalking by multiple individuals who engage in a shared endeavour with a group purpose. For research purposes, the number is taken as three or more, although in many instances those suffering from the phenomenon have reported the involvement of far greater numbers [5].

Being stalked by individuals is a relatively common experience in the western world. The prevalence in different studies varies according to the definition used, the methodology employed, and the population or sub-population sampled. But even the most conservative estimates suggest that 8% of women and 2% of men are stalked at some point in their lives [6,7], and other studies from a range of western countries have found rates that were twice as high [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. By contrast, indications as to the prevalence of gang-stalking experiences are few in number. In an anonymous questionnaire that was completed online by 1040 self-defined adult victims of stalking [5], 12.3% of respondents reported group or gang-stalking. A US Department of Justice prevalence study, which used a tight definition of stalking that required the victim to experience fear, found that 6.8% reported stalking by three or more people, and were “unable to identify a single offender” or “could not identify an offender who was singularly responsible” [16]. The US study also examined cases where the behavioural part of their definition of stalking was satisfied, but not the fear component. When these cases were added to those defined as stalking, the total figure for those reporting an inability to identify a single offender or offender who was singularly responsible was 12.5% [17], which is similar to that found in the questionnaire study. The gang-stalking phenomenon would thus appear to be relatively common. Yet, we could find only one empirical study of group or gang-stalking in the published literature [5]. By contrast, a Google search for “gang-stalking” conducted on 5 February 2020 produced 7,550,000 ‘hits’.

Stalking by individuals has been found to result in high rates both of psychological distress and lasting psychiatric morbidity, in particular post-traumatic symptomatology and depression [1,4,10,18,19,20]. The one study to examine the psychological sequelae of the experience of being gang stalked found that individuals who had been group or gang stalked scored significantly higher on ratings of depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational functioning than those who were individually stalked [5]. The only other published study of gang-stalking samples that we could locate detailed four cases reported by the media of men who had engaged in extreme violence as a response to the perception that they were the target of gang stalkers [21]. Both Sheridan and James [5] and Sarteschi [21] concluded that the subjects of their studies were suffering or had suffered from severe psychological distress in the context of their subjective gang-stalking experiences.

3. Results

3.1. Length of Stalking

None of the writers of the narratives described their experiences as having ended. All 50 authors stated or implied that they had been gang stalked for lengthy periods of time (e.g., one mentioned being seen by seven psychologists during the period of being targeted, another described having been targeted whilst living in three different countries). The shortest case was described as having begun “in the last few months” and the longest as continuing for “more than 22 years”.

3.2. Reasons for the Gang-Stalking

The narratives were examined to establish whether the perceived reasons for being targeted by gang stalkers could be identified. Reasons were found in 20 of the 50 accounts. In all 20 cases, no named person was believed to be targeting the victim. Representative examples of the reasons given for the gang-stalking were as follows:

“Why? To drive people to meet-up groups or a psychiatrist so they can be medicated and/or get more federal grants for more mental health instead of training a real police force. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a big seller in the area.”

“It is a brainwashing military experiment. Post 9/11, they isolate certain people to stop them acting against government.”

“It is part of an overt agenda to create and test mind control. They are creating weaponry tested on us.”

“I began driving a friend around to make his pot sales and I started noticing we would get tailed from time to time. I knew this friend had connects in weird places (he knows members of Anonymous, he knows people who work at the Pentagon). I also did a lot of research and was very vocal about being anti-government and anti-corporation. This is what got me targeted. If you are vocal about your positions, then you will eventually run across a civilian spy who will pass the information to their superiors, who will continue to pass the information up the chain of command. Once you’re on their list, your life can become a living hell.”

5. Conclusions

The experience of being gang-stalked appears to be a widespread phenomenon that has been subject to little scientific examination. The current study provides a preliminary description of the phenomena involved that was produced by a methodology that did not incorporate

pre-conceived assumptions. This provides a foundation upon which further research could be built. It also serves to confirm the harmful effects of the gang-stalking experience upon sufferers, first set out in the only other study available [5]. These findings constitute a potent

reason why gang-stalking should be regarded as an important subject for study.

Whilst it was important to adopt a methodology that allowed the phenomena constituting the experience of gang-stalking to emerge de novo, it would now be appropriate to conduct studies of cases based upon specific questions in order to gain a clearer idea of the proportion

of sufferers who experience each category of phenomenon, as the main categories have now been elucidated and the core phenomena described. This is because higher proportions are likely to be elicited through direct questioning than were found by studying internet

descriptions. Finally, whilst this study has described the core phenomena of the gang-stalking experience, the question remains as to whether gang-stalking is a single phenomenon or represents several overlapping phenomena, each with its own defining pattern of experiences.

2021 Mar 5;23(3):e25722.

 doi: 10.2196/25722.

Linguistic Analysis of Online Communication About a Novel Persecutory Belief System (Gangstalking): Mixed Methods Study

Andrew Lustig # 1 2, Gavin Brookes # 3, Daniel Hunt # 4

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 33666560
 
• PMCID: PMC7980115
 
• DOI: 10.2196/25722
• 
  

Abstract

Background: Gangstalking is a novel persecutory belief system whereby those affected believe they are being followed, stalked, and harassed by a large number of people, often numbering in the thousands. The harassment is experienced as an accretion of

innumerable individually benign acts such as people clearing their throat, muttering under their breath, or giving dirty looks as they pass on the street. Individuals affected by this belief system congregate in online fora to seek support, share experiences,

and interact with other like-minded individuals. Such people identify themselves as targeted individuals.

Objective: The objective of the study was to characterize the linguistic and rhetorical practices used by contributors to the gangstalking forum to construct, develop, and contest the gangstalking belief system.

Methods: This mixed methods study employed corpus linguistics, which involves using computational techniques to examine recurring linguistic patterns in large, digitized bodies of authentic language data. Discourse analysis is an approach to text

analysis which focuses on the ways in which linguistic choices made by text creators contribute to particular functions and representations. We assembled a 225,000-word corpus of postings on a gangstalking support forum. We analyzed these data

using keyword analysis, collocation analysis, and manual examination of concordances to identify discursive and rhetorical practices among self-identified targeted individuals.

Results: The gangstalking forum served as a site of discursive contest between 2 opposing worldviews. One is that gangstalking is a widespread, insidious, and centrally coordinated system of persecution employing community members, figures of authority,

 and state actors. This was the dominant discourse in the study corpus. The opposing view is a medicalized discourse supporting gangstalking as a form of mental disorder. Contributors used linguistic practices such as presupposition, nominalization, and the

 use of specialized jargon to construct gangstalking as real and external to the individual affected. Although contributors generally rejected the notion that they were affected by mental disorder, in some instances, they did label others in the forum as

 impacted/affected by mental illness if their accounts if their accounts were deemed to be too extreme or bizarre. Those affected demonstrated a concern with accumulating evidence to prove their position to incredulous others.

Conclusions: The study found that contributors to the study corpus accomplished a number of tasks. They used linguistic practices to co-construct an internally coherent and systematized persecutory belief system. They advanced a position that

gangstalking is real and contested the medicalizing discourse that gangstalking is a form of mental disorder. They supported one another by sharing similar experiences and providing encouragement and advice. Finally, they commiserated over the

challenges of proving the existence of gangstalking.

Keywords: computer mediated communication; corpus linguistics; delusions; discourse analysis; eHealth; internet; language; linguistics; online discourse; psychosis; schizophrenia.

PMCID: PMC8569537

PMID: 34673523

Social Semiotics of Gangstalking Evidence Videos on YouTube: Multimodal Discourse Analysis of a Novel Persecutory Belief System

Monitoring Editor: Gunther Eysenbach

Reviewed by Shahzad Ashraf

Andrew Lustig, MD, MSc,#1 Gavin Brookes, PhD,#2 and Daniel Hunt, PhD#3

Background

Gangstalking refers to a novel persecutory belief system wherein sufferers believe that they are being followed, watched, and harassed by a vast network of people in their community who have been recruited as complicit perpetrators. They are frequently

diagnosed as mentally ill, although they reject this formulation. Those affected by this belief system self-identify as targeted individuals (TIs). They seek to prove the veracity of their persecution and dispute the notion that they are mentally ill by posting

videos online that purport to provide evidence of their claims.

Objective

The objective of the study was to characterize the multimodal social semiotic practices used in gangstalking evidence videos.

Conclusions

These data provide insight into a novel persecutory belief system. Interpersonal concerns are important for people affected, and they construe others as either sympathetic or hostile. They create positive ambient affiliation with viewers. We found that vloggers use

multimodal deixis to illustrate the salience of the belief system. The videos highlighted the Derridean concept of différance, wherein the meaning of polysemous signifiers is deferred without definitive resolution. This may be important in communicating with people

 and patients with persecutory belief systems. Clinicians may consider stepping away from the traditional true/false dichotomy endorsed by psychiatric classification systems and focus on the ambiguity in semiotic systems generally and in persecutory belief systems specifically.

Keywords: internet, discourse analysis, psychosis, delusion, semiotics, linguistics, computer-mediated communication, schizophrenia, eHealth, video, communication, YouTube, social media, discourse, mental health

The Most Important Aspect Of This Research Findings Is The Use of the Term "Clinicians" 3 seperate times in the research publication.

1 of 3 - Already Mentioned Above

Conclusions

These data provide insight into a novel persecutory belief system. Interpersonal concerns are important for people affected, and they construe others as either sympathetic or hostile. They create positive ambient affiliation with viewers. We found that vloggers use

multimodal deixis to illustrate the salience of the belief system. The videos highlighted the Derridean concept of différance, wherein the meaning of polysemous signifiers is deferred without definitive resolution. This may be important in communicating with people

and patients with persecutory belief systems. Clinicians may consider stepping away from the traditional true/false dichotomy endorsed by psychiatric classification systems and focus on the ambiguity in semiotic systems generally and in persecutory belief

systems specifically.

2 and 3 of 3:

Clinical Implications

This observation may have important clinical ramifications. Traditionally, psychiatrists define delusions as fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change, considering conflicting evidence [47]. An alternative definition is that delusions are beliefs that are

demonstrably untrue or not shared by others [48]. However, these and other definitions of delusions fall short, and arriving at a definitive definition may be impossible [49]. The prospect of a clinician definitively establishing the truth or falsity of a delusional

belief system is often impractical or impossible. Often when a clinician states that a belief system is untrue or impossible, they are relying on their own beliefs, biases, and cultural referents. By shifting, instead, to a linguistic or semiotic understanding of delusions

as belief systems that are unresolvable or that defer understanding ad infinitum, clinicians may sidestep the difficulties inherent in existing definitions. Ultimately, all users of semiotic systems—patients and clinicians alike—are subject to the same fundamental

limits on communication and understanding inherent in language and all symbolic systems. Such a humbling realization may help to promote empathy and understanding and reduce stigma affecting people afflicted by persecutory belief systems.