Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Gang Stalking
| This article contains content from Wikipedia An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Gang Stalking Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article |
WP+ NO DEL |
Under Occupational Health and Safety laws, individuals' information files are flagged and placed on Threat Assessment and community notification lists, without the targets knowledge. The nature of the system employed makes it difficult to assess false reports and reports motivated by political or personal reasons.
Threat assessment teams include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. They and their actions are not necessarily evaluated by their peers. They assess threats of violence in the workplace or on campus and make plans of action, profiling individuals as threats to the environment around them. Teams will liaison with Human Resources, police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental Health officials, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target. Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. The person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report; anonymous reporting leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.
Gang Stalking Case
A Federal court civil rights law suit was filed on 7/9/2010 in the Southern district of New York against the United States and unnamed citizen group for alleged abuses including stalking, conspiracy and assault. The plaintiff claims he is the victim of a Wikipedia:Red Squad like crime known as “Gang Stalking.â€
Case No. 10 Civ. 05237 (pac) (gay) is posted publicly on Pacer.gov[1]
The Government has chosen a Wikipedia:Facial, instead of Factual defense, asking this Court to dismiss this case under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). The Government acknowledged for a facial defense, under Rule 12(b)(6), the court is “required to accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true.â€
The Government’s primary facial argument is Wikipedia:Sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff argued that Sovereign immunity does not apply in this case because the indiscretions alleged are not official duties of the Government.
Plaintiff cited the case of the: Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 463 F.Supp. 515, 522-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). In this case the SWP relied on the theory of ‘prima facie tort’ in connection with the FBI’s (Red Squad) disruption activities. This led to the decision denying the Government’s motion to dismiss certain claims. Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 463 F.Supp. 515, 522-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
The Government replied by arguing that the legal interpretation that granted the SWP an award has subsequently been rejected.
Plaintiff concluded his argument by stating: “If it is decided by this court, due to sovereign immunity, that the American people have no legal cause to act against the government for committing conspiracy, then this court is setting precedence that technically it is legally acceptable for any government official to use third party thugs to attack citizens.â€
Notes
