Jane Doe's story: F.Y.I . on the Q.T.

Jane was an environmentalist. Still is. But she won't go to another action again. Ever.

Jane doesn't want to talk about the details. She's sure the people she thought were her friends will know and be after her again. She's just laying out the facts, she says. Maybe it'll help someone else:

Fact 1: if what your doing will cost the Man money, the Man will try to get you. If the group has problems find out how long. Any group can have problems. We're human. But problems going on for months and years are "honeypots" to lure good activists out who want to help and know how to fix things. The Man wants these people stopped at all costs. First he's got to identify them. If you're it, they'll send someone to get close.

Fact 2: they don't send James Bond. They send someone normal looking hiding in the open. They will encourage you to be open too. They will try to make you feel safe being "out and proud" about whatever. Until they turn on you.

Fact 3: they'll try to get you with sex. If seduction doesn't work, then they'll try porn. If that doesn't work, they'll talk it up. If you're a man, they'll play the macho sex conquest angle. If you're woman, they'll play the liberated feminist angle. Don't matter how, what they're trying to do is "get some goods". Pics, videos, witnesses, whatever.

Fact 4: that fails they'll try to get you drunk. Or make something up and hope it sticks.

Fact 5: any solutions you suggest that might work they'll try to talk you out of. The one you think you can trust will try this harder than the rest. Their reasons won't make sense or will contradict what they said before. "It won't work". They want you to know enough about how bad things are to be controlled. They don't want you to try to fix anything or make things happen. If you get suspicious and cut them off, they'll turn on you.

Fact 6: you'll feel like you went crazy and wonder what you did wrong. What you did wrong: you became a threat. You were effective and they couldn't control you. That's why they had to "take you out".

Fact 7: watch for the first sign of trouble: someone pushing you to be open when you're not ready.

Fact 8: second sign of trouble: trying to push you to do something you don't want to. DON'T DO IT. Listen to your gut.

Fact 9: third sign of trouble: when you ask questions, you get no answers and bullshit.

Fact 10: they "snitch jacket": when you're getting too close to something, they scream agent or cointelpro. Only agents scream agent first without proof.

10 is a nice number. But there's more:

The one charged with keeping you trusting will stage fake attacks on themselves by the "bad people" to keep you sympathetic. You can tell they're fake because they won't really be bothered and they won't take any action, legal or otherwise. Even when "stalked". Don't be fooled. They're working with "the bad people".

They try to manipulate people who have bad backgrounds. Not criminal, just tragic. They want to use the need to belong to make you do things. They'll try to make you feel like someone special and think that works for most people.

It doesn't. Most people who come back from tragedy are strong. But the Man plays the odds. Some are fragile. The perfect people to set up for an action that will make the group look bad. Anyone suggests using bombs or guns GET OUT.

A good group will answer your questions. A good group knows how to disagree without saying agent. A good group will not lie behind your back and will not let anyone else. They'll demand proof of accusations.

Good people get trapped in bad groups. They don't know what is going on. Now you do. The Man wants you stopped.

That's what Jane has to say. Three months ago I'd have nodded sympathetically, and thought "the group was just a bad fit". Now I wonder.

Mother Jones wonders too:

Exclusive: Cops and Former Secret Service Agents Ran Black Ops on Green Groups

NEWS: Meet the private security firm that spied on Greenpeace and other environmental outfits for corporate clients. A tale of intrigue, infiltration, and dumpster-diving.

By James Ridgeway
Additional reporting by David Corn, Jennifer Wedekind, Daniel Schulman, and Nick Baumann

April 11, 2008

A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies...

READ MORE:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/04/firm-spied-on-environmental-groups.html


Jane wants readers to know when she says "the Man" she means anyone in the system who wants to stop your activism. They could be from the government, but they don't have to be. Jane believes she and her old group were targeted by a corporation with government contracts.

Why Is "Urban Badger" Helping People Harrass Activists?

Sources are like dates: some bring you flowers and complements and mean it it, others shower you with flattery but just want to get into your pants. This one complemented my articles, claimed to share the same interests, but was really only interested in getting confidential information about my clients.

"Urban Badger"(not his real name) was referred to me by a trusted source. He lives in England and works with people who question the July 7th, 2005 attacks:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

An apparently wholesome interest in the public good. Which would mesh with wanting to help stop activist harassment.

"Urban Badger" told my source he knew something about the activist group I asked about. I was investigating a person of interest in this group. This group is like a psycho ex boyfriend: months after members leave, they find their personal information posted on-line as form of personal revenge. Presumably for leaving. No wonder they left in the first place.

"Urban Badger" knew this was a harassment inquiry and claimed he had a contact in this group willing to discuss the group's activities. Not impossible. Even if the group's leaders are jerks, most people aren't. If the activism has anything to do with "social justice", the hypocrisy factor would be enough to make some spill. After some email back and forth, "Urban Badger" said his contact would prefer to me to email him first. Fine.

The reader should know that all attempts to contact the person of interest(technically innocent until proven guilty) had been met with stonewalling. Inquires of group members had been met with the "run around". I was ready to give "Urban Badger's" contact a shot. Worst that could happen was he could waste my time.

Waste my time he did, as detailed in my previous blog.

Cutting my losses, I continued digging elsewhere. Truth was, the clients had moved on. This was follow up work. After the arrogant stonewalling, I was ready to do this for free. Checking one thing lead me to double check another. And I found a shocker: "Urban Badger's" contact was "Urban Badger" himself. They had the same IP address(edited to respect TOS):

Received: from [82.70.xxx.xxx] by web46104.mail.sp1.xxxxxx via HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:31:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: First Last <insidejob91153@xxxxxx>

Thu, 3 Apr 2008 04:28:20 -0700
Message-ID: C2F70@phx.gbl>
Return-Path: urban-badger@xxxxxx
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=\"_79d8c747-8517-4133-8722-967574d0a61e_\"
X-Originating-IP: [82.70.xxx.xxx]
From: Urban Badger <urban-badger@xxxxxx>

Hostname

82-70-xxx-xxx.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk

Geo-Location Information

Country	United Kingdom
State/Region	L2
City	Rochdale
Postal Code
Latitude	53.6167
Longitude	-2.15
Area Code

Why'd you do it, Urban Badger? Why are you helping these people hide? What kind of people attack former members long after they left? And what kind of person helps them get away with it? How do you justify that to yourself?

I don't think that's how they do things in England. Your July 7th buddies are going to wonder: why is "Urban Badger" trying to protect the unethical, and possibly illegal, activities of an American activist group?

Watch out for "Urban Badger". He'll waste your time and his moral compass is off line.

For the record, Saturday, April 12th I gave "Urban Badger" a chance to come clean and make it right by Monday. He never emailed back.

Not taking it personally. I get it:





End note: "Urban Badger": If you have a crisis of conscience and want to come clean, email me with everything I asked. I'll hide this blog as a draft while I review what you say. But its too late to take down the Indymedia posts; I don't control those.

Why must they "cliche"? part 2

Know how we get hard-boiled? It's got nothing to do with water, eggs or breakfast.

We spend most of the time waiting, watching, or some other low return activity, with no guarantees. The rest of the time we wonder why we aren't getting paid more. Then comes some jerk promising they want to talk, but pulls a "bait and switch", thinking they can demand information out of us.

Case in point:

> My name is (T. Brown).
>
> I was given your email by a source who says you are part of the (CITY)
> group (NAME 1) is a member of.
> (NAME 1) is a person of interest in a harassment complaint. Any assistance
> in this matter would be appreciated.
>
> (T. Brown)

Response:

First Last <insidejob91153@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR AND WHO MADE THIS COMPLAINT?

Next:

<tambro12@gmail.com

> wrote: WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR

Confidential.

AND WHO MADE THIS COMPLAINT?

Also confidential.

My turn:

Why is there no police report if (NAME 1) is a victim of harassment as she claims?

Who told (NAME 2) to give me the "run around" when I made inquires about the Portland group and (NAME1)?

Why did your member (NAME 3) tell one of my sources she had talked to me when she hadn't?


Demanding information you aren't entitled to doesn't win allies.

Make your next email civil.


(T. Brown)

Next:

First Last <insidejob91153@yahoo.com> wrote:

NO. DEMANDING INFORMATION YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DOES NOT GET YOU THAT INFORMATION AND YOU HAVE GIVEN ME NOTHING TO ASSURE ME YOU ARE AN ALLY.

SO IF YOU WANT ANYTHING FROM ME YOU WILL NEED TO OFFER SOME KIND OF PROOF OF YOUR MOTIVES.

Next:

You got it backwards, kid:

I sent you a professional email with a polite request.
You responded with a demand to violate client confidentiality.

My source said you wanted to tell me about the (CITY) group. You've been given all the information you need to know what my motives are.

This is what it looks like:

The (CITY) group is protecting (NAME 1) and "(NYM)" from harassment charges.
(NAME 2) is running interference.
(NAME 3) is feeding false information to protect (NAME 1).

"First Last", your participation is voluntary. You volunteered.
If you want to share, share. Or stop wasting my time.

TB

Jokers like this drive us nuts. He/she had no intention of "sharing". This was an excuse to "fish". A very bad one from a very bad movie.

Give me a break. We did not learn the trade off the back of a cracker-jack box.

For the love of Christ, stop the cliches.

The Case Of The Videographer StandingToo Close To The Cop...Or Not

I've got no problems with cops. They help people, save lives, and help people like me. I'll leave it at that. These men and women work hard, are underpaid and deserve our gratitude when they act within the legal and ethical limits of their authority.

But every group has it's "problem children" or "slow learners". Or people who lack common sense. They are a small part of the group. But they'll cause most of the problems for that group. Police are not an exception. They are only human. And if individual cops remember that, it will be easier to not over step the bounds of their authority just because public scrutiny is making one emotionally uncomfortable. If public scrutiny bothers you, being a pubic servant is not the gig for you.

Enter Joe Anybody and his video adventure:(from the Portland Mercury)

From Apr 3 – Apr 9, 2008

• Write a letter to the editor
• About the author/Author Archives
• Email this story to a friend

Big Brother's Little Brother

Cop Cites Videographer for Recording Investigation

BY MATT DAVIS

A FREELANCE videographer plans to challenge the Portland Police Bureau in court after a cop confiscated his camera and cited him, in apparent retaliation for videotaping the cop as he searched a suspect in the street.

Mike Tabor, 47, has been videotaping police activities for the last two years with his Sony Handycam, as a citizen journalist working under the name "Joe Anybody." He posts footage of their activities (especially at demonstrations) on his website, Joe-Anybody.com. Tabor started videotaping Officer Dane Reister last Tuesday, March 25, at SW 10th and Main, after he saw Reister hurrying to catch up with two men in the street, one of whom was Hispanic, the other white.

"I just thought it was weird because I wasn't sure why he was stopping the men," says Tabor. "So I decided to start filming."

Officer Reister and his partner, Officer Nick Ragona, searched both men and found nothing on them, so they let them go. Early in the encounter, as seen on Tabor's tape, Reister told Ragona, "We're being filmed," and Ragona responded, "I see that." Following the encounter, Reister approached Tabor and asked him his name, and whether he had been recording audio.

"I'm recording video and audio, yes," Tabor responds on the tape.

"Give me the camera," Reister says on the tape. He then wrote Tabor a property receipt for it.

"I told Ragona I was shocked they would take a camera from a journalist," says Tabor. "I told him I thought this was serious, and asked who I should talk to."

Ragona told Tabor to follow them to Central Precinct on SW 2nd, where after 20 minutes, Reister emerged from the back room with his camera and a citation under ORS.165.540, for "obtaining contents of communication (unlawful)."

"He told me the men were drug dealers," says Tabor, adding that he told the officer he was concerned about drug dealers too. "I asked him how I could have filmed the encounter where he would have been comfortable, and he told me I'd been standing too close and made him uncomfortable."

Attorney Benjamin Haile responds to the cop's logic: "The reasonable thing to do if someone is standing too close is to ask them to move back," says Haile, who has decided to defend Tabor against the citation, and if necessary, pursue the matter through federal court on constitutional grounds. "It is not appropriate, without warning, to single out the videographer from other observers and take his camera and give him a ticket."

Haile says it's very important that people have the right to monitor the police and that video is a powerful tool with which to do that. He thinks the law is either being misapplied or it's unconstitutional, according to the First Amendment right to free press and freedom of expression, and also, Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Haile thinks there is a strong chance a judge will agree, and dismiss the case.

"If a person observes the police doing something they want to tell other people about and they're prohibited from making video, then their ability to credibly communicate what they saw is stolen from them," he says. "It is very literally stolen from them when the police seize their camera."

Reister declined comment in person, but Central Precinct Commander Mike Reese returned the Mercury's call.

"It was an unusual situation: an officer dealing with a person he knew was a drug dealer from previous experience, believing they were engaged in a deal," says Reese, referring to the suspect Reister was searching. "These are dangerous situations for us, and unpredictable.

"To have someone stand behind the officer while he is involved in a narcotics investigation is a problem," Reese continues. "I think he took an action based on the law, and the constitutionality of these things is for the courts to decide."

Tabor says he will continue to videotape officers in the course of their duty.

"A lot of people say, you're just asking for trouble," he says. "But I'm just concerned about peace and justice, being a good journalist, and about police accountability. That's all."

I highlighted some words and phrases to analyze:

1: after he saw Reister hurrying to catch up with two men in the street,

"Hurrying to catch up" implies a distance reasonable people would not consider nearby.

2:Reister told Ragona, "We're being filmed," and Ragona responded, "I see that."

If they could talk about the filming, later claimed to be so close to make one of them uncomfortable, they could also have said, "please stand back sir; you're too close." According to Reister, Tabor would have heard them fine.

3:, and he told me I'd been standing too close and made him uncomfortable."

See # 2.

4:"The reasonable thing to do if someone is standing too close is to ask them to move back,

See # 2

5:"It was an unusual situation: "To have someone stand behind the officer


Who are you trying to fool, kid? It was a drug bust. A failed drug bust. The only unusual thing was one cop can't understand he's accountable to the public because he's working for the public.

Fact: Tabor was not near enough to interfere with the cops job. If he had been they would have told him immediately not later.

Fact: Reister misused his authority as an officer of the law by using it when no crime was being committed or considered by Tabor.

Fact: Sad excuses are being floated because Reister's superiors know this and are embarrassed.

Most cops are good hard working men and women. A few are jerks who have no business carrying a badge or gun. A few more are clueless about what the job means. The jerks and the clueless make most of the problems.

I'm going to say Reister is "under trained", a tactful way of saying clueless. If your actions can't stand up to public scrutiny while working for the public, being a public servant is not the gig for you.

Why Must They "cliche"?

Got no answers. Only questions.

What's the matter with "Goldilocks"? She's a smart cookie, got a good job, some debts, decent digs and most of her looks. So why does she want to risk throwing it all away to protect some bum?

It's the "stand by your criminal" cliche. It never ends well:

Portland FBI names 'Blonde Bandit' bank robbery suspect

05:43 PM PST on Tuesday, March 16, 2004

By ABE ESTIMADA, kgw.com Staff

The mysterious Portland area bank robber only known as the “Blonde Bandit” now has a name, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI has identified the bank robbery suspect as Denise Ruth Bender, 36, from Milwaukie, Ore. Calls from the public and a witness identified Bender as the woman who’s been allegedly sticking up Portland-Vancouver area banks for about a month, said Beth Anne Steele, a spokesperson for the Portland office of the FBI on Tuesday.

The FBI plans to charge Bender with bank robbery for allegedly holding up the Wells Fargo Bank branch at the Lloyd Center in Portland on March 1. Bender handed a Wells Fargo teller a note and fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.

The FBI said it believes Bender may be in the company of Richard Horan, also from Milwaukie. The FBI hasn’t identified Horan as a suspect in the bank robberies but said they want to speak to him.

He's gone. God knows where. And she's doing time. Bastard didn't even have the decency to come out of hiding and admit he was part of it.

They asked her to give him up. Repeatedly. The charges might have been reduced. But even after he didn't do squat to help her out of the jam he helped make, she wouldn't. She was "in love".


^Denise Ruth Bender

Is that your story, "Goldilocks"? You're in love? History isn't kind to women who hide their men then step in line to take the rap. And any guy who lets her is scum, pure and simple.

Got no idea if you're reading this. If you are, show us your smarts. Email me like you were asked. Or you might liable for everything he's done under your roof.



Richard Horan^


You're already an accessory. Don't make it worse when you can make it better.

"Goldilocks" is a person of interest who is "stone walling" like no one has since the "Great Wall of China" was built. A public appeal ain't likely to stop the construction, but maybe "Goldilocks" will prove me wrong.

When To Glock Or Not To Glock: The PI Question

Even if you aren't technically a PI (a private investigator is required to be licensed).

You may be the independent journalist, or lawyer's assistant. Or just curious about something that concerns the "public good"(other people might call you nosy). Whatever circumstances, there comes a time and case when the job or the story takes you to a place even cops fear to tread without a gun.

Never take the gun if you don't need it. Once in a while you'll be wrong, but 99% of the time you'll be right.

If you're wrong, retreat if you can. Better to come back prepared.




When you know you're entering a dangerous situation, one where people are known or are
strongly suspected of having committed murder, or another serious assault, always take your gun.
But, when it's no longer needed and the job is
finished, take it home and lock it up again. Always lock it up when it's not in use.









Your gun is not an ego accessory. It is a tool.
99% of the time you don't need it. If you
think you need it more than that, you need to reconsider how you're doing what you're going. Maybe this isn't the gig you're cut out for.

It's not the movies. Most information you get
will be from asking the right people polite questions.




And the most common job you'll be asked to
do is the cliche: shadowing a suspected unfaithful spouse. That doesn't require a gun...no matter what your client tries to tell you.


Wrote this after I came back from my first "field trip": that is, a job that was more than "polite questions". It was, thankfully, uneventful. I prefer "polite question" jobs.

We're all Anonymous on April 12th

I've never been into the protest gig. I'm more a sign the petition of season type of gal, shooting off the occasional postcard to my congress critter. But "Anonymous" has got me intrigued.

Scientology(or as they write it, $cientology) always looked like a scam of some kind. Even before Tom Cruise got assimilated. But the flyer I got this last weekend while shopping(or trying to shop; my favorite retro second hand store vanished when I wasn't looking), got me to thinking more about Scientology than I ever want to. (This is a different flyer from the one above. My scanner is broken)

Among the references listed:

www.whyaretheydead.net

Pretty bad. Whatever else anyone thinks its just not normal for any organization to have this many "accidents" and "suicides". Unfortunately this page was last updated July 2006 so it doesn't have the latest suspicious death: Shawn Lonsdale.

Shawn Lonsdale - Scientology smear flyers across Clearwater



Slandering a protester isn't very original, guys.

Anyway, Lonsdale was found dead on February 16th, 2008:

Critic of Scientology Shawn Lonsdale found dead

This article raises good points but makes my inner gumshoe cringe. Never speculate or go "over the top". Lines like "Did Scientologists have a hand in the death of Shawn Lonsdale?" make you look crazy. Instead focus on the facts that don't add up.

For starters, did Lonsdale look or act like anyone who might be suicidal? And, as the article points out, with so many known "persons of interest" and an obvious documented campaign to discredit him, why has this been ruled a suicide so quickly?

Back to the references. Google "Scientology costs".

Then Google "Scientology psychiatry". And I'm the first to admit psychiatry has it's own problems.

When your through with that, move on to these:

Scientology Slaves
Project Snow White
Scientology disconnect
Scientology south park

Many pieces make my inner journalist cringe too, but the facts paint a picture, however amateurishly, of an organization run like a criminal syndicate.

That's where I think "Anonymous" could use some help getting their message across. When you say a "cult" people nod their heads and move on, assuming someone is dealing with the crazy people. But the Scientologists have been good at re framing these problem as differences in belief. And when you say cult, even if it's true, there's still an idea somehow the victims were at fault; isn't it obvious it's a cult?

Not when they've registered themselves as a respectable corporation, it's not.

Bottom line? Most organizations, religious or otherwise, never have people connected to them dying under dubious circumstances. The only organizations that mimic this pattern are organized crime. Someone needs to tell "Anonymous" to go lighter on the "cult" rhetoric and call Scientology what it's acting like: a criminal syndicate.

Maybe I'll go and tell someone.
On April 12th.

Anonymously, of course.