| |
What have I found to be the unchanging objectives of the investigators and why? What sorts of charges have I discovered the agencies wish to bring against me? How do the Behavioral Science groups influence the objectives?
Over the years, due to observing a variety of set up attempts against me and especially since becoming acquainted with the various exemptions to FOIPA law, I have been able to deduce several of the investigators primary objectives.
First, if the FBI has employed a constitutional exemption in their decision to refuse the provision of requested documents, then the FBI is bound to legally justify the claiming of that exemption.
Furthermore, due to the hysteria generated by the constant rumor and slander operations, and due to the nature of such operations being questions of sexual deviance, very real interest has been manufactured within certain behavioral science groups associated with both federal and local law enforcement, creating sort of a sub-set, if you will of investigation objectives.
I discuss both, in detail, below.
As mentioned occasionally, the following claims are not based solely on hypothesis; I have learned much of this from direct discussion with others who are close to the investigation, generally persons from my long-term Houston social circles who have heard various bits via rumor or otherwise.
The investigations goal, regardless of any real wrong doing on my part, is to bring a charge against me involving computer crime and to issue a punishment that would limit or absolutely restrict my right to use computers or networked environments.
Professional castration, basically.
For the most part, this need on the part of the agencies to bring a charge against me, no matter my innocence or guilt, arises from purely political motivations and because so many persons in the Houston area have been, in a very matter of fact manner, been made to believe something about me that is simply not true; however, for reasons of reputation and resources involved, the agencies behind the investigation need such lies to absolutely appear true.
Suffice it to say, however, I know the agencies behind the investigation, as well as certain prosecutorial staff members here in Houston, literally, have it as an objective to bring a charge against me, necessarily, for some crime involving computers and/or the internet and preferably with a slant towards sexual deviance, if at all possible.
Following are the main reasons for why the investigators desire, absolutely, to bring a charge against me:
The investigation wishes to, absolutely, bring a charge against me: Because the FBI has already denied me provision of documents known by myself and others to exist; this would imply that the agency is either claiming one of the 9 constitutional exemptions it may employ at it's discretion or that the data associated with my case has simply not been made a part of the FOIPA records system; either situation, on the part of the FBI is perfectly legal.
On the other hand, if the agency is going to fall back on any given constitutional exemption to explain it's withholding of the data, and then it must legally prove that it had the right to do so. In legal terms, this is known as, 'Burden of Proof.'
The investigation wishes to, absolutely, bring a charge against me: Because the investigators have built a public perception of myself as someone suffering from a paranoid mental disorder and to provide the requested documents would effectively undo 5 or so years of good lying on their part.
In other words, if tomorrow I were provided the files for my case, then my parents and anyone else who had been deceived by the investigators into thinking I was simply paranoid schizophrenic would suddenly realize there is a lot more to what I've said and written over the past 5 years than they first thought, especially regarding some of the more nefarious tactics employed by the investigators such as covert druggings and planted evidence.
The investigation wishes to, absolutely, bring a charge against me: Because the social circles from my employment at the bank, and especially certain famous politicos who are rather close to my family, consider it a manner of their reputation that I be, at least somewhat, publicly exposed to be involved in the manner of behaviors that they have pushed on various communities over the past few years.
Said plainly, if certain very influential persons have spread rumors through the Houston communities that I am a porn freak and stalker, then by god they're going to do what is within their power to achieve an end that fulfills that image. Especially if it's certain persons who, as almost a rule, are accustomed to getting their way (ego)
Parallel to the plain legal objectives of the investigation, there exists also, a desire on the part of the behavioral sciences groups that have been involved, for an unrestricted mandate for psychological and even biological studies of my person and past behaviors.
Considering that the primary motivation for the investigation, according to the investigators, has been supposed behavior disorders such as sex addiction and otherwise questionable sexual behavior patterns, this is not surprising.
What is surprising, however, is the lengths the agencies have gone to in order to guarantee such access to my person.
Briefly, what I've found the goals of the behavioral sciences groups to be, are the following:
Court mandated psychotherapeutic studies, including practices such as hypnotherapy, regression therapy, "sex therapy," etc. Forced participation in any type of cognitive group therapy. Court mandated and/or forced medication A conclusion to the investigation that carries with it somehow, the impression that I suffer from memory loss so that a case for extensive investigation of past behaviors, all the way back through childhood, becomes more easily obtained.
For the record, some time ago I took the necessary legal steps (power of attorney, etc.) to guarantee that my immediate family could not make medical decisions for me; this was done as they have been convinced by their friends, who are in turn in direct contact with the investigation, that I am somehow paranoid schizophrenic or otherwise mentally disabled for believing their exists an investigation against me.
Furthermore, my parents are avid users of a variety of anti-depressant drugs and, I am sad to say, are quite convinced that most persons should be taking these drugs as well (Zoloft, Prozac, etc.); I, on the other hand, believe these drugs cause brain damage and are dangerous.
Finally, a few more words on the FBI, after denying me access to the requested data, having what's termed "the burden of proof."
Stated plainly, if a federal agency denies a citizen access to requested data regarding a current or past investigation, that agency must legally prove it had the right to withhold the data!
For this purpose, the FOIPA Act includes 9 exemptions via which any federal agency can deny a citizen access to investigation data. In the case of my investigation, the only real applicable exemption would be the one that states that an agency can deny data if the agency feels that provision of such data would prevent them from bringing charges against an individual.
If indeed this is the exemption being employed, then the FBI is legally bound to bring charges against me, simply to justify the withholding of data, whether I've committed a crime or not!
Generally, however, the agencies must cite an exemption when responding to any given FOIPA request; this has not been the case with my requests. I have simply received word from the agencies that no records have shown in response to their search.
Also, it should be noted that the FBI, (as stated ad nausem to me in their replies) is not obligated to keep investigation information as records in the FOIPA system; in other words, that, at their discretion, they can employ a 'do not file' policy on their record keeping insofar as inclusion of data in the FOIPA records database is concerned.
|
