Enter The WIld Fraud - as at 1 September 2016 by AJ Bains

[2 Sep 2016 – 7.20am]

AJWINDER SINGH BAINS

AND

“ENTER THE WILD” FRAUD ETC NBC UNIVERSAL INC WHICH COMMENCED OCTOBER 2013

A full copy of the report is available online: www.tinyurl.com/ajreportgoogle

CONTENTS PERPETRATORS

DETAILS OF THE FRAUD, THEFT, STALKING AND HARASSMENT ETC

EXECUTIVE SUMMMARY

“ENTER THE WILD” APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT BASED ON DECEIT AND FRAUD

SCHEDULE ONE LEGISLATION & CPS GUIDANCE (PAGES 16 TO 80)

LEGISLATION & CPS GUIDANCE CONTENTS PAGE

SCHEDULE TWO THE APPENDICES (PAGES NUMBERED A1 TO A185)

THE APPENDICES CONTENTS PAGE

VICTIM: AJWINDER SINGH BAINS OF 5 RESERVOIR ROAD, OLDBURY, B68 9QQ, UK.

PERPETRATORS: Perpetrators includes the companies named below and should be construed to include any current, past or future employees, their family and friends, contractors or associates or any sort, any agent, sub contractor or person having worked with the original organisation known as EJ Casting of 151 First Avenue, Suite 131 New York, NY, USA which claimed it was casting for “Enter The Wild” a show for NBC Universal’s Esquire TV, whether or not these details which were presented at the time were accurate, notwithstanding that those identifying themselves with these details may have deliberately mislead Ajwinder Bains and deliberately hidden their identities and provided inaccurate details - because of the fraud, theft, stalking, harassment etc the identities of the perpetrators is based on the information they gave, which you may not be able to rely on. The list below are those directly involved, have contributed or been complicit in the ordeal. The known identities of the perpetrators includes but is not limited to: NBC Universal Inc 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY - 10112 USA Comcast Corporation Comcast Center 1701 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 USA Radical Media LLC 435 Hudson St Fl 6. New York, NY 10014-3900. USA Pett, Franklin & Co. LLP Victoria House, 116 Colmore Row, Birmingham B3 3BD

Time Warner Inc. One Time Warner Center New York, NY 10019-8016 USA

British Broadcasting Corporation Television Centre, 101 Wood Lane, London W12 7FA UK Sandwell Council, PO Box 2374, OLDBURY B69 3DE. Birmingham City Council Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB Black Country Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Delta House, Greets Green Rd, West Bromwich B70 9PL News Corp 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

Vanquis Bank Vanquis Visa Card, Customer Services, PO Box 399, Chatham ME4 4WQ

Capital One LLC Capital One (Europe) plc, Trent House, Station Street, Nottingham, NG2 3HX

Lloyds Banking Group 25 Gresham Street London EC2V 7HN

Nick Johnson Hawthorne Avenue, Brigg North Lincolnshire DN20 8PF

Endemol Shine Group Amsterdam HQ MediArena 1, 1099 CZ, Amsterdam Netherlands

DETAILS OF THE FRAUD, THEFT, STALKING AND HARASSMENT ETC EXECUTIVE SUMMMARY This document references the course of fraud and harassment and de facto slavery/involuntary labour that Ajwinder Singh Bains (henceforth referred to as AJ) was subjected to, not everything is listed and this is a brief summary of the events since October 2013, it is traumatic to recount all the events so AJ avoids dwelling on them too much. The exact nature or format of the “show” is not known to AJ he can only refer to it simply by what he applied for and has been told nor does he know who exactly is doing it. 1.

AJ’s ordeal started in October 2013, he applied to a US company to appear on “Enter the Wild” by way of an advertisement in a RSS from Freakonomics (See schedule 2 Appendix 1 page A1 or visit website http://tinyurl.com/ajreportfreakonomics ).

It was described to AJ as a survival in the wilderness experience, set in Oregon USA. He was told it would be led by someone like Bear Grylls (although not him but “someone you know”). Unfortunately, this was a fraud, wilful concealment and deceit.

The interview process included a person believed to be Travis Eilerson (see schedule 2 Appendix 17 page A37) , who is now an associate producer at National Geographic, but was a production assistant at Radical Media LLC working on the project but at the time he was involved with my interview was at EJ Casting in New York.

The show did not exist. The company involved, according to what AJ was told is NBC (a cable channel called Esquire TV owned by NBC – henceforth known as “the production company”) although the identity of the production may be wholly inaccurate. AJ was interviewed twice for the show, once in October 2013 and then again in late October 2013.

The production company continues today, admitting that it is slavery (see Schedule 1 page Article II page 25, Article VI page 60 & Article XI page 80) during their communications with AJ but the UK authorities do not wish to stop this criminality. The harassment and psychological torture continues unabated despite the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Schedule 1 Article 1page 20, Article III page 34 and Article VIII page 65 which is a case where harassment is defined).

“ENTER THE WILD” APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT BASED ON DECEIT AND FRAUD 5.

AJ completed an application form, other documents and a “performance release” on that basis that he had applied to “Enter the Wild” a survival show in the USA based in the wilderness not any alternative and different show, involving his life, family, or the UK at all. AJ made the naïve mistake to trust those involved with the application process, and was the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation from the start see Schedule 2 Appendix 1 page A1.

The manner in which the production company operates is to subject AJ to the conditions of slavery/involuntary servitude as per US Code 18 (Schedule 1, Article XI, page 80), UK’ Human Rights Act (Schedule 1, Article II, page 25) and Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Schedule 1, Article VI, page 60). They also ignore the protection from Harassment ACT 1997 (see Schedule 1, Articles I page 20 and Article VIII page 65) and other laws.

The production company did not adhere to UK or USA contractual law, for example Asymmetry in parties’ knowledge (a) If the offeree knows or has reason to know of the offeror’s material mistake at the time of acceptance, the offeror is not bound. Difficulty arises when the offeror claims that the magnitude of the mistake was such that it should have been apparent from the face of the offer. Court always has to determine WHO has the burden of proof. Since there was an industry standard, burden of proof was on the buyer in Frigaliment case. Court must ask: was there any asymmetry in reasons why parties had different subjective meanings? Who had an easier job figuring out what the other party really meant? Which subjective meaning was more justified?

The agreement between AJ and the production company should be void due to an ambiguous contracts 8.1.1. A contract may be voided if it contains an ambiguous term which was, in fact, interpreted differently by the parties. 8.1.1.1. (a) Raffles v. Wichelhaus, Court of Exchequer, 1864. FACTS: Two parties to a cotton transaction disagreed as to the exact identity of a ship named in their contract. RULE: Yes. Raffles and Wichelhaus did not make it clear that the Peerless was a particular ship sailing on a particular date. When it turned out that there were actually two different ships named Peerless, a latent ambiguity was exposed in the contract. In that event, the court can hear parol evidence in order to establish that there was an actual subjective disagreement between the parties. Since there was no consensus, there is no contract! Since there is no contract, Raffles has no right to sue for its breach.

AJ has not been allowed to seek civil remedy to void the contract, despite legal protections afforded under the existing legislation to end an illegal agreement legitimately. RS 376: remedy for duress/concealment/misrepresentation/mistake = restitution. A party who has avoided a contract on the ground of lack of capacity, mistake, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence or abuse of a fiduciary relation is entitled to restitution of any benefit that he has conferred on the other party by way of part performance or reliance. Unconscionability only leads contract not to be enforced. 10. AJ has been subjected to de facto slavery/involuntary servitude on the grounds of gross misrepresentation by the production company (18 U.S. Code Chapter 77 - Forced Labor Chapter 77 Code

1589, 1593, 1596 & 159 see schedule 1 Appendix XI page 80 and Modern Slavery Act 2015 see schedule 1 Appendix VI page 60). 11. USA contractual law covers misrepresentation and AJ believes that his case falls within the definition 11.1. a) Misrepresentation i) RS 164: If a party’s manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable. Unintentionally false statements can void the contract, but in that case the misstatement must concern a material fact, and the plaintiff’s reliance on the misstatement must have been justifiable/reasonable. (1) Misrepresentation of opinion or legal conclusion are not actionable. (a) However, false statements of opinion by experts with superior knowledge may be actionable as misrepresentations. (i) Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc., District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2nd District, 1968. FACTS: After a dance instructor induced a widow to buy numerous dance lessons b overpraising her skill, she sued for misrepresentation. RULE: False statements of opinion by experts with superior knowledge are actionable as misrepresentations. Generally, misrepresentations must be factual rather than opinion to be actionable. But this rule is inapplicable when a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, or where the representor employed some artifice or trick, or were the parties do not deal at “arm’s length,” or where the victim lacks equal opportunity to learn of the represented facts’ truth/falsity. Statements by parties having superior knowledge may be regarded as statements of fact, even though they would be considered opinions coming from non-experts. ii)

Remedy: Parties may rescind a contract induced by false statements of

material fact. 12. Under USA common law: A contract is unenforceable if its terms, considered in light of the circumstances existing when the contract was made, are so extreme as to appear unconscionable according to prevailing more and business practices. Unconscionability has generally been considered as including the absence of meaningful choice for one party combined with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Lack of meaningful choice may depend on several factors, including the manner in which the contract was entered, or the disparity of bargaining power. AJ was denied any meaningful choice, the contract was entered into on the basis of fraud by the production company with an obvious disparity of bargaining power. 12.1. (1) Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1965. FACTS: Walker Thomas Furniture Company sold a stereo to Williams with a dragnet clause providing that default on one item bought from Walker allowed repossession of all items. RULE: A contract is unenforceable if its terms, when considered in light of the circumstances existing when the contract was made, are so extreme as to appear unconscionable according to prevailing mores and business practices. UCC approach: court may refuse to enforce a contract which it finds to be unconscionable at the time it was made.

12.2. iii) Need to balance doctrine of unconscionability with freedom of contract: The reasons invoked for not enforcing contracts are one of two sorts: either there must be proof of some defect in the process of contract formation (duress, fraud or undue influence), or there must be – within narrow limits – some incompetence of the party against whom the agreement is to be enforced. The doctrine of unconscionability is important in both these respects because it can, if wisely applied, allow the courts to police these two types of problems and thereby improve the general administration of contract law. Yet when the doctrine of unconscionability is used in its substantive dimension, it serves only to undercut the private right of contract in a manner that is apt to do more social harm than good. Epstein: “If there is one thing which more than another public policy requires, it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of

contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by Courts of justice.” 13. Courts in the USA can refuse to enforce an agreement because it would offend “Public Policy” and because AJ has been subjected to harassment, psychological abuse and criminal behaviour (see schedule 1, Article 1 page 75) it can be considered that any agreement between AJ and the production company should not be enforced on grounds of “Public Policy” ie not to commission of criminal acts. 13.1. i) Courts will occasionally refuse to enforce an agreement which was negotiated fairly because it would offend “public policy” by creating undesirable results and turn to legislation related to the subject of the agreement to derive the exact public policy that the contract allegedly offends. 13.2. ii) RS 178: If a contract violates a criminal code or related legislation, it is unenforceable, and parties cannot sue for restitution. 13.3. iii) Clean hands: Courts asked to award equitable remedies (rescission, specific performance) may refuse if the contract or parties are involved with illegality/immorality, on the maxim “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.”

14. US Contractual law also has a The Requirement of Definiteness, AJ believe the production company fell short of this: 14.1.

The terms of a contract must be sufficiently definite in order to be enforced.

14.2. (1) RS 33: The terms of a contract are reasonably certain (definite) if they provide a basis for determining the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy. 14.3. (a) However, if terms are ambiguous and there is a genuine and reasonable misunderstanding of the parties as to their meaning, there is no assent or enforceable contract. 14.4.

(i)

RS 20: Effect of misunderstanding

14.5. 1. There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attaché materially different meanings to their manifestations and 14.6.

Neither party knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other;

14.7. the other.

Each party knows or each party has reason to know the meaning attached by

14.8. ii) Courts look at the parties’ preliminary negotiations and prior communications, governmental regulations, trade usages, and the parties’ course of dealing and performance to determine whether the indefiniteness can be cured. 14.9. (1) Terms such as “reasonable efforts” and “good faith” are regarded as sufficiently definite if their content can be determined by reference to some external standard. 14.10. iv) A party who has performed under an agreement that is unenforceable for indefiniteness is entitled to restitution. (1) Pyeatte v. Pyeatte: Court refused to enforce the husband’s promise to put his wife 14.11. through a master’s degree program, finding the agreement too indefinite as to “the time when she would go to grad school, the school she would attend and the cost of the program.” However, while the agreement failed to meet the requirements of an enforceable contract, it still has importance in considering the wife’s claim for unjust enrichment because it both evidences her expectation of compensation and the circumstances which make it unjust to allow her husband to retain the benefits of her extraordinary efforts.

15. In this case there was deliberate and conscious Concealment which makes the contract unforceable. AJ believes there was deliberate concealment because he applied for a wilderness adventure show not a Truman Show style, Big Brother show set in his own home. US legislation in New York is set out below with regards to concealment. 15.1. ii) law requires a party to disclose the truth when it knows the other party is contracting based on a false assumption, especially when selling homes. 15.2.

(1) RS 161 requires disclosure:

15.3.

(a) To prevent misunderstanding of previous assertion,

15.4. (b) To correct mistakes about basic assumptions of deal, “to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing.” 15.5.

15.6. (d) When a relationship of trust and confidence means the mistaken party reasonably expects disclosure. 16.

AJ believes there was an automatic relationship of trust and confidence which was abused by the production company, they deliberately concealed the true nature of their endeavour.

17.

During the application AJ was told notified the production was likely to start soon and amongst other things, that his expenses would be covered, asked whether he would agree to an implant (which he was told would be something like GPS etc), asked a series of questions, that they would intercept communications, isolate him from the outside world, asked whether he agreed to their physicians assuming responsibilities for his health and told that they were to utilise new technology and formats for the production. AJ agreed on the assumption that before it commenced he would be aware of all

the circumstances involved. They were aware this was AJ’s understanding. It would be perverse to believe that anyone could invade someone’s life on false pretences. To hack a person’s private communications, computers and telephone is clearly unlawful in the UK however that company concerned seems to be above the law. 18.

The ability to proceed would be a conscious and deliberate choice. AJ knew that his mail could be intercepted because it had happened before – see schedule 2 Appendix 11 page A26. AJ also sent many letter which do not seem to have arrived at their destinations, this includes to his financial companies – a copy of the letter sent that did not arrive are included in Schedule 2 Appendix 13 page A28.

19.

AJ thought that he would be able to seek legal advice be formal contracts were signed. He was told in the 2nd interview that there would be a small alteration in the show’s format, again AJ relied on the honest and integrity of those involved and agreed because a relationship of trust and confidence had been established. They mentioned that the location had been changed slightly, there was no indication that it had been changed from USA Oregon to UK. The name of the show is not “Enter The Wild” either and the fully details have been deliberately withheld from AJ. These are material factors, the truth of which must be fully disclosed to form a legally binding agreement. Under US contract law, they were under a duty to fully disclose the nature of the change of format, the nature of any implant (as AJ did enquire to its nature and the truth was deliberately concealed), the change of location. The Production Company deliberately concealed the details, this act would make any agreement with them unenforceable including any liability waiver including the “Performance Release” because it was obtained on a fraudulent and deceitful basis with deliberate and wilful concealment. The Production Company was under a duty to correct mistakes about basic assumptions of deal, “to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing” they clearly neglected this duty.

20.

There has traditionally been impunity for US Media companies when it comes to Reality Shows, they have often resulted in deaths. The companies have acted in a criminal manner and are expert at hiding the evidence. AJ was under the belief that such actions could never happen in the UK, and that even in the US that a company could not fraudulent induce someone into entering into a contract that could result in such foreseeable, unconscionable, perverse and criminal results. It is clear to a reasonable person that any such agreement would violate criminal legislation because it could not be performed without performing criminal acts. That Human Rights laws in the UK (Schedule 1, Article 11, page 25) and Civil Rights in the USA are specifically designed to prevent such arrangements succeeding and protect individuals subjected to such abuse by well funded, more powerful large organisations.

21.

The conduct of the Production Company in and of itself would make any agreement, and waiver, obtained by way of fraud and deceit, invalid. Any forced performance under the agreements would be unconscionable because AJ has no alternative and is forced to perform services (continue to be part of the “Reality Show”). This is against both UK and USA public policy as in both jurisdictions Forced Labour and Torture are criminal acts unlawful under statutory provisions.

22.

Unfortunately, the production team involved lied, fraudulently misrepresented and manipulated AJ. These actions are of such severity that their fraud and deceit is not a civil matter, it is clearly criminal. The course of action going on for since October 2013 amounts to criminal behaviour and it includes physical abuse, psychological torture, threats of death and violence to force AJ to continue, forced labour (slavery) and it is unconscionable that it has been allowed to proceed. Even today AJ is told by 10

them on a regular basis that they shall never let him go, that he will have to kill himself, that they are in control and it will not end because he wants it to. They tell him he has no way escape, that there is nothing he can do. He has told them a number of times that he would rather kill himself rather than continue to be their slave/under the circumstances of forced labour. They continue the abuse all day long, for every waking hour. The Production Company subject him to verbal abuse from the moment he wakes up, this can only amount to torture which is outlawed by criminal legislation, there is no exemption from such legislation for media companies. 23.

The Production Company has been grossly negligent, has deliberately pursued a course of conduct and behaviour with foreseeable results. The Production Company is clearly aware that AJ’s circumstances as sufficiently distressing, the psychological torture unbearable, that he has attempted suicide a number of times. It is shocking and clearly illegal, immoral and unethical that they continue the same behaviour. It is unbelievable that such conduct is possible in the modern era.

24.

AJ was aware that there are stringent law within the UK to prevent such criminal action, including but not limited to the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 see Schedule 1, page 20. There are laws against stalking, harassment and torture, against hacking or accessing the personal accounts of individuals, legislation that protect privacy see schedule 1, Article 2, page 25. Although the company involved asked AJ for access to his accounts and he deliberately only gave them access to account which contained little or no personal information – he protected (or so he thought) his main accounts. They also asked for access to his smartphone and he agreed on believing that he had password locked his phone, not given them the details and that the information therein would not be accessed in a criminal manner and without his full knowledge.

25.

What commenced was utterly unbelievable and beyond the bounds of probability. However, recently AJ received independent and reliable confirmation that this has not been a figment of his imagination in a response from Irwin Mitchell notifying him of a conflict of interest, which necessarily means that there is an organisation, and although he is not fully aware of the format and who it is (he assumed it was a reality show because that is what he applied for), it does exist – see schedule 2, Appendix 5, page A19. The Production Company have deliberately tried to prevent AJ seeking legal redress, they have attempted to deceive AJ and make him believe it is a mental disorder, this has included the collusion of corrupt public officials in the UK, including and not limited to members of the West Midlands Police, NHS, Sandwell Council and other organisations and people listed in the Perpetrators section of this report.

26.

The company involved, to the best of AJ’s knowledge (based on the limited information he has been able to access) and without AJ’s knowledge or express permission, started documenting and influencing his life. It even sought permission from his employer, Pett, Franklin & Co. LLP who questioned AJ whether he ever wanted to be on the reality show “Big Brother” to which he replied the thought had crossed his mind when he was younger but he would not want to do it now.

27.

The entire ordeal started without AJ’s knowledge, but he did notice changes in the behaviours of those around him. The entire situation has been structured so that AJ has never been able to find out exactly what it is, he bases much of his assumptions on the information given in the verbal harassment/torture he is subjected to from the moment he wakes up to the moment he falls asleep. Those abusing AJ often say it is a reality show, then at other times deny that it is.

28.

Without wanting to go into too much detail, or documenting fully the events from October 2013 to 2015, those involved destroyed AJ’s life, violated his privacy, harassed him subjected him to psychological torture (see Schedule 2, Appendix 2 page A5 and Appendix 31, page A122), defrauded him, and destroyed his life in pursuit of entertainment. A short summary, although not comprehensive in nature, describes some of the horrific, illegal and unrelenting abuse AJ was subjected to.

29.

AJ was not aware that they had commenced but initially he was horrified work colleagues seemed to know about aspects of his private life that he had never discussed with them, including during the vacation he had from his work around 13 November 2013.

30.

AJ’s privacy was violated, and when he returned to work his employer started using information provided by covert surveillance by the production company against him. This eventually resulted in AJ’s private communications about his manager being reported to this manager William Franklin. His manager used this information to start persecuting AJ, this included withholding work, withdrawing duties, and constructing dismissal.

31.

The systematic abuse AJ suffered invaded not only his work life but unknown to AJ it invaded his entire personal life. AJ noticed the persecution, particularly from his manager and eventually reacted, although his reaction was not the way he usually reacted it was not extremely unusual. It included interactions with those around him that became judgemental and distant, he lost personal and private relationships, he noticed small changes and influences in his life and although the changes were incremental and insignificant individually they made his life more difficult, frustrated his daily routines and relationships, invaded his private life and interfered with his private property – eventually these incremental and small changes started to have a major impact on his life, entirely uprooting his stability and destroying his security, self-worth, dignity and ability to function or enjoy normal life.

32.

AJ was made to believe it was the neighbours whom he had complained about previously (details of the officer to whom the complaint was made is listed in schedule 2, Appendix 12, page A27), but he tried to contact West Midlands Police, the Police and Crime Commissioner in West Midlands (see schedule 2, Appendix 3, page A17).

33.

Eventually, this resulted in AJ losing his job because of the relentless abuse he suffered although he was able to agree, after much discussion and contracting an employment lawyer Rakesh Patel (SRA number 157365)of Thompsons Solicitors LLP (a UK law firm regulated under id 556695). Unknown to AJ, his legal advice was not impartial and independent - his solicitor did not act in his best interest and did not divulge material facts to AJ. AJ was denied fit and proper representation, his legal adviser helped deny proper recourse to legal redress which resulted in AJ being manipulated and deprived of his rights in a criminal manner.

34.

Following this, the production company manipulated the circumstances of AJ’s life, increasing subjecting him to abuse and intolerable conditions which included physical and psychological abuse. They systematically defrauded him.

35.

This included West Midlands Police allowing them to use Piddock Road police station (schedule 2, appendix 14, page A29) to abuse AJ, this included a former acquaintance of AJ’s whom he met some

years earlier, he was a nurse who AJ distinctly remembers because of his bulbous head and the fact that he had trained at Birmingham University, AJ remembers him because he was not aware that the University of Birmingham (based in Edgbaston - the red brick university) had a nursing school. West Midlands police allowed this fake police officer to strip search and humiliate AJ, making him lose trust in the police and believe they were fully complicit and actually played an active role in this criminal campaign. This, AJ believes, happened on 6 September 2014 (see Schedule 2, Appendix 14, page A29). 36.

The fraud included the participation of his financial services providers, this included Capital One and Vanquis Bank credit cards, who chose to promote their product rather than notify a customer who was clearly being harassed and defrauded, subject to horrific criminal abuse of the circumstances which is their legal and statutory duty. Whereas, when the fraud continued with MBNA, they notified AJ of suspicious circumstances immediately.

37.

The fraud including a defrauding AJ of £5,000 (see schedule 2, Appendix 16, page A32) which he reported both to the credit card company (MBNA) and the police, but the police refused to initially act against the fraudster Nick Johnson until I was contacted by Humberside Police – see schedule 2, Appendix 9, page A24. In Schedule 2, Appendix 15, page A30, there is another email to Humberside Police and schedule 2, Appendix 16, page A32 is a copy of AJ’s credit card invoice with the fraudulent transactions highlighted. They stalked and harassed him to his work places, causing him to lose his means of employment. They hijacked his online financial accounts, manipulated his circumstances and criminally hijacked his finances.

38.

They used AJ’s family, friends and acquaintances to make his life intolerable, this extended to everyone around him and the area where he lived. AJ attempted to establish his own business, but was obstructed in each of his endeavours, this included hacking him home computer, monitoring and intercepting communications – this included his mobile phone and postal communications. AJ was denied basic services that would allow him to establish his own company, denied the ability to get another job. This was all done covertly and he did not suspect, but it resulted in AJ being isolated, every means of communication AJ had was usurped and he was closely monitored and isolated.

39.

The systematic and vindictive psychological abuse was carefully planned and amounts to torture. The system the production company devised to torture AJ was not dissimilar to the Salim v. Mitchell torture case currently being pursued by the American Civil Liberties Union in the US courts but was more sustained and transgressed any notion of legality whether within the UK or under international law. This included daily verbal abuse which easily amounts to a violation of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and malicious communications. Some of the abuse is recorded on twitter if you search “@3xt1 #NoCommentEvidence” and selected tweets in schedule 2, Appendix 2, page A5.

40.

This eventually a downwards spiral for AJ, his demeanour completely changed, he was systematically deprived of sleep, made to feel isolated and amounted to starting to drink alcohol to get small reprieves. He pursued personal relations, the circumstances of which were manipulated by the production company and included physical abuse. It even drove him to suicide including on the day after the May election in 2015 (see schedule 2, Appendix 4, page A18).

41.

The production later arbitrarily detained AJ at a building, depriving of his liberty. On this occasion it was done because he attempted to contact the authorities, this included the police, the UK Home Office and police. However, because AJ communications were controlled he was not able to establish contact. The production company kept him isolated and removed his phone so he was unable to 13

contact the outside world. This was a punishment and to disobey their authority, despite there being no legal basis for such authority. 42.

The harassment and persecution by the production company grounds including race, religion and because AJ is a libertarian. The authorities in the UK were unable/unwilling to protect AJ despite continuous attempts by AJ requesting them to investigate the concerns he raised and register his complaints about harassment and torture.

43.

Following this the production company kept him isolated and unable to earn a living. His physical safety was endangered on numerous occasions, this included physical attacks and torture. AJ was able to eventually contact the police and the UK Prime Minister’s office (see schedule 2, appendix 8, page A23), however the police refused to take his complaint, with an inspector at West Midlands Police refusing to accept his complaint. AJ complained to both the Police Crime Commissioner for West Midlands, who referred the matter to West Midlands Police who again refused to act or respond to the complaint.

44.

The ordeal, and particularly the non-stop torture, has left AJ with a permanent ringing in his ears and severe pain at times. AJ has tried moving to other parts of the UK including Scotland and London, however he was unable to escape the continuous harassment and torture. The production company has threatened AJ’s life a number of times, subjected him to physical and psychological abuse. AJ believes there is a realistic danger to his personal safety and life if he remains in the UK.

45.

Given that the authorities refused to act, and the nature of the harassment and torture being torture, vindictive, malicious and sustained AJ is left with to alternative than to seek the protection against harassment with an order, he is persecuted on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation and political opinion and has been subjected to degrading and humiliating circumstances including psychological torture, even feels that he cannot remain in the UK because of the immediate threat to his wellbeing and life. AJ has even tried to contact the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the matter was referred back to West Midlands Police.

46.

AJ has tried to contact his MP John Spellar (see schedule 2, Appendix 7, page A22) and even David Cameron (see schedule 2, appendix 8, page A23). He has tried to contact Sandwell Council who utterly failed in their duty of care and decided to join in on the harassment (see schedule 2, Appendix 10, page A25).

47.

They continuously harass AJ, he is subject to non-stop verbal abuse from the moment wakes up to the time he goes to sleep. He has asked them to stop many times but they refuse and simply carry on. Their verbal abuse is occasionally just normal chat but it often descends into malicious language and psychologically disturbing abuse which can go on for hours.

48.

I have been led to believe that it is broadcast 24/7 and it has disturbed me that no one has acted against clearly criminal actions.

49.

I am also lead to believe there are some sort of implants, I am subjected to constant verbal abuse and they seem to be aware of things I say to myself, as it there were implants in my ears and in my throat. They can often subject me to a high pitch audio “screeching” without those around me being aware that it is happening, the types of noise I am subjected to are not dissimilar to the high pitch 14

“mosquito” alarm used to keep youngsters away from railway stations etc (http://tinyurl.com/ajreportsiren). They use it to harass me, they prevent me from sleeping, depriving me of sleep, they have successfully made my life intolerable hence the reason I have tried to commit suicide a number of times. I cannot explain how this is possible, is seems utter nonsense, but having endured it for so long this is the only way that I explain it. They are able to communicate with me this way at home or wherever I go, this included London, Scotland and Iceland. I keep a record of this sometimes (not every occasion, far from it, only on rare occasions do I record it on Twitter search “@3xt1 #NoCommentEvidence” on twitter to see the record and select tweets in schedule 2, Appendix 2, page A5. They have stalked me since October 2013, they followed me to London, to Scotland and even to Iceland. I do not seem to be able to get away from them not even if I go abroad. The Harassment and stalking is horrific and despite trying to raise this with West Midlands Police a number of times, nothing seems to be done. I have tried to record some of the abuse, although it is a tiny fraction of what I am subjected to, on twitter, my twitter handle is @3xt1 and I have recorded the recent abuse under #NoCommentEvidence. Search “@3xt1 #NoCommentEvidence” on twitter to see it. As previously mentioned my email is insecure and I would prefer correspondence by post.

A Bains

A full copy of the report (including both Schedules) is available online: www.tinyurl.com/ajreportgoogle

Schedule One Legislation & CPS guidance

LEGISLATION & CPS GUIDANCE CONTENTS PAGE

ARTICLE

SUBJECT

PAGE

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Human Rights Act 1998

III

Crown Prosecution Service guidance on stalking and harassment

Fraud Act 2006

Bribery Act 2010

Modern Slavery Act 2015

VII

Criminal Justice Act 1988

VIII

Harassment Case Iqbal Solicitors

Manson

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or degrading Treatment or Punishment

Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57

18 U.S. Code Chapter 77 - Forced Labor Chapter 77 Code 1589, 1593, 1596 & 1595

and

Dean

ARTICLE I PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997

Relevant provisions (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents)

1 PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT. (1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct— (a)which amounts to harassment of another, and (b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

[F1(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct — (a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and (b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and (c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)— (i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.] (2)For the purposes of this section [F2or section 2A(2)(c)], the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [F3 or involves] harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. (3)Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows— (a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

2A OFFENCE OF STALKING (1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)the person pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1(1), and (b)the course of conduct amounts to stalking. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) (and section 4A(1)(a)) a person's course of conduct amounts to stalking of another person if— (a)it amounts to harassment of that person, (b)the acts or omissions involved are ones associated with stalking, and

(c)the person whose course of conduct it is knows or ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment of the other person. (3)The following are examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking— (a)following a person, (b)contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means, (c)publishing any statement or other material— (i)relating or purporting to relate to a person, or (ii)purporting to originate from a person, (d)monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, (e)loitering in any place (whether public or private), (f)interfering with any property in the possession of a person, (g)watching or spying on a person. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. (5)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (4) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to six months. (6)This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 2.]

2B POWER OF ENTRY IN RELATION TO OFFENCE OF STALKING (1)A justice of the peace may, on an application by a constable, issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search premises if the justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that— (a)an offence under section 2A has been, or is being, committed, (b)there is material on the premises which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of the offence, (c)the material— (i)is likely to be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence, and (ii)does not consist of, or include, items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material (within the meanings given by sections 10, 11 and 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), and (d)either— (i)entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced, or (ii)the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises can secure immediate entry to them. (2)A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1). (3)A constable may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by virtue of this section. (4)In this section “premises” has the same meaning as in section 23 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.]

3A INJUNCTIONS TO PROTECT PERSONS FROM HARASSMENT WITHIN SECTION 1(1A)

(1)This section applies where there is an actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1A) by any person (“ the relevant person”). (2)In such a case— (a)any person who is or may be a victim of the course of conduct in question, or (b)any person who is or may be a person falling within section 1(1A)(c), may apply to the High Court or [F2the county court] for an injunction restraining the relevant person from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment in relation to any person or persons mentioned or described in the injunction. (3)Section 3(3) to (9) apply in relation to an injunction granted under subsection (2) above as they apply in relation to an injunction granted as mentioned in section 3(3)(a).]

4 PUTTING PEOPLE IN FEAR OF VIOLENCE. (1)A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions. (2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion. (3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that— (a)his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b)his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c)the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another’s property. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. (5)If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2 [F1or 2A]. (6)The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 [F2or 2A] as a magistrates’ court would have on convicting him of the offence.

4 ASTALKING INVOLVING FEAR OF VIOLENCE OR SERIOUS ALARM OR DISTRESS (1)A person (“A”) whose course of conduct— (a)amounts to stalking, and (b)either— (i)causes another (“B”) to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or (ii)causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities,

is guilty of an offence if A knows or ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B so to fear on each of those occasions or (as the case may be) will cause such alarm or distress. (2)For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B to fear that violence will be used against B on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B so to fear on that occasion. (3)For the purposes of this section A ought to know that A's course of conduct will cause B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B's usual day-to-day activities if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause B such alarm or distress. (4)It is a defence for A to show that— (a)A's course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b)A's course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c)the pursuit of A's course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of A or another or for the protection of A's or another's property. (5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. (6)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (5)(b) to twelve months is to be read as a reference to six months. (7)If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of an offence under section 2 or 2A. (8)The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (7) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 or 2A as a magistrates' court would have on convicting the person of the offence. (9)This section is without prejudice to the generality of section 4.]

7 INTERPRETATION OF THIS GROUP OF SECTIONS. (1)This section applies for the interpretation of sections [F1sections 1 to 5A]. (2)References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

[F2(3)A “course of conduct” must involve— (a)in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or (b)in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons.

[F3(3A)A person’s conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another— (a)to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b)to be conduct in relation to which the other’s knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.] (4)“Conduct” includes speech.

[F4(5)References

to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an

individual.]

8 HARASSMENT. (1)Every individual has a right to be free from harassment and, accordingly, a person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and— (a)is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or (b)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.

[F1(1A)Subsection (1) is subject to section 8A.] (2)An actual or apprehended breach of subsection (1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question; and any such claim shall be known as an action of harassment. (3)For the purposes of this section— “conduct” includes speech; “harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions. (4)It shall be a defence to any action of harassment to show that the course of conduct complained of— (a)was authorised by, under or by virtue of any enactment or rule of law; (b)was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or (c)was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5)In an action of harassment the court may, without prejudice to any other remedies which it may grant— (a)award damages; (b)grant— (i)interdict or interim interdict; (ii)if it is satisfied that it is appropriate for it to do so in order to protect the person from further harassment, an order, to be known as a “non-harassment order”, requiring the defender to refrain from such conduct in relation to the pursuer as may be specified in the order for such period (which includes an indeterminate period) as may be so specified, but a person may not be subjected to the same prohibitions in an interdict or interim interdict and a non-harassment order at the same time. (6)The damages which may be awarded in an action of harassment include damages for any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from it. (7)Without prejudice to any right to seek review of any interlocutor, a person against whom a non-harassment order has been made, or the person for whose protection the order was made, may apply to the court by which the order was made for revocation of or a variation of the order and, on any such application, the court may revoke the order or vary it in such manner as it considers appropriate. F2(8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ARTICLE II HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

Relevant Provisions (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents)

1THE CONVENTION RIGHTS. (1)In this Act “the Convention rights” means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in— (a)Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, (b)Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and (c)[Article 1 of the Thirteenth Protocol], as read with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention. (2)Those Articles are to have effect for the purposes of this Act subject to any designated derogation or reservation (as to which see sections 14 and 15). (3)The Articles are set out in Schedule 1. (4)The [Secretary of State] may by order make such amendments to this Act as he considers appropriate to reflect the effect, in relation to the United Kingdom, of a protocol. (5)In subsection (4) “protocol” means a protocol to the Convention— (a)which the United Kingdom has ratified; or (b)which the United Kingdom has signed with a view to ratification. (6)No amendment may be made by an order under subsection (4) so as to come into force before the protocol concerned is in force in relation to the United Kingdom.

2 INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS. (1)A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any— (a)judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, (b)opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention, (c)decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or (d)decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention, whenever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen.

(2)Evidence of any judgment, decision, declaration or opinion of which account may have to be taken under this section is to be given in proceedings before any court or tribunal in such manner as may be provided by rules. (3)In this section “rules” means rules of court or, in the case of proceedings before a tribunal, rules made for the purposes of this section— (a)by F1. . . [the Lord Chancellor or] the Secretary of State, in relation to any proceedings outside Scotland; (b)by the Secretary of State, in relation to proceedings in Scotland; or (c)by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland— (i)which deals with transferred matters; and (ii)for which no rules made under paragraph (a) are in force.

6 ACTS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. (1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. (2)Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if— (a)as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or (b)in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions. (3)In this section “public authority” includes— (a)a court or tribunal, and (b)any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. (4)F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private. (6)“An act” includes a failure to act but does not include a failure to— (a)introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or (b)make any primary legislation or remedial order.

7 PROCEEDINGS. (1)A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may— (a)bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or (b)rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings, but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act. (2)In subsection (1)(a) “appropriate court or tribunal” means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and proceedings against an authority include a counterclaim or similar proceeding.

(3)If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have a sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act. (4)If the proceedings are made by way of a petition for judicial review in Scotland, the applicant shall be taken to have title and interest to sue in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act. (5)Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of— (a)the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or (b)such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question. (6)In subsection (1)(b) “legal proceedings” includes— (a)proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and (b)an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal. (7)For the purposes of this section, a person is a victim of an unlawful act only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act. (8)Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence. (9)In this section “rules” means— (a)in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal outside Scotland, rules made by F1. . . [F2the Lord Chancellor or] the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section or rules of court, (b)in relation to proceedings before a court or tribunal in Scotland, rules made by the Secretary of State for those purposes, (c)in relation to proceedings before a tribunal in Northern Ireland— (i)which deals with transferred matters; and (ii)for which no rules made under paragraph (a) are in force, rules made by a Northern Ireland department for those purposes, and includes provision made by order under section 1 of the M1Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. (10)In making rules, regard must be had to section 9. (11)The Minister who has power to make rules in relation to a particular tribunal may, to the extent he considers it necessary to ensure that the tribunal can provide an appropriate remedy in relation to an act (or proposed act) of a public authority which is (or would be) unlawful as a result of section 6(1), by order add to— (a)the relief or remedies which the tribunal may grant; or (b)the grounds on which it may grant any of them. (12)An order made under subsection (11) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (13)“The Minister” includes the Northern Ireland department concerned.

11 SAFEGUARD FOR EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS. A person’s reliance on a Convention right does not restrict— (a)any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom; or (b)his right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which he could make or bring apart from sections 7 to 9.

12 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. (1)This section applies if a court is considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression. (2)If the person against whom the application for relief is made (“the respondent”) is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied— (a)that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or (b)that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified. (3)No such relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. (4)The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to— (a)the extent to which— (i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or (ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; (b)any relevant privacy code. (5)In this section— “court” includes a tribunal; and “relief” includes any remedy or order (other than in criminal proceedings).

13 FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION. (1)If a court’s determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right. (2)In this section “court” includes a tribunal.

SCHEDULE 1 THE ARTICLES PART I THE CONVENTION RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS A RTICLE 2 R IGHT TO LIFE 1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

A RTICLE 3 P ROHIBITION OF TORTURE No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

A RTICLE 4 P ROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR 1No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3For the purpose of this Article the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;forced or compulsory labourâ&#x20AC;? shall not include: (a)any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention; (b)any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; (c)any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; (d)any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

A RTICLE 5 R IGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY 1Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a)the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b)the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c)the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d)the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e)the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants; (f)the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. 2Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. 3Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 4Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

A RTICLE 6 R IGHT TO A FAIR

TRIAL

1In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. 2Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a)to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b)to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c)to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d)to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e)to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

A RTICLE 7 N O PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW 1No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.

A RTICLE 8 R IGHT TO RESPECT FOR

PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

A RTICLE 9 F REEDOM OF THOUGHT , CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION 1Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2Freedom to manifest oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

A RTICLE 10 F REEDOM OF EXPRESSION 1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

A RTICLE 11 F REEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION 1Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

A RTICLE 12 R IGHT TO MARRY Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

A RTICLE 14 P ROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

A RTICLE 16 R ESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF ALIENS Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

A RTICLE 17 P ROHIBITION OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

A RTICLE 18 L IMITATION ON USE OF RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHTS The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

PART II THE FIRST PROTOCOL A RTICLE 1 P ROTECTION OF PROPERTY Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

A RTICLE 2 R IGHT TO EDUCATION No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

A RTICLE 3 R IGHT TO FREE ELECTIONS The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

Amendments (Textual) F1Sch. 1 Pt. 3 substituted (22.6.2004) by The Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1574), art. 2(3)

The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.]

PART III THE SIXTH PROTOCOL A RTICLE 1 A BOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

A RTICLE 2 15

D EATH PENALTY IN TIME

OF WAR

ARTICLE III CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE GUIDANCE ON STALKING AND HARASSMENT

Relevant provisions (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/)

INTRODUCTION This legal guidance addresses behaviour which is repeated and unwanted by the victim and which causes the victim alarm or distress. Cases involving stalking and harassment can be difficult to prosecute, and because of their nature are likely to require sensitive handling, especially with regard to victim care. The provision of accurate and up-to-date information to the victim throughout the life of the case, together with quality support and careful consideration of any special measures requirements are essential factors for the CPS to consider. It is important that the CPS work closely with the police and other agencies to ensure that the best evidence is gathered and presented to the court, to this end prosecutors should be aware of the Protocol on the appropriate handling of stalking offences between the Crown Prosecution Service & ACPO. A strong, coordinated prosecution team is required to proactively build and manage a case. It is also important that, where appropriate, victims are able to access relevant support organisations. This is to ensure that their safety and support needs are addressed throughout the criminal case (and sometimes beyond) and to reduce the risk they face as a result of the offending. In many circumstances, cases of stalking and harassment will come within the definition of 'domestic violence' and as such the CPS Domestic Violence Policy and legal guidance will also be relevant. Further information can be found at: ●

CPS Policy on prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence

●

Domestic Violence Legal Guidance

Home » Prosecution Policy and Guidance » Legal Guidance » S to U » Stalking and Harassment

STALKING AND HARASSMENT

●

Introduction

●

Terminology ○ ○

●

Harassment Stalking

Criminal Legislation ○ Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ○

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

○

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Section 2 offence - Harassment

○

■ ●

Defence - Harassment - section 2

Stalking Legislation ○ Section 2A offence - Stalking ○

Definition of Stalking ■ Defence - Stalking - section 2A

○

Section 4A (1) (b) (i) - Putting People in Fear of Violence

○

■ Defence - Putting People in Fear of Violence - section 4 Section 4A (1) (b) (ii) offence - Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or

distress ■

Defence - section 4A

■

Alternative verdict

●

Defences generally A Course of Conduct

●

Earlier Incidents

●

○ Incidents before commencement of Stalking legislation Secretary of State's Certificate - section 12

●

Pre charge activity Drafting Indictment

●

Charging Guidance

●

○

General Principles ■ Case 1 - section 2 Harassment ■

Case 2 - section 2A charge Case 3 - section 4A charge

■

Case 4 - section 4A charge

■

● ●

Pleas to Harassment when Stalking has been charged Restraining Orders ○

●

Breach of a Restraining Order ■ Defence to Breach of Criminal or Civil Order

Other Legislation ○

Harassment of two or more persons Injunctions to protect persons

○

Course of conduct definition

○

Harassment of a person in their own home

○

Breach of a non-molestation order

●

Police powers ○ Enter and search premises

●

Case Building ○ Specialist Prosecutors ○

Early consultation and charge

○

Information Recorded by Victims Potential witnesses

○ ●

Impact and Dynamics of Stalking and Harassment ○ ○ ○ ○

Cyber stalking Public Order and Political Protest Neighbour disputes Types of Stalking and Stalkers

●

Stalking and Harassment and the CPS Violence Against Women Strategy

●

CPS Employee's Guide on Violence against Women and Girls Identification and Flagging of Cases ○

●

Identification, Assessing and Managing Risk ○ Harassing Behaviour ○

The Suspect

The Victim Victim and Witness Support and Safety ○

●

○

Risk Assessment Multi-agency risk assessment conferences

○

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC)

○ ○

Cocoon Watch and Police Watch Police Information Notices to Suspects about potential offences under the PHA

○

Bail and keeping a Victim informed

○

Special Measures Victim Personal Statements

○

○ ●

Civil Proceedings and Legislation ○ Obtaining and using documents and information from family proceedings ○

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

○

Family Law Act 1996

It is important that the CPS work closely with the police and other agencies to ensure that the best evidence is gathered and presented to the court, to this end prosecutors should be aware of the Protocol on the appropriate handling of stalking offences between the Crown Prosecution Service & ACPO. A strong, coordinated prosecution team is required to proactively build and manage a case. It is also important that, where appropriate, victims are able to access relevant support organisations. This is to ensure that their safety and support needs are addressed throughout the criminal case (and sometimes beyond) and to reduce the risk they face as a result of the offending. In many circumstances, cases of stalking and harassment will come within the definition of 'domestic violence' and as such the CPS Domestic Violence Policy and legal guidance will also be relevant. Further information can be found at: â&#x2014;? â&#x2014;?

CPS Policy on prosecuting cases of Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Legal Guidance

TERMINOLOGY HARASSMENT In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim. Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person. The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted. A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable. Closely connected groups may also be subjected to 'collective' harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include:

members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession. Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as 'stalking by proxy'. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

STALKING The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the PHA 1997. The new offences which came into force on 25 November 2012, are not retrospective, and provide further options for prosecutors to consider when selecting charges. The Home Office issued guidelines in relation to the stalking offences. Whilst there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking', section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. For example, following a person, watching or spying on them or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including social media. The effect of such behaviour is to curtail a victim's freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be careful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent ( if it were to be taken in isolation), but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim. Prosecutors should note that the examples given in section 2A (3) is not an exhaustive list but an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. Prosecutors should note that stalking and harassment of another or others can include a range of offences such as those under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It is important when considering this type of offending to look at all relevant legislation when formulating charges.

CRIMINAL LEGISLATION This section covers the criminal legislation most relevant to cases of stalking and harassment.

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997 The PHA was brought into force on 16 June 1997 and was amended by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to include two new specific offences of stalking, through the insertion of sections 2A and 4A. A court dealing with a person convicted of any offence, including those under sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the PHA, may make a restraining order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order. This order can be made in addition to a custodial sentence or other sentence. The order can be especially useful in preventing continued stalking and harassment by defendants, including those who are given sentences of imprisonment. The PHA includes the following provisions: ●

Harassment (section 2): a summary only offence, carrying a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine;

●

Stalking (section 2A): a summary only offence, carrying a maximum of six months' imprisonment and /or a level 5 fine;

●

Fear of violence (section 4): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;

●

Stalking - involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress (section 4A): an either way offence, carrying a maximum of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine on indictment;

●

Breach of a civil injunction (section 3(6)): an either way offence, carrying the same penalty as for the section 4 offence;

●

Breach of a restraining order (section 5(5)); an either way offence, carrying the same penalty as for the section 4 offence;

●

a civil tort of harassment, created by section 3.

CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 Prosecutors should note that there may be cases of stalking and harassment which may be linked with racial or religious hatred. Section 2A and 4A (PHA 1997) Stalking offences which are also racially and religiously aggravated are covered under Part 11 of Schedule 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Prosecutors should consider Section 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ( CDA 1998) which provides for two racially or religiously aggravated harassment offences, provided the racial or religious aggravation test in section 28 of the CDA 1998 Acts met. Under section 32(1)of the CDA 1998, a person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commitsa) an offence under s2 or s2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offences of harassment and stalking); or 22

b) an offence under s4 or s4A of that Act (putting people in fear of violence and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), which is racially aggravated for the purposes of this section. Under section 32(5) of the CDA 1998, if, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(a), the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged; they may find him guilty of either basic offence mentioned in that provision. Under 32(6) CDA 1998 if, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence falling within subsection (1)(b), the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence falling within subsection (1)(a). More information is available in the Legal Guidance on Racist and Religious Crime.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS ACT 2004 Section 12 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, as well extending the availability of restraining orders to all offences, provides the court with the power to make a restraining order even when a person has been acquitted, where the court considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from ongoing stalking or harassment from the defendant.

SECTION 2 OFFENCE - HARASSMENT The elements of section 2 offence are: ●

a course of conduct;

●

which amounts to harassment of another; and

●

which the defendant knows, or ought to know amounts to harassment of another.

Prosecutors should also note section 1(1A), as inserted by section 125(2) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA): The elements of section 1(1A) offence are: ●

a course of conduct;

●

which involves harassment of two or more persons; and

●

which the defendant knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons;

●

by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above);

●

not to do something that he is entitled or required to do; or

●

to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

As a summary only offence, the section 2 offence requires information or a complaint to be laid within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose. The 6 months' limitation should run from the last date of the course of conduct alleged. In determining whether the defendant ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

D EFENCE - H ARASSMENT - SECTION 2 Three defences are available to the section 2 offence: ●

that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;

●

that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment; or

●

that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

STALKING LEGISLATION The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was initially introduced as a Stalking Bill and was always intended to tackle all forms of harassment including stalking. Although stalking offences were prosecuted under the PHA 1997,many victims of stalking felt that they were not taken seriously by the criminal justice system and that stalking should be a specific offence. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, s.111 created 2 new offences (inserted in PHA 1997): ●

Stalking - harassment which involves a course of conduct that amounts to stalking (s.2A(1) PHA 1997)

●

Stalking - s.4A (1) PHA 1997 which can be committed two ways namely:

- Stalking involving fear of violence (s.4A(1)(b)(i) PHA 1997) OR - Stalking involving serious alarm or distress (s.4A(1)(b)(ii) PHA 1997) The new stalking offences highlighted: ●

Stalking as a specific behaviour as opposed to harassment more generally.

●

Closed the lacuna when a course of conduct fell short of causing a victim to feel fear of violence but nevertheless caused a victim serious alarm or distress. (In this circumstance the police and prosecutors could only consider a section 2 summary offence). 24

●

The additional element in the new section 4A offence enable cases to be prosecuted when the defendant's behaviour falls short of fear of violence.

●

Affords more protection to victims of stalking.

SECTION 2A OFFENCE - STALKING The elements of the section 2A offence are: ●

a course of conduct

●

which is in breach of section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (i.e. a course of conduct which amounts to harassment) and

●

the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

This means that there has to be a course of conduct which amounts to harassment and that particular harassment can be described as stalking behaviour. A course of conduct is the same as defined under section 7 of the PHA 1997 and referred to elsewhere in this guidance.

DEFINITION OF STALKING Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are: (a) following a person, (b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means, (c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person, (d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, (e) loitering in any place (whether public or private), (f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person, (g) watching or spying on a person. Harassment that includes one or more of the above features is not automatically stalking. The course of conduct, assessed in the round, must fit the generally received interpretation of the word 'stalking'.

Prosecutors should note that the list in s.2A(3) is not exhaustive and it will be open to courts to consider other acts by a defendant and conclude that those acts constitute stalking even if they are not on the s.2A(3) list. It is likely that the defence may argue particular acts "associated with stalking" should not be classed as stalking but harassment and that their client is guilty of harassment, not stalking. Where such an argument is raised, prosecutors should state that this should be a decision of fact for the magistrates to decide on. It is therefore imperative that the correct charge is laid from the outset. Section 2A is a summary offence and a person guilty of the offence of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine. As a summary only offence, the section 2A offence requires an information or complaint to be laid within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose. The 6 months' limitation should run from the last date of the course of conduct alleged. Prosecutors should note that an integral part of the stalking offence is establishing that harassment has taken place. In determining whether the defendant ought to know that the course of conduct amounts to harassment, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

D EFENCE - S TALKING - SECTION 2A If the suspect is able to show that any of the defences to harassment under section 1(3) of the PHA are made out, he or she can not be guilty of stalking as without harassment there can be no conviction for stalking.

SECTION 4A (1)(B)(I) - PUTTING PEOPLE IN FEAR OF VIOLENCE The elements of the section 4 offence are: ●

a course of conduct;

●

which causes another to fear that violence will be used against him; and

●

which the defendant knows or ought to know will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him; and

●

the defendant ought to know that his course of conduct will cause another to fear that violence will be used against them if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

D EFENCE - P UTTING P EOPLE IN F EAR OF V IOLENCE - S .4 Section 4 also includes the following statutory defences. It is for the defendant to show that:

●

the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;

●

the course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment; or

●

pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of him or herself or another or for the protection of her, his or another's property.

SECTION 4A(1)(B)(II) OFFENCE - STALKING INVOLVING FEAR OF VIOLENCE OR SERIOUS ALARM OR DISTRESS The elements of the section 4A offence are: ●

a course of conduct;

●

which amounts to stalking; and

●

which causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him or her; or

●

causes another serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on his or her usual day-to-day activities

In determining whether the defendant ought to know that the course of his or her conduct will cause the other person to fear that violence will be used against them or will cause the other person serious alarm or distress, the question to be determined is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think it so. A course of conduct is the same as defined under section 7 of the PHA 1997 and referred earlier in the guidance. There are two ways of committing this offence: First, a course of conduct that amounts to stalking and causes the victim to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them (which is similar to the existing section 4 offence). Second, a course of conduct which causes "serious alarm or distress" which has a substantial adverse effect on the day-to-day activities of the victim. This limb recognises the overall emotional and psychological harm that stalking may cause to victims, even where an explicit fear of violence is not created by each incident of stalking behaviour. The phrase "substantial adverse effect on ... usual day-to-day activities" is not defined in section 4A and thus its

construction

will

matter

for

the

courts.

However,

the

guidelines

(http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-

2012/018-2012/) issued by the Home Office suggest that evidence of a substantial adverse effect may include the following: (a) the victim changing their routes to work, work patterns, or employment; (b) the victim arranging for friends or family to pick up children from school (to avoid contact with the stalker); (c) the victim putting in place additional security measures in their home; (d) the victim moving home; (e) physical or mental ill-health; (f) the deterioration in the victim's performance at work due to stress; (g) the victim stopping /or changing the way they socialise. Prosecutors should note that the above list is not exhaustive and that there may be some victims who will try to continue their lives as usual in defiance of a stalker. So the absence of factors such as those listed above does not necessarily mean that stalking is not taking place. The crucial difference between the offence under section 4 Harassment and the new offence under section 4A Stalking is that the latter introduces an additional element, namely that the defendant's offending behaviour causes a victim "serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities".Whereas in previous incidents and prior to the stalking legislation, if there was insufficient evidence to prove " fear of violence", the only option was to prefer a summary charge. However, under section 4A, the additional element will allow prosecutors to consider an either way offence. Unlike the existing s.4 and the new s.4A(1)(b)(i), however, it is the cumulative effect of the stalking which is important and it does not require any particular incident in the stalking to be especially alarming or serious.

This is an important aspect of the new offence and prosecutors should consider the cumulative effect of stalking on the victim and the effect and nature of individual incidents, rather than looking at specific incidents in isolation.

D EFENCE - S ECTION 4A In contrast to section 2A, the defences at section 1(3) are specifically included in section 4A. There is a defence to stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, as set out in section 4 A (3), where it can be shown that the course of conduct was: 28

(a) pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; (b) the conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law; or (c) the pursuit of A's course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of A or another or for the protection of A's or another's property. Section 4A is an either way offence and on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both.

A LTERNATIVE VERDICT If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of an offence under section 2 or 2A.

DEFENCES GENERALLY The first defence is that the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. This most obviously applies to the police and any other investigative agencies such as the Post Office or HMRC. It is possible that it could be raised as by individuals such as investigative journalists or Neighbourhood Watch members who claim that their activities are for the purpose of detecting or preventing crime. In Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 (a civil case), the issue arose as to what action could be defended on the ground that the alleged harasser was engaged in the prevention or detection of crime. The court held that in order to rely on the defence under section 1 (3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which exempts liability for a course of conduct "pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime", the alleged harasser would have to show that he had acted rationally. The second defence to sections 2 and 4 states that the course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under the enactment. This most obviously applies to companies acting within their legal entitlement, for example, a Building Society manager warning in writing of repossession proceedings, because of default in mortgage payments, followed by repossession taking place. The third defence to section 2 is that the defendant was acting reasonably in the particular circumstances. This is a wide defence, which covers the pursuit of a legitimate trade or profession. Ultimately, the decision as to what amounts to reasonable behaviour will rest with the courts.

A COURSE OF C ONDUCT Section 7 defines a course of conduct as being on at least two occasions. Harassment is not defined but includes conduct causing alarm or distress. It is confirmed as including speech. The PHA does not specify what period of time should elapse between occasions. Arguably, therefore, so long as the behaviour complained of ceased, even for a short period of time, and then resumed either in the same or a different form, this can form a course of conduct. Acts might be some distance apart, and yet still constitute a course of conduct. Each case will fall to be determined on its own facts. Section 7(3A) provides that conduct by one person shall also be taken to be conduct by another if the other has aided, abetted, counselled or procured the conduct. It makes it clear that a campaign of collective harassment by two or more people can amount to a "course of conduct". It also confirms that one person can pursue a course of conduct by committing one act personally and arranging for another person to commit another act. If there are only two incidents and a long period between them, the less likely it is that they will be accepted by a court as amounting to a course of conduct. In the case of Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC 483, the Administrative Court held that two incidents almost 3 months apart were "close to the line" but nevertheless sufficient to establish a course of conduct. However, the courts have ruled that it is not just the number of incidents which make up a course of conduct, but whether those incidents could be said to be so connected in type and context as to justify the conclusion that they could amount to a course of conduct (see Lau v DPP [2000] Crim. L.R. 580 and R v Patel [2005] 1 Cr. App. 27). It is necessary to prove that the conduct is unacceptable to a degree which would sustain criminal liability, and also must be oppressive (R v Curtis [2010] EWCA 123). The prosecution in this case relied on a series of spontaneous outbursts of bad temper and bad behaviour, with aggression on both sides, between partners during the time they cohabited. These were interspersed with considerable periods of affectionate life. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction on the basis that the trial judge had not directed the jury that the course of conduct had to amount to harassment and that the facts of the case, largely undisputed by the defendant, did not establish a nexus between the incidents. There is no specific requirement that the activity making up a course of conduct should be of the same nature. Therefore different types of behaviour by a person such as making a telephone call on one occasion and damaging the victim's property on another may suffice, provided that the prosecution can also show that there was a common intent to persuade the victims or any other person to do something or not to do something they were entitled to do. 30

It may often not be immediately apparent that separate incidents are connected as a course of conduct. It is therefore important that officers are alert to the possibility that such incidents could form part of a course of conduct and to take this into account during the investigation of each incident - making whatever inquiries seem appropriate to determine whether the incident is in fact part of a course of conduct. Police will need to ensure that accurate records are kept of each incident.

E ARLIER INCIDENTS If an earlier incident is charged under other legislation (for example, a breach of the peace or an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986), and a subsequent incident establishes a course of conduct, it may be advisable to withdraw the earlier charge and to substitute a charge under the PHA, covering both incidents. Difficulties will arise if an earlier incident has resulted in a conviction. It is unlikely that the courts will allow incidents that have already been dealt with to form part of a subsequent offence, given the doctrines of autrefois acquit and convict. Similarly, where a defendant has been cautioned, care should be taken before going behind the caution and charging that incident as part of a course of conduct. This may constitute an abuse of process.

INCIDENTS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF STALKING LEGISLATION The stalking offences came into force on 25 November 2012. Prosecutors should note that any incidents which form part of a course of conduct that took place prior to this date can not be included in a stalking charge. This is because the Stalking legislation is not retrospective. Where there is a course of conduct commencing before 25 November 2012 and continuing after that date, it may be appropriate for prosecutors to consider section 2 and section 4 offences. However, if a course of conduct which began prior to 25 November 2012 reflects a serious case of stalking, and there are sufficient further incidents after 25 November which can be used to establish a stalking charge, then consideration should be given to charging a stalking offence and introducing conduct prior to 25 November 2012 as Bad Character Evidence.

ARTICLE IV FRAUD ACT 2006 Relevant provisions

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/1)

1 Fraud

(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2)The sections are— (a)section 2 (fraud by false representation), (b)section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and (c)section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

(4)Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

2 FRAUD BY FALSE REPRESENTATION (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A representation is false if— (a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— 32

(a)the person making the representation, or (b)any other person. (4)A representation may be express or implied. (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b)intends, by failing to disclose the information— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of position (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (b)dishonestly abuses that position, and (c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

5“Gain” and “loss”

(1)The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section. (2)“Gain” and “loss”— (a)extend only to gain or loss in money or other property; (b)include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property). (3)“Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have.

(4)“Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. (2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud. (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both). (3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

7Making or supplying articles for use in frauds (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article— (a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or (b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud. (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). (3)Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

8 “Article” (1)For the purposes of— (a)sections 6 and 7, and (b)the provisions listed in subsection (2), so far as they relate to articles for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, “article” includes any program or data held in electronic form. (2)The provisions are— (a)section 1(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60), (b)section 2(8)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), and (c)Article 3(7)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12));

(meaning of “prohibited articles” for the purposes of stop and search powers).

12Liability of company officers for offences by company (1)Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate. (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of— (a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or (b)a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3)If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (2) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.

13Evidence (1)A person is not to be excused from— (a)answering any question put to him in proceedings relating to property, or (b)complying with any order made in proceedings relating to property, on the ground that doing so may incriminate him or his spouse or civil partner of an offence under this Act or a related offence. (2)But, in proceedings for an offence under this Act or a related offence, a statement or admission made by the person in— (a)answering such a question, or (b)complying with such an order, is not admissible in evidence against him or (unless they married or became civil partners after the making of the statement or admission) his spouse or civil partner. (3)“Proceedings relating to property” means any proceedings for— (a)the recovery or administration of any property, (b)the execution of a trust, or (c)an account of any property or dealings with property, and “property” means money or other property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property). (4)“Related offence” means— (a)conspiracy to defraud; (b)any other offence involving any form of fraudulent conduct or purpose.

ARTICLE V BRIBERY ACT 2010 Relevant provisions

(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/1)

1 OFFENCES OF BRIBING ANOTHER PERSON (1)A person (“P”) is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies. (2)Case 1 is where— (a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and (b)P intends the advantage— (i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or (ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity. (3)Case 2 is where— (a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and (b)P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function or activity. (4)In case 1 it does not matter whether the person to whom the advantage is offered, promised or given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned. (5)In cases 1 and 2 it does not matter whether the advantage is offered, promised or given by P directly or through a third party.

2 Offences relating to being bribed (1)A person (“R”) is guilty of an offence if any of the following cases applies. (2)Case 3 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly (whether by R or another person). (3)Case 4 is where— (a)R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage, and (b)the request, agreement or acceptance itself constitutes the improper performance by R of a relevant function or activity. (4)Case 5 is where R requests, agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage as a reward for the improper performance (whether by R or another person) of a relevant function or activity. (5)Case 6 is where, in anticipation of or in consequence of R requesting, agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage, a relevant function or activity is performed improperly— (a)by R, or 37

(b)by another person at R's request or with R's assent or acquiescence. (6)In cases 3 to 6 it does not matter— (a)whether R requests, agrees to receive or accepts (or is to request, agree to receive or accept) the advantage directly or through a third party, (b)whether the advantage is (or is to be) for the benefit of R or another person. (7)In cases 4 to 6 it does not matter whether R knows or believes that the performance of the function or activity is improper. (8)In case 6, where a person other than R is performing the function or activity, it also does not matter whether that person knows or believes that the performance of the function or activity is improper.

3 Function or activity to which bribe relates (1)For the purposes of this Act a function or activity is a relevant function or activity if— (a)it falls within subsection (2), and (b)meets one or more of conditions A to C. (2)The following functions and activities fall within this subsection— (a)any function of a public nature, (b)any activity connected with a business, (c)any activity performed in the course of a person's employment, (d)any activity performed by or on behalf of a body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate). (3)Condition A is that a person performing the function or activity is expected to perform it in good faith. (4)Condition B is that a person performing the function or activity is expected to perform it impartially. (5)Condition C is that a person performing the function or activity is in a position of trust by virtue of performing it. (6)A function or activity is a relevant function or activity even if it— (a)has no connection with the United Kingdom, and (b)is performed in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. (7)In this section “business” includes trade or profession.

4 Improper performance to which bribe relates (1)For the purposes of this Act a relevant function or activity— (a)is performed improperly if it is performed in breach of a relevant expectation, and (b)is to be treated as being performed improperly if there is a failure to perform the function or activity and that failure is itself a breach of a relevant expectation. (2)In subsection (1) “relevant expectation”—

(a)in relation to a function or activity which meets condition A or B, means the expectation mentioned in the condition concerned, and (b)in relation to a function or activity which meets condition C, means any expectation as to the manner in which, or the reasons for which, the function or activity will be performed that arises from the position of trust mentioned in that condition. (3)Anything that a person does (or omits to do) arising from or in connection with that person's past performance of a relevant function or activity is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done (or omitted) by that person in the performance of that function or activity.

5 Expectation test (1)For the purposes of sections 3 and 4, the test of what is expected is a test of what a reasonable person in the United Kingdom would expect in relation to the performance of the type of function or activity concerned. (2)In deciding what such a person would expect in relation to the performance of a function or activity where the performance is not subject to the law of any part of the United Kingdom, any local custom or practice is to be disregarded unless it is permitted or required by the written law applicable to the country or territory concerned. (3)In subsection (2) “written law” means law contained in— (a)any written constitution, or provision made by or under legislation, applicable to the country or territory concerned, or (b)any judicial decision which is so applicable and is evidenced in published written sources.

7 Failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery (1)A relevant commercial organisation (“C”) is guilty of an offence under this section if a person (“A”) associated with C bribes another person intending— (a)to obtain or retain business for C, or (b)to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business for C. (2)But it is a defence for C to prove that C had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons associated with C from undertaking such conduct. (3)For the purposes of this section, A bribes another person if, and only if, A— (a)is, or would be, guilty of an offence under section 1 or 6 (whether or not A has been prosecuted for such an offence), or (b)would be guilty of such an offence if section 12(2)(c) and (4) were omitted. (4)See section 8 for the meaning of a person associated with C and see section 9 for a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance. (5)In this section— “partnership” means—

(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890, or (b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or a firm or entity of a similar character formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, “relevant commercial organisation” means— (a) a body which is incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom and which carries on a business (whether there or elsewhere), (b) any other body corporate (wherever incorporated) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom, (c) a partnership which is formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom and which carries on a business (whether there or elsewhere), or (d) any other partnership (wherever formed) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom, and, for the purposes of this section, a trade or profession is a business. 8 MEANING OF ASSOCIATED PERSON (1)For the purposes of section 7, a person (“A”) is associated with C if (disregarding any bribe under consideration) A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C. (2)The capacity in which A performs services for or on behalf of C does not matter. (3)Accordingly A may (for example) be C's employee, agent or subsidiary. (4)Whether or not A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C is to be determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship between A and C. (5)But if A is an employee of C, it is to be presumed unless the contrary is shown that A is a person who performs services for or on behalf of C.

11Penalties (1)An individual guilty of an offence under section 1, 2 or 6 is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both, (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine, or to both.

(2)Any other person guilty of an offence under section 1, 2 or 6 is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, (b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine. (3)A person guilty of an offence under section 7 is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine. (4)The reference in subsection (1)(a) to 12 months is to be read— (a)in its application to England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and (b)in its application to Northern Ireland, as a reference to 6 months.

12 Offences under this Act: territorial application (1)An offence is committed under section 1, 2 or 6 in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland if any act or omission which forms part of the offence takes place in that part of the United Kingdom. (2)Subsection (3) applies if— (a)no act or omission which forms part of an offence under section 1, 2 or 6 takes place in the United Kingdom, (b)a person's acts or omissions done or made outside the United Kingdom would form part of such an offence if done or made in the United Kingdom, and (c)that person has a close connection with the United Kingdom. (3)In such a case— (a)the acts or omissions form part of the offence referred to in subsection (2)(a), and (b)proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in the United Kingdom. (4)For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) a person has a close connection with the United Kingdom if, and only if, the person was one of the following at the time the acts or omissions concerned were done or made— (a)a British citizen, (b)a British overseas territories citizen, (c)a British National (Overseas), (d)a British Overseas citizen, (e)a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 was a British subject, (f)a British protected person within the meaning of that Act, (g)an individual ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, (h)a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, (i)a Scottish partnership.

(5)An offence is committed under section 7 irrespective of whether the acts or omissions which form part of the offence take place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. 41

(6)Where no act or omission which forms part of an offence under section 7 takes place in the United Kingdom, proceedings for the offence may be taken at any place in the United Kingdom. (7)Subsection (8) applies if, by virtue of this section, proceedings for an offence are to be taken in Scotland against a person. (8)Such proceedings may be taken— (a)in any sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or in custody, or (b)in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may determine. (9)In subsection (8) “sheriff court district” is to be read in accordance with section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

14 Offences under sections 1, 2 and 6 by bodies corporate etc. (1)This section applies if an offence under section 1, 2 or 6 is committed by a body corporate or a Scottish partnership. (2)If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of— (a)a senior officer of the body corporate or Scottish partnership, or (b)a person purporting to act in such a capacity, the senior officer or person (as well as the body corporate or partnership) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3)But subsection (2) does not apply, in the case of an offence which is committed under section 1, 2 or 6 by virtue of section 12(2) to (4), to a senior officer or person purporting to act in such a capacity unless the senior officer or person has a close connection with the United Kingdom (within the meaning given by section 12(4)). (4)In this section— “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate, “senior officer” means— (a) in relation to a body corporate, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, and (b) in relation to a Scottish partnership, a partner in the partnership.

MODERN SLAVERY ACT 2015

Relevant provisions (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/1#text%2525252525253Dtorture)

1 Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour (1)A person commits an offence if— (a)the person holds another person in slavery or servitude and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is held in slavery or servitude, or (b)the person requires another person to perform forced or compulsory labour and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour. (2)In subsection (1) the references to holding a person in slavery or servitude or requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour are to be construed in accordance with Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention. (3)In determining whether a person is being held in slavery or servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to all the circumstances. (4)For example, regard may be had— (a)to any of the person's personal circumstances (such as the person being a child, the person's family relationships, and any mental or physical illness) which may make the person more vulnerable than other persons; (b)to any work or services provided by the person, including work or services provided in circumstances which constitute exploitation within section 3(3) to (6). (5)The consent of a person (whether an adult or a child) to any of the acts alleged to constitute holding the person in slavery or servitude, or requiring the person to perform forced or compulsory labour, does not preclude a determination that the person is being held in slavery or servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

(1)For the purposes of section 2 a person is exploited only if one or more of the following subsections apply in relation to the person. Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour (2)The person is the victim of behaviour— (a)which involves the commission of an offence under section 1, or (b)which would involve the commission of an offence under that section if it took place in England and Wales. Sexual exploitation (3)Something is done to or in respect of the person— (a)which involves the commission of an offence under— (i)section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children), or (ii)Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences), as it has effect in England and Wales, or (b)which would involve the commission of such an offence if it were done in England and Wales.

Removal of organs etc (4)The person is encouraged, required or expected to do anything— (a)which involves the commission, by him or her or another person, of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in organs and restrictions on use of live donors) as it has effect in England and Wales, or (b)which would involve the commission of such an offence, by him or her or another person, if it were done in England and Wales. Securing services etc by force, threats or deception (5)The person is subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce him or her— (a)to provide services of any kind, (b)to provide another person with benefits of any kind, or (c)to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind. Securing services etc from children and vulnerable persons (6)Another person uses or attempts to use the person for a purpose within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (5), having chosen him or her for that purpose on the grounds that— (a)he or she is a child, is mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person, and (b)an adult, or a person without the illness, disability, or family relationship, would be likely to refuse to be used for that purpose. 4 Committing offence with intent to commit offence under section 2 A person commits an offence under this section if the person commits any offence with the intention of committing an offence under section 2 (including an offence committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an offence under that section). 5 Penalties (1)A person guilty of an offence under section 1 or 2 is liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life; (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both. (2)A person guilty of an offence under section 4 is liable (unless subsection (3) applies)— (a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; (b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both. (3)Where the offence under section 4 is committed by kidnapping or false imprisonment, a person guilty of that offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life. (4) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the references in subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) to 12 months are to be read as references to 6 months. 16 Meaning of “relevant offender” (1)A person is a “relevant offender” for the purposes of section 15 if subsection (2) or (3) applies to the person. (2)This subsection applies to a person if— (a)the person has been convicted of a slavery or human trafficking offence, (b)a court has made a finding that the person is not guilty of a slavery or human trafficking offence by reason of insanity,

(c)a court has made a finding that the person is under a disability and has done the act charged against the person in respect of a slavery or human trafficking offence, or (d)the person has been cautioned in respect of a slavery or human trafficking offence. (3)This subsection applies to a person if, under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom— (a)the person has been convicted of an equivalent offence (whether or not the person has been punished for it), (b)a court has made, in relation to an equivalent offence, a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is not guilty by reason of insanity, (c)a court has made, in relation to an equivalent offence, a finding equivalent to a finding that the person is under a disability and has done the act charged against the person, or (d)the person has been cautioned in respect of an equivalent offence. (4)An “equivalent offence” means an act which— (a)constituted an offence under the law of the country concerned, and (b)would have constituted a slavery or human trafficking offence under the law of England and Wales if it had been done in England and Wales, or by a UK national, or as regards the United Kingdom. (5)For the purposes of subsection (4) an act punishable under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence under that law, however it is described in that law. (6)On an application under section 15 where subsection (3) is alleged to apply to the defendant, the condition in subsection (4)(b) is to be taken as met unless— (a)not later than provided by rules of court, the defendant serves on the applicant a notice which states that in the defendant's opinion the condition is not met, shows the grounds for that opinion, and requires the applicant to prove that the condition is met, or (b)the court permits the defendant to require the applicant to prove that the condition is met without service of such a notice. (7)References in this section to convictions, findings and cautions include those taking place before this section comes into force.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988

Relevant provisions (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crossheading/torture)

Torture 134 Torture. (1)A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties. (2)A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if— (a)in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence— (i)of a public official; or (ii)of a person acting in an official capacity; and (b)the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it. (3)It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission. (4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct. (5)For the purposes of this section “lawful authority, justification or excuse” means— (a)in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted; (b)in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom— (i)if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law; (ii)if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and (iii)in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted.

(6)A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. 135 Requirement of Attorney Generalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consent for prosecutions. Proceedings for an offence under section 134 above shall not be begunâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; (a)in England and Wales, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General; or (b)in Northern Ireland, except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. 136, 137.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1

HARASSMENT CASE IQBAL AND DEAN MANSON SOLICITORS

Relevant provisions (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/123.html) Issue (i): The three letters There is no respondent's notice. Therefore it may be taken as a given that the third letter is capable of being described as harassing. However, in my judgment, each of the three letters is capable of being so described, a fortiori as the question of harassment has to be considered by reference to a course of conduct as a whole, and not by reference to each individual occasion relied on. I shall return to that matter under issue (ii). For the present, however, I would observe that it seems to me to be entirely arguable that each of the letters by themselves can stand as an occasion which is capable of being described as harassing (and thus in any event capable each of contributing to a course of conduct which can arguably be said to amount to harassment). In Thomas v. News Group Newspapers the defendant had published in The Sun an article reporting that two police sergeants had been demoted to constables after the claimant had alleged that they made racist jokes about a Somali asylum-seeker. The claimant was referred to in the article as a "black clerk". Within another eight days The Sun had published two further similar articles. The claimant alleged that as a result she had received racist hate mail. She said that the article amounted to a course of conduct amounting to harassment because it incited racial hatred against her. The defendant applied to strike out the claim on the ground that "harassment" could not extend to what was written in the newspapers, but lost the application. On appeal to this court, the defendant conceded that newspaper material could amount to harassment, but that it was not arguable that these publications did, especially when the guarantee of freedom of speech was taken into account. As cited above, the test of harassment was held to be "conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable" (at [30]). Lord Phillips continued: "31. The fact that conduct that is reasonable will not constitute harassment is clear from section 1(3)(c) of the Act. While that subsection places the burden of proof on the defendant, that does not absolve the claimant from pleading facts which are capable of amounting to harassment. Unless the claimant's pleading alleges conduct by the defendant which is, at least, arguably unreasonable, it is unlikely to set out a viable plea of harassment." As for the facts of that case, Lord Phillips said this, under the heading of "The Nature of Reasonable Conduct": "[32] Whether conduct is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. When considering whether the conduct of the press in publishing articles is reasonable for the purposes of the 1997 Act, the answer does not turn on whether the opinions in the article are reasonably held. The question must be answered by reference to the right of the press to freedom of expression which has been so emphatically recognised by the jurisprudence both of Strasbourg and this country. [33] Prior to the 1997 Act, the freedom with which the press could publish facts or opinions about individuals was circumscribed by the law of defamation. Protection of reputation is a legitimate reason to restrict freedom of expression. Subject to the law of defamation, the press was entitled to publish an article, or series of

articles, about an individual, notwithstanding that it could be foreseen that such conduct was likely to cause distress to the subject of the article. [34] The 1997 Act has not rendered such conduct unlawful. In general, press criticism, even if robust, does not constitute unreasonable conduct and does not fall within the natural meaning of harassment. A pleading, which does no more than allege that the defendant has published a series of articles that have reasonably caused distress to an individual, will be susceptible to a strike-out on the ground that it discloses no arguable case of harassment. [35] It is common ground between the parties to this appeal, and properly so, that before press publications are capable of constituting harassment, they must be attended by some exceptional circumstance which justifies sanctions and the restriction on the freedom of expression that they involve. It is also common ground that such circumstances will be rare. [36] Mr Pannick QC, for the respondent, offered the example of an editor who uses his newspaper to conduct a campaign of vilification against a lover from whom he has broken off a relationship. Mr Browne rightly submitted that editorial comment would only amount to harassment if it incited, provoked or encouraged harassment of an individual. [37] It is not necessary for this court to rule on Mr Pannick's example, nor to attempt any categorisation of the types of abuse of freedom of the press which may amount to harassment. That is because the parties are agreed that the publication of press articles calculated to incite racial hatred of an individual provides an example of conduct which is capable of amounting to harassment." In Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224, the issue was whether an employer could be vicariously liable under the Act for harassment by its employee. The House of Lords held that it could. It was submitted that such an answer would open the floodgates to vicarious liability for all the petty nastiness of employee to employee, and even to unfounded and speculative or unmeritorious claims by disgruntled employees. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said this: "[30] This is a real and understandable concern. But these difficulties, and the prospect of abuse, are not sufficient reasons for excluding vicarious liabilityâ&#x20AC;ŚCourts are well able to separate the wheat from the chaff at an early stage of the proceedings. They should be astute to do so. In most cases courts should have little difficulty in applying the "close connection" test. Where the claim meets that requirement, and the quality of the conduct said to constitute harassment is being examined, courts will have in mind that irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, arise at times in everybody's day-to-day dealings with other people. Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under section 2." Baroness Hale of Richmond said at [66]: "A great deal is left to the wisdom of the courts to draw sensible lines between the ordinary banter and badinage of life and genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour." In the present case, the first letter immediately said that Dean Manson wished to raise questions "in relation to your integrity as a solicitor". That was a strong way to introduce a query as to whether there was an undisclosed conflict of interest between Mr Iqbal and his client, Mr Butt. If the letter had been confined to such a query, or if Dean Manson's subsequent correspondence had been confined to such a query, then it would be understandable to conclude that there was no arguable case of harassment. As it was, the letter which had opened with questions as to Mr Iqbal's integrity, closed by asking whether there were outstanding 49

issues "in relation to your employment and departure" and with a threat to present the letter in court. Especially in the light of what follows, the letter can arguably be understood as an attempt to get Mr Iqbal to stand down as Mr Butt's solicitor, or else to face unpleasant consequences. The second letter went much further. It expressly accused Mr Iqbal of having been summarily dismissed by Dean Manson for "continued insubordination and reckless conduct" and of intentionally using Mr Butt's retainer "to set scores because of your personal vendetta against the firm"; and also of "poaching and inciting the clients of the firmâ&#x20AC;Śto initiate complaints". None of that appears to have anything to do with the Butt litigation itself. The letter incidentally suggests a different conflict of interest from that raised in the first letter, namely a breach of confidence between Mr Iqbal and Dean Manson, because of Mr Iqbal's knowledge of Dean Manson's files, but that is separate from the accusations levelled against Mr Iqbal. Finally the letter seeks to advise Mr Iqbal to tell his client to pay Dean Manson, in order to save costs "due to your own vendetta". Moreover that letter was sent to the county court. The third letter accused Mr Iqbal of "misleading the law society and the general public" and participating in conduct "in breach of the law of the land" by assisting Mr Ali to obtain employment when he had no permission to remain or work in the UK. That letter was also sent to the county court as a matter relevant to the Butt litigation. The allegation of illegal conduct perhaps went beyond the previous allegations of unprofessional conduct meriting summary dismissal and of subjecting the interest of clients to a personal vendetta: but that might be thought to be a matter of argument. The judge himself considered the third letter to be designed "to put pressure on Mr Iqbal" and to be capable of being described as harassment or arguably so. Passages in the first two letters are described as "unfortunate and regrettable". It is not clear to me, however, what there is, arguably, to choose between them. The judge was perhaps concerned, and rightly so, not to set up every complaint between lawyers as to the conduct of litigation as arguably a matter of harassment within the Act. It must be rare indeed that such complaints, even if in the heat of battle they go too far, could arguably fall foul of the Act. However, in my judgment, these three letters, particularly when viewed in the light of each other, and especially the last two, arguably amount to a deliberate attack on the professional and personal integrity of Mr Iqbal, in an attempt to pressurise him, by his exposure to his client and/or the court, into declining to act for Mr Butt or else into advising Mr Butt to meet the demands of Dean Manson. It cannot, at any rate arguably, assist Dean Manson that such letters were written in the context of litigation and in an attempt to improve their position in that litigation, or in an attempt to raise even serious and proper questions as to possible conflicts of interest. Arguably, the letters go way beyond such concerns. Indeed, Mr Brown conceded in argument that if the above was, even arguably, the view which could be taken of these letters, as distinct from the view of them which he submitted was the correct one, namely that they were simply and solely raising legitimate queries as to conflicts of interest between Mr Iqbal and his client and as to breach of confidence between Mr Iqbal and Dean Manson, then Mr Iqbal's claim could not be struck out, at any rate subject to issue (iv). In sum, in my judgment, each of these letters does, when considered side by side, arguably evidence a campaign of harassment against Mr Iqbal. They are arguably capable of causing alarm or distress. They are arguably unreasonable, or oppressive and unreasonable, or oppressive and unacceptable, or genuinely offensive and unacceptable. Arguably, they go beyond annoyances or irritations, and beyond the ordinary banter and badinage of life. Arguably, the conduct alleged is of a gravity which could be characterised as criminal. A professional man's integrity is the lifeblood of his vocation. If it is deliberately and wrongly attacked, whether out of personal self-interest or malice, a potential claim lies under the Act. It is suggested that Mr Iqbal conceded the inadequacy of the first two letters before Teare J. Mr Iqbal says, however, that any concession went no further than to accept the inadequacy of the first two letters if viewed entirely each by itself. He did not, he says, withdraw reliance on the first two letters. I would accept this 50

explanation (compare the concession concerning the 2006 letters). It is entirely consistent with the course of the litigation as a whole, including the way in which the judge set out the first two (as well as the third) letters verbatim. Issue (ii): Course of conduct The next issue is whether the first two letters, read together with the third letter, could amount to a "course of conduct" which amounts to harassment, even if, as the judge found, those first two letters in themselves, unlike the third, were not capable of constituting harassment. As it is, in the light of my answer to issue (i), this second issue is not determinative. However, it has been fully argued and I shall give my opinion on it. In my judgment, the Act is concerned with courses of conduct which amount to harassment, rather than with individual instances of harassment. Of course, it is the individual instances which will make up the course of conduct, but it still remains the position that it is the course of conduct which has to have the quality of amounting to harassment, rather than individual instances of conduct. That is so both as a matter of the language of the statute, and as a matter of common sense. The Act is written in terms of a course of conduct: see sections 1(1), 1(2), 1(3), 2(1), 3(1), 7(3). That course of conduct has to amount to harassment, both objectively and in terms of the required mens rea (see section 1(1)(b)). In the case of a single person victim, there have to be "at least two occasions in relation to that person" (section 7(3)(a)), but it is not said that that those two occasions must individually, ie standing each by itself, amount to harassment. The reason why the statute is drafted in this way is not hard to understand. Take the typical case of stalking, or of malicious phone calls. When a defendant, D, walks past a claimant C's door, or calls C's telephone but puts the phone down without speaking, the single act by itself is neutral, or may be. But if that act is repeated on a number of occasions, the course of conduct may well amount to harassment. That conclusion can only be arrived at by looking at the individual acts complained of as a whole. The course of conduct cannot be reduced to or deconstructed into the individual acts, taken solely one by one. So it is with a course of communications such as letters. A first letter, by itself, may appear innocent and may even cause no alarm, or at most a slight unease. However, in the light of subsequent letters, that first letter may be seen as part of a campaign of harassment. That, however, was not how the judge looked at the matter. Having found the third letter to be arguably capable of amounting to harassment, he never went back to ask himself how the three letters were to be looked at together as a possible course of conduct. Of course, it is always feasible that a number of disparate instances are not capable of being aggregated into a course of conduct, because, for instance, they are too separated in time or subject-matter. However, that does not apply in this case (although it could have applied to the 2006 letters if Mr Iqbal had persisted in relying upon them). The three letters were close in time, all headed by reference to the Butt litigation, and at any rate arguably, connected with one another. In this connection, both parties relied on Kelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] EWHC Admin 1428, [2002] 166 JP 621, [2003] Crim LR 45 (Burton J). The appellant there was convicted by the magistrates of an offence under section 2 of the Act. He had made three abusive telephone calls within a few minutes of one another to the victim's mobile, in the middle of the night. The victim did not receive the calls at that time and they were recorded on her voicemail facility. In the morning she listened to all three messages one after the other. It was submitted on behalf the appellant that the three calls were all so much part and parcel of one another that there was no course of conduct, and that in any event the victim had to feel alarm on more than one occasion. The appeal failed. Each call was abusive and alarming, but the peculiar facts there were that the calls were very close in time and the victim was only alarmed on one occasion. On behalf of Dean Manson, Mr Brown relied on what Burton J said at 626G, viz â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

"The Act requires that an offence must be committed more than once before it can be actionable, and it was committed more than once." In my judgment, however, that cannot be right (and I suspect was not what Burton J intended to say, as is demonstrated by what is said elsewhere in his judgment). The "offence" cannot be committed without a course of conduct, and there is no need for more than one offence, only for more than one incident, or, in the neutral words of the Act, "conduct on at least two occasions". Mr Iqbal, however, relied on what Burton J said at 627F/628A: "Similarly, the purpose of the Act, it seems to me plain, is intended to render actionable conduct which might not be alarming if committed once, but becomes alarming by virtue of being repeated â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the repetitious conduct to which Latham LJ referred [in Pratt (2001) 165 JP 800]â&#x20AC;ŚIt seems to me thatâ&#x20AC;Śwhat was intended was that something which might not be alarming the first time would become actionable, criminally and civilly, on the second occasion. It is, therefore, in my judgment, not necessary for there to be alarm caused in relation to each of the incidents relied upon as forming part of the course of conduct. It is sufficient if, by virtue of the course of conduct, the victim is alarmed or distressed." That seems to me to be correct. Section 4 of the Act sets out an alternative offence ("Putting people in fear of violence") which does require "another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him" (emphasis added). Burton J therefore implicitly emphasises that the various incidents alleged to make up the course of conduct as a whole have to be scrutinised for their capacity to constitute a course of conduct which amounts to harassment. In my judgment, therefore, the judge erred in failing to ask himself, in the light of his finding as to the third letter, whether the three letters as a whole could amount to a relevant course of conduct. For the reasons already given under issue (i) above, it is very difficult to see why they could not. The fact that the first two letters were possibly more closely concerned with the Butt litigation than the third is merely one strand in an assessment. In truth, it is difficult to see what Mr Iqbal's suggested dismissal from Dean Manson (raised in the first two letters), any more than Mr Iqbal's alleged misconduct in connection with Mr Ali (raised in the third letter), has to do with the Butt litigation. In any event, if there be doubt about such matters, it seems to me that Dean Manson's defence, which reverts to the circumstances of Mr Iqbal's departure from the firm, together with his alleged misuse of his two wives, supports evidentially a view of the three letters as part of a course of conduct, each incident in which can arguably stand as a separate incident capable together of constituting harassment within the meaning of the Act. Issue (i): The three letters There is no respondent's notice. Therefore it may be taken as a given that the third letter is capable of being described as harassing. However, in my judgment, each of the three letters is capable of being so described, a fortiori as the question of harassment has to be considered by reference to a course of conduct as a whole, and not by reference to each individual occasion relied on. I shall return to that matter under issue (ii). For the present, however, I would observe that it seems to me to be entirely arguable that each of the letters by themselves can stand as an occasion which is capable of being described as harassing (and thus in any event capable each of contributing to a course of conduct which can arguably be said to amount to harassment). In Thomas v. News Group Newspapers the defendant had published in The Sun an article reporting that two police sergeants had been demoted to constables after the claimant had alleged that they made racist jokes about a Somali asylum-seeker. The claimant was referred to in the article as a "black clerk". Within another eight days The Sun had published two further similar articles. The claimant alleged that as a result she had received racist hate mail. She said that the article amounted to a course of conduct amounting to harassment because it incited racial hatred against her. The defendant applied to strike out the claim on the ground that 52

"harassment" could not extend to what was written in the newspapers, but lost the application. On appeal to this court, the defendant conceded that newspaper material could amount to harassment, but that it was not arguable that these publications did, especially when the guarantee of freedom of speech was taken into account. As cited above, the test of harassment was held to be "conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable" (at [30]). Lord Phillips continued: "31. The fact that conduct that is reasonable will not constitute harassment is clear from section 1(3)(c) of the Act. While that subsection places the burden of proof on the defendant, that does not absolve the claimant from pleading facts which are capable of amounting to harassment. Unless the claimant's pleading alleges conduct by the defendant which is, at least, arguably unreasonable, it is unlikely to set out a viable plea of harassment." As for the facts of that case, Lord Phillips said this, under the heading of "The Nature of Reasonable Conduct": "[32] Whether conduct is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. When considering whether the conduct of the press in publishing articles is reasonable for the purposes of the 1997 Act, the answer does not turn on whether the opinions in the article are reasonably held. The question must be answered by reference to the right of the press to freedom of expression which has been so emphatically recognised by the jurisprudence both of Strasbourg and this country. [33] Prior to the 1997 Act, the freedom with which the press could publish facts or opinions about individuals was circumscribed by the law of defamation. Protection of reputation is a legitimate reason to restrict freedom of expression. Subject to the law of defamation, the press was entitled to publish an article, or series of articles, about an individual, notwithstanding that it could be foreseen that such conduct was likely to cause distress to the subject of the article. [34] The 1997 Act has not rendered such conduct unlawful. In general, press criticism, even if robust, does not constitute unreasonable conduct and does not fall within the natural meaning of harassment. A pleading, which does no more than allege that the defendant has published a series of articles that have reasonably caused distress to an individual, will be susceptible to a strike-out on the ground that it discloses no arguable case of harassment. [35] It is common ground between the parties to this appeal, and properly so, that before press publications are capable of constituting harassment, they must be attended by some exceptional circumstance which justifies sanctions and the restriction on the freedom of expression that they involve. It is also common ground that such circumstances will be rare. [36] Mr Pannick QC, for the respondent, offered the example of an editor who uses his newspaper to conduct a campaign of vilification against a lover from whom he has broken off a relationship. Mr Browne rightly submitted that editorial comment would only amount to harassment if it incited, provoked or encouraged harassment of an individual. [37] It is not necessary for this court to rule on Mr Pannick's example, nor to attempt any categorisation of the types of abuse of freedom of the press which may amount to harassment. That is because the parties are agreed that the publication of press articles calculated to incite racial hatred of an individual provides an example of conduct which is capable of amounting to harassment." In Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224, the issue was whether an employer could be vicariously liable under the Act for harassment by its employee. The House of Lords held

that it could. It was submitted that such an answer would open the floodgates to vicarious liability for all the petty nastiness of employee to employee, and even to unfounded and speculative or unmeritorious claims by disgruntled employees. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said this: "[30] This is a real and understandable concern. But these difficulties, and the prospect of abuse, are not sufficient reasons for excluding vicarious liabilityâ&#x20AC;ŚCourts are well able to separate the wheat from the chaff at an early stage of the proceedings. They should be astute to do so. In most cases courts should have little difficulty in applying the "close connection" test. Where the claim meets that requirement, and the quality of the conduct said to constitute harassment is being examined, courts will have in mind that irritations, annoyances, even a measure of upset, arise at times in everybody's day-to-day dealings with other people. Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under section 2." Baroness Hale of Richmond said at [66]: "A great deal is left to the wisdom of the courts to draw sensible lines between the ordinary banter and badinage of life and genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour." In the present case, the first letter immediately said that Dean Manson wished to raise questions "in relation to your integrity as a solicitor". That was a strong way to introduce a query as to whether there was an undisclosed conflict of interest between Mr Iqbal and his client, Mr Butt. If the letter had been confined to such a query, or if Dean Manson's subsequent correspondence had been confined to such a query, then it would be understandable to conclude that there was no arguable case of harassment. As it was, the letter which had opened with questions as to Mr Iqbal's integrity, closed by asking whether there were outstanding issues "in relation to your employment and departure" and with a threat to present the letter in court. Especially in the light of what follows, the letter can arguably be understood as an attempt to get Mr Iqbal to stand down as Mr Butt's solicitor, or else to face unpleasant consequences. The second letter went much further. It expressly accused Mr Iqbal of having been summarily dismissed by Dean Manson for "continued insubordination and reckless conduct" and of intentionally using Mr Butt's retainer "to set scores because of your personal vendetta against the firm"; and also of "poaching and inciting the clients of the firmâ&#x20AC;Śto initiate complaints". None of that appears to have anything to do with the Butt litigation itself. The letter incidentally suggests a different conflict of interest from that raised in the first letter, namely a breach of confidence between Mr Iqbal and Dean Manson, because of Mr Iqbal's knowledge of Dean Manson's files, but that is separate from the accusations levelled against Mr Iqbal. Finally the letter seeks to advise Mr Iqbal to tell his client to pay Dean Manson, in order to save costs "due to your own vendetta". Moreover that letter was sent to the county court. The third letter accused Mr Iqbal of "misleading the law society and the general public" and participating in conduct "in breach of the law of the land" by assisting Mr Ali to obtain employment when he had no permission to remain or work in the UK. That letter was also sent to the county court as a matter relevant to the Butt litigation. The allegation of illegal conduct perhaps went beyond the previous allegations of unprofessional conduct meriting summary dismissal and of subjecting the interest of clients to a personal vendetta: but that might be thought to be a matter of argument. The judge himself considered the third letter to be designed "to put pressure on Mr Iqbal" and to be capable of being described as harassment or arguably so. Passages in the first two letters are described as "unfortunate and regrettable". It is not clear to me, however, what there is, arguably, to choose between them.

The judge was perhaps concerned, and rightly so, not to set up every complaint between lawyers as to the conduct of litigation as arguably a matter of harassment within the Act. It must be rare indeed that such complaints, even if in the heat of battle they go too far, could arguably fall foul of the Act. However, in my judgment, these three letters, particularly when viewed in the light of each other, and especially the last two, arguably amount to a deliberate attack on the professional and personal integrity of Mr Iqbal, in an attempt to pressurise him, by his exposure to his client and/or the court, into declining to act for Mr Butt or else into advising Mr Butt to meet the demands of Dean Manson. It cannot, at any rate arguably, assist Dean Manson that such letters were written in the context of litigation and in an attempt to improve their position in that litigation, or in an attempt to raise even serious and proper questions as to possible conflicts of interest. Arguably, the letters go way beyond such concerns. Indeed, Mr Brown conceded in argument that if the above was, even arguably, the view which could be taken of these letters, as distinct from the view of them which he submitted was the correct one, namely that they were simply and solely raising legitimate queries as to conflicts of interest between Mr Iqbal and his client and as to breach of confidence between Mr Iqbal and Dean Manson, then Mr Iqbal's claim could not be struck out, at any rate subject to issue (iv). In sum, in my judgment, each of these letters does, when considered side by side, arguably evidence a campaign of harassment against Mr Iqbal. They are arguably capable of causing alarm or distress. They are arguably unreasonable, or oppressive and unreasonable, or oppressive and unacceptable, or genuinely offensive and unacceptable. Arguably, they go beyond annoyances or irritations, and beyond the ordinary banter and badinage of life. Arguably, the conduct alleged is of a gravity which could be characterised as criminal. A professional man's integrity is the lifeblood of his vocation. If it is deliberately and wrongly attacked, whether out of personal self-interest or malice, a potential claim lies under the Act. It is suggested that Mr Iqbal conceded the inadequacy of the first two letters before Teare J. Mr Iqbal says, however, that any concession went no further than to accept the inadequacy of the first two letters if viewed entirely each by itself. He did not, he says, withdraw reliance on the first two letters. I would accept this explanation (compare the concession concerning the 2006 letters). It is entirely consistent with the course of the litigation as a whole, including the way in which the judge set out the first two (as well as the third) letters verbatim. Issue (ii): Course of conduct The next issue is whether the first two letters, read together with the third letter, could amount to a "course of conduct" which amounts to harassment, even if, as the judge found, those first two letters in themselves, unlike the third, were not capable of constituting harassment. As it is, in the light of my answer to issue (i), this second issue is not determinative. However, it has been fully argued and I shall give my opinion on it. In my judgment, the Act is concerned with courses of conduct which amount to harassment, rather than with individual instances of harassment. Of course, it is the individual instances which will make up the course of conduct, but it still remains the position that it is the course of conduct which has to have the quality of amounting to harassment, rather than individual instances of conduct. That is so both as a matter of the language of the statute, and as a matter of common sense. The Act is written in terms of a course of conduct: see sections 1(1), 1(2), 1(3), 2(1), 3(1), 7(3). That course of conduct has to amount to harassment, both objectively and in terms of the required mens rea (see section 1(1)(b)). In the case of a single person victim, there have to be "at least two occasions in relation to that person" (section 7(3)(a)), but it is not said that that those two occasions must individually, ie standing each by itself, amount to harassment. The reason why the statute is drafted in this way is not hard to understand. Take the typical case of stalking, or of malicious phone calls. When a defendant, D, walks past a claimant C's door, or calls C's telephone but puts the phone down without speaking, the single act by itself is neutral, or may be. But if that act is repeated on a number of occasions, the course of conduct may well amount to harassment. That conclusion can only be arrived at by looking at the individual acts complained of as a whole. The course of conduct cannot be reduced to or 55

deconstructed into the individual acts, taken solely one by one. So it is with a course of communications such as letters. A first letter, by itself, may appear innocent and may even cause no alarm, or at most a slight unease. However, in the light of subsequent letters, that first letter may be seen as part of a campaign of harassment. That, however, was not how the judge looked at the matter. Having found the third letter to be arguably capable of amounting to harassment, he never went back to ask himself how the three letters were to be looked at together as a possible course of conduct. Of course, it is always feasible that a number of disparate instances are not capable of being aggregated into a course of conduct, because, for instance, they are too separated in time or subject-matter. However, that does not apply in this case (although it could have applied to the 2006 letters if Mr Iqbal had persisted in relying upon them). The three letters were close in time, all headed by reference to the Butt litigation, and at any rate arguably, connected with one another. In this connection, both parties relied on Kelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] EWHC Admin 1428, [2002] 166 JP 621, [2003] Crim LR 45 (Burton J). The appellant there was convicted by the magistrates of an offence under section 2 of the Act. He had made three abusive telephone calls within a few minutes of one another to the victim's mobile, in the middle of the night. The victim did not receive the calls at that time and they were recorded on her voicemail facility. In the morning she listened to all three messages one after the other. It was submitted on behalf the appellant that the three calls were all so much part and parcel of one another that there was no course of conduct, and that in any event the victim had to feel alarm on more than one occasion. The appeal failed. Each call was abusive and alarming, but the peculiar facts there were that the calls were very close in time and the victim was only alarmed on one occasion. On behalf of Dean Manson, Mr Brown relied on what Burton J said at 626G, viz – "The Act requires that an offence must be committed more than once before it can be actionable, and it was committed more than once." In my judgment, however, that cannot be right (and I suspect was not what Burton J intended to say, as is demonstrated by what is said elsewhere in his judgment). The "offence" cannot be committed without a course of conduct, and there is no need for more than one offence, only for more than one incident, or, in the neutral words of the Act, "conduct on at least two occasions". Mr Iqbal, however, relied on what Burton J said at 627F/628A: "Similarly, the purpose of the Act, it seems to me plain, is intended to render actionable conduct which might not be alarming if committed once, but becomes alarming by virtue of being repeated – the repetitious conduct to which Latham LJ referred [in Pratt (2001) 165 JP 800]…It seems to me that…what was intended was that something which might not be alarming the first time would become actionable, criminally and civilly, on the second occasion. It is, therefore, in my judgment, not necessary for there to be alarm caused in relation to each of the incidents relied upon as forming part of the course of conduct. It is sufficient if, by virtue of the course of conduct, the victim is alarmed or distressed." That seems to me to be correct. Section 4 of the Act sets out an alternative offence ("Putting people in fear of violence") which does require "another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him" (emphasis added). Burton J therefore implicitly emphasises that the various incidents alleged to make up the course of conduct as a whole have to be scrutinised for their capacity to constitute a course of conduct which amounts to harassment. In my judgment, therefore, the judge erred in failing to ask himself, in the light of his finding as to the third letter, whether the three letters as a whole could amount to a relevant course of conduct. For the reasons already given under issue (i) above, it is very difficult to see why they could not. The fact that the first two 56

letters were possibly more closely concerned with the Butt litigation than the third is merely one strand in an assessment. In truth, it is difficult to see what Mr Iqbal's suggested dismissal from Dean Manson (raised in the first two letters), any more than Mr Iqbal's alleged misconduct in connection with Mr Ali (raised in the third letter), has to do with the Butt litigation. In any event, if there be doubt about such matters, it seems to me that Dean Manson's defence, which reverts to the circumstances of Mr Iqbal's departure from the firm, together with his alleged misuse of his two wives, supports evidentially a view of the three letters as part of a course of conduct, each incident in which can arguably stand as a separate incident capable together of constituting harassment within the meaning of the Act. For the same reason, I would, if necessary, reject the judge's solution that the doctrine of mens rea made it impossible to sue a partnership under section 3 of the Act. Some form of mental element is an ingredient of many cases of tortious liability â&#x20AC;&#x201C; that does not mean that a corporate or unincorporated body cannot be liable, either directly or vicariously. The position may be different in criminal cases. In R v. L [2008] EWCA Crim 1970, [2009] 1 All ER 786, in a case of strict liability under the Water Resources Act 1991, it was held that a club (an unincorporated body) could be prosecuted, as the definition of "person" in the Interpretation Act 1978 applied and there was no contrary intention. However, Hughes LJ went on to reserve the position in statutes where mens rea was required (at [30]), "which would be likely to raise quite different questions because of the personal and individual nature of a guilty mind". However, whatever may be the position in such cases, there seems to me to be no reason why "person" in section 3 of the Act, even if the position had to be different for the purposes of section 2, should not be given its natural meaning. That appears to have been the logic of the reasoning of the majority in this court in Majrowski [2005] EWCA Civ 251, [2005] QB 848 at [72] ("The civil remedy provided in section 3 is not predicated on there having been a criminal offence" per Auld LJ) and [89] (per May LJ)).

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT

Relevant provisions (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx)

ADOPTED AND OPENED FOR SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION AND ACCESSION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 39/46 OF 10 DECEMBER 1984 ENTRY INTO FORCE 26 JUNE 1987, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 27 (1) The States Parties to this Convention, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms, Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975, Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world, Have agreed as follows: PART I Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Article 3 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Article 4 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. Article 5 1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases: (a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; (b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State; (c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate. 2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article. 3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.

ARTICLE X WILKINSON V DOWNTON [1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57

Relevant provisions (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1897/1.html) WRIGHT J. In this case the defendant, in the execution of what he seems to have regarded as a practical joke, represented to the plaintiff that he was charged by her husband with a message to her to the effect that her husband was smashed up in an accident, and was lying at The Elms at Leytonstone with both legs broken, and that she was to go at once in a cab with two pillows to fetch him home. All this was false. The effect of the statement on the plaintiff was a violent shock to her nervous system, producing vomiting and other more serious and permanent physical consequences at one time threatening her reason, and entailing weeks of suffering and incapacity to her as well as expense to her husband for medical attendance. These consequences were not in any way the result of previous ill-health or weakness of constitution; nor was there any evidence of predisposition to nervous shock or any other idiosyncrasy. In addition to these matters of substance there is a small claim for 1s. 10Â˝d. for the cost of railway fares of persons sent by the plaintiff to Leytonstone in obedience to the pretended message. As to this 1s. 10Â˝d. expended in railway fares on the faith of the defendant's statement, I think the case is clearly within the decision in Pasley v. Freeman. (1789) 3 TR 51 The statement was a misrepresentation intended to be acted on to the damage of the plaintiff. The real question is as to the 100l., the greatest part of which is given as compensation for the female plaintiff's illness and suffering. It was argued for her that she is entitled to recover this as being damage caused by fraud, and therefore within the doctrine established by Pasley v. Freeman (1789) 3 TR 51 and Langridge v. Levy. (1837) 2 M & W 519 I am not sure that this would not be an extension of that doctrine, the real ground of which appears to be that a person who makes a false statement intended to be acted on must make good the damage naturally resulting from its being acted on. Here there is no injuria of that kind. I think, however, that the verdict may be supported upon another ground. The defendant has, as I assume for the moment, wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff â&#x20AC;&#x201D; that is to say, to infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her. That proposition without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act. This wilful injuria is in law malicious, although no malicious purpose to cause the harm which was caused nor any motive of spite is imputed to the defendant. It remains to consider whether the assumptions involved in the proposition are made out. One question is whether the defendant's act was so plainly calculated to produce some effect of the kind which was produced that an intention to produce it ought to be imputed to the defendant, regard being had to the fact that the effect was produced on a person proved to be in an ordinary state of health and mind. I think that it was. It is difficult to imagine that such a statement, made suddenly and with apparent seriousness, could fail to produce grave effects under the circumstances upon any but an exceptionally indifferent person, and therefore an intention to produce such an effect must be imputed, and it is no answer in law to say that more harm was done than was anticipated, for that is commonly the case with all wrongs. The other question is whether the effect was, to use the ordinary phrase, too remote to be in law regarded as a consequence for which the defendant is answerable. Apart from authority, I should give the same answer and on the same ground as the last question, and say that it was not too remote. Whether, as the majority of the House of

Lords thought in Lynch v. Knight (1861) 9 HL C 577, at pp 592, 596 , the criterion is in asking what would be the natural effect on reasonable persons, or whether, as Lord Wensleydale thought 9 HL C 577, at p 600 , the possible infirmities of human nature ought to be recognised, it seems to me that the connection between the cause and the effect is sufficiently close and complete. It is, however, necessary to consider two authorities which are supposed to have laid down that illness through mental shock is a too remote or unnatural consequence of an injuria to entitle the plaintiff to recover in a case where damage is a necessary part of the cause of action. One is the case of Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas 13 App Cas 222 , where it was held in the Privy Council that illness which was the effect of shock caused by fright was too remote a consequence of a negligent act which caused the fright, there being no physical harm immediately caused. That decision was treated in the Court of Appeal in Pugh v. London, Brighton and South Coast Ry. Co. [1896] 2 QB 248 as open to question. It is inconsistent with a decision in the Court of Appeal in Ireland: see Bell v. Great Northern Ry. Co. of Ireland (1890) 26 LR Ir 428 , where the Irish Exchequer Division refused to follow it; and it has been disapproved in the Supreme Court of New York: see Pollock on Torts, 4th ed. p. 47 (n). [This decision has since been reversed on appeal: Mitchell v RR Co, 151 NY 107 — FP] Nor is it altogether in point, for there was not in that case any element of wilful wrong; nor perhaps was the illness so direct and natural a consequence of the defendant's conduct as in this case. On these grounds it seems to me that the case of Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas 13 App Cas 222 is not an authority on which this case ought to be decided. A more serious difficulty is the decision in Allsop v. Allsop 5 H & N 534 , which was approved by the House of Lords in Lynch v. Knight. 9 HL C 577 In that case it was held by Pollock C.B., Martin, Bramwell, and Wilde BB., that illness caused by a slanderous imputation of unchastity in the case of a married woman did not constitute such special damage as would sustain an action for such a slander. That case, however, appears to have been decided on the ground that in all the innumerable actions for slander there were no precedents for alleging illness to be sufficient special damage, and that it would be of evil consequence to treat it as sufficient, because such a rule might lead to an infinity of trumpery or groundless actions. Neither of these reasons is applicable to the present case. Nor could such a rule be adopted as of general application without results which it would be difficult or impossible to defend. Suppose that a person is in a precarious and dangerous condition, and another person tells him that his physician has said that he has but a day to live. In such a case, if death ensued from the shock caused by the false statement, I cannot doubt that at this day the case might be one of criminal homicide, or that if a serious aggravation of illness ensued damages might be recovered. I think, however, that it must be admitted that the present case is without precedent. Some English decisions — such as Jones v. Boyce (1816) 1 Stark 493 ; Wilkins v. Day (1883) 12 QB D 110 ; Harris v. Mobbs (1878) 3 Ex D 268 — are cited in Beven on Negligence as inconsistent with the decision in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas. 13 App Cas 222 But I think that those cases are to be explained on a different ground, namely, that the damage which immediately resulted from the act of the passenger or of the horse was really the result, not of that act, but of a fright which rendered that act involuntary, and which therefore ought to be regarded as itself the direct and immediate cause of the damage. In Smith v. Johnson & Co. Unreported , decided in January last, Bruce J. and I held that where a man was killed in the sight of the plaintiff by the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff became ill, not from the shock from fear of harm to himself, but from the shock of seeing another person killed, this harm was too remote a consequence of the negligence. But that was a very different case from the present. There must be judgment for the plaintiff for 100l. 1s. 10½. Judgment for plaintiff. Solicitor for plaintiff: J. S. Waters. Solicitor for defendant: G. E. Philbrick.

J. F. C.

18 U.S. CODE CHAPTER 77 - FORCED LABOR CHAPTER 77 CODE 1589, 1593, 1595 & 1596 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-77)

18 U.S. CODE § 1589 - FORCED LABOR (a) Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means— (1) by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical restraint to that person or another person; (2) by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm to that person or another person; (3) by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process; or (4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint, shall be punished as provided under subsection (d). (b) Whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of the means described in subsection (a), knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the venture has engaged in the providing or obtaining of labor or services by any of such means, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d). (c) In this section: (1) The term “abuse or threatened abuse of law or legal process” means the use or threatened use of a law or legal process, whether administrative, civil, or criminal, in any manner or for any purpose for which the law was not designed, in order to exert pressure on another person to cause that person to take some action or refrain from taking some action. (2) The term “serious harm” means any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a

reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm. (d) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from a violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnaping, an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1593 - Mandatory restitution (a) Notwithstanding section 3663 or 3663A, and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense under this chapter. (b) (1) The order of restitution under this section shall direct the defendant to pay the victim (through the appropriate court mechanism) the full amount of the victim’s losses, as determined by the court under paragraph (3) of this subsection. (2) An order of restitution under this section shall be issued and enforced in accordance with section 3664 in the same manner as an order under section 3663A. (3) As used in this subsection, the term “full amount of the victim’s losses” has the same meaning as provided in section 2259(b)(3) and shall in addition include the greater of the gross income or value to the defendant of the victim’s services or labor or the value of the victim’s labor as guaranteed under the minimum wage and overtime guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). (4) The forfeiture of property under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 (other than subsection (d) of such section) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853). (c) As used in this section, the term “victim” means the individual harmed as a result of a crime under this chapter, including, in the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim’s estate, or another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, but in no event shall the defendant be named such representative or guardian.

18 U.S. Code § 1595 - Civil remedy (a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter) in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees. (b) (1) Any civil action filed under this section shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.

(2) In this subsection, a “criminal action” includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial court. (c) No action may be maintained under this section unless it is commenced not later than the later of— (1) 10 years after the cause of action arose; or (2) 10 years after the victim reaches 18 years of age, if the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense.

18 U.S. Code § 1596 - Additional jurisdiction in certain trafficking offenses (a)In General.—In addition to any domestic or extra-territorial jurisdiction otherwise provided by law, the courts of the United States have extra-territorial jurisdiction over any offense (or any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense) under section 1581, 1583, 1584, 1589, 1590, or 1591 if— (1) an alleged offender is a national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as those terms are defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); or (2) an alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged offender. (b)Limitation on Prosecutions of Offenses Prosecuted in Other Countries.— No prosecution may be commenced against a person under this section if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction recognized by the United States, has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person for the conduct constituting such offense, except upon the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General (or a person acting in either such capacity), which function of approval may not be delegated.

SCHEDULE TWO THE APPENDICES

APPENDICES CONTENTS PAGE

Appendix

Subject

The Fraudulent Advert for “Enter The Wild”

@3xt1 Twitter log of harassment, extract, search Twitter “@3xt1 #NoCommentEvidence”

West Midlands PCC letter 11 March 2015

A17

Staffordshire Police Stop reference and South Staffs Hospital blood test results after attempted suicide

A18

Irwin Mitchell Letter - 14 January 2016

A19

IPCC Letter - 13 March 2015

A20

Letter from John Spellar MP about harassment - 27 July 2014

A22

Letter from David Cameron - 21 August 2014

A23

Humberside Police, letter about fraud - 1 March 2016

A24

Sandwell Council evidence of complaint

A25

Royal Mail letter regarding illegal interception of mail

A26

Proof of original contact about neighbours criminality

A27

Letter to service providers and financial services firms which was never delivered

A28

Record of day AJ was arrested at Piddock St station, Smethwick

A29

Email to Humberside police - 5 May 2016

A30

MBNA credit card invoice with fraudulent transactions by Nick Johnson of Brigg highlighted

A32

Travis Eilerson Linked-In Profile referencing “Enter The Wild”

A35

“Enter The Wild Emails” - 29 October 2013

A37

Email to Humberside Police DC Wressell - 9 May 2016

A43

Page

Email to Financial Ombudsman - 12 May 2016

A49

UK Home Office Correspondence - 6 to 12 May 2016

A52

Email to West Midlands Police - 16 April 2016

A60

Email to US State Department - 12 May 2016

A65

Email correspondence with Scottish Govâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t 21-29 April 2016

A68

Email correspondence with BBC Complaints - 8 March 2015

A75

Complaint to Ofcom & Ofcom Rules - 10 March 2015

A77

Complaint to The Federal Communications Commission - 10 March 2015

A95

Complaint to the Federal Trade Commission - 14 May 2016

A99

Complaint to NYPD & Mayorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office - 15 January 2016

A101

Sandwell Council correspondence 11 March 2015 -6 April 2015

A104

Psychology forced labor, abuse & torture etc website & WHOIS data

A122

NBC practices in Reality TV & manipulation of victim use of illegal drugs

A174

Appendix 1 The Fraudulent Advert for “Enter The Wild”

16 October 2016

A1 of A185.

A2 of A185.

A3 of A185.

A4 of A185.

A5 of A185.

A6 of A185.

A7 of A185.

A8 of A185.

A9 of A185.

A10 of A185.

A11 of A185.

A12 of A185.

A13 of A185.

A14 of A185.

A15 of A185.

A16 of A185.

A17 of A185.

A18 of A185.

A19 of A185.

A20 of A185.

A21 of A185.

A22 of A185.

A23 of A185.

A24 of A185.

A25 of A185.

A26 of A185.

A27 of A185.

A28 of A185.

A29 of A185.

A30 of A185.

A31 of A185.

A32 of A185.

A33 of A185.

A34 of A185.

A35 of A185.

A36 of A185.

A37 of A185.

A38 of A185.

A39 of A185.

A40 of A185.

A41 of A185.

A42 of A185.

A43 of A185.

A44 of A185.

A45 of A185.

A46 of A185.

A47 of A185.

A48 of A185.

A49 of A185.

A50 of A185.

A51 of A185.

A52 of A185.

A53 of A185.

A54 of A185.

Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

Tel: 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Mr Ajwinder Singh Bains Aj.s.b@icloud.com Reference: T4806/16

6 May 2016

Dear Mr Bains, Thank you for your email of 29 April to the Home Secretary chasing a reply to your email of 27 April. As I am sure you can appreciate, the Home Secretary receives a large amount of correspondence and is unable to reply personally to each item received. Your email has therefore been passed to the Direct Communications Unit at the Home Office and I have been asked to reply. I am sorry to hear of the situation you describe where you believe that you are being persecuted by the makers of a TV program. I also note that you have been in contact with the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and are not satisfied with the way that your case has been handled. You may find it helpful if I explain the way the law applies regarding police investigations in individual cases. It is the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation, and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those alleged to be responsible. If a prosecution proceeds, it is for the courts to decide whether any offence has been committed, having taken account of all the relevant circumstances and to decide what sentence or penalty to impose on the defendant. Therefore, decisions on arrests are an operational matter for the police, in line with their duties to keep the peace, protect communities and prevent the commission of offences, working within the provisions of the legal framework set by Parliament. The IPCC is an independent body and therefore, if you are not satisfied with their investigation, you will need to seek independent legal advice, as their decisions on cases cannot be overturned apart from through the courts. The Home Office and its Ministers are not able to act as an avenue of appeal, and have no power to influence or intervene in any investigations or decisions made by the IPCC.

A55 of A185.

You may wish to contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau as they can provide free independent advice and can advise you whether you have grounds for a complaint against the police. You can find the contact details of your local office by looking in Yellow Pages or by looking on their national website: www.citizensadvice.org.uk/. I am sorry that I cannot be of further assistance on this occasion. Yours sincerely, B Jugdaohsingh Direct Communications Unit Email: Public.Enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

A56 of A185.

A57 of A185.

A58 of A185.

A59 of A185.

A60 of A185.

A61 of A185.

A62 of A185.

A63 of A185.

A64 of A185.

A65 of A185.

A66 of A185.

A67 of A185.

A68 of A185.

A69 of A185.

A70 of A185.

A71 of A185.

A72 of A185.

A73 of A185.

A74 of A185.

A75 of A185.

A76 of A185.

A77 of A185.

A78 of A185.

A79 of A185.

A80 of A185.

A81 of A185.

A82 of A185.

A83 of A185.

A84 of A185.

A85 of A185.

A86 of A185.

A87 of A185.

A88 of A185.

A89 of A185.

A90 of A185.

A91 of A185.

A92 of A185.

A93 of A185.

A94 of A185.

A95 of A185.

A96 of A185.

A97 of A185.

A98 of A185.

A99 of A185.

A100 of A185.

A101 of A185.

A102 of A185.

A103 of A185.

Appendix 30 Sandwell Council correspondence 11 March 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 April 2015

A104 of A185.

AJ From: Sent: To: Subject:

A Singh <aj.s.b@icloud.com> Monday, April 6, 2015 9:52 PM contact@sandwell.gov.uk; advice@lgo.org.uk Complaint about Sandwell Council - 78785459

Dear Sirs I write to you with reference to account number 78785459. I would like to propose a payment plan which would repay the outstanding amount on the council tax for the previous year. I would like to spread the repayments over 5 years. At the moment I am not working and I have not been working for most of 2004-15 tax year. I would also like to raise the question of your response to my complaint below. Rather than writing back to me with the response that I had overreacted, that my concerns were unfounded and that it was a hysterical rant, you in your great wisdom decided to incarcerate me with the aid of a section 2 under the mental health act. I, of course, challenged it and won at tribunal. If that is your response to complaints, I am disgusted. However, this is a matter that, I am sure, will be settled at a future date but I would like a response from you with the civil response as in the latter part of the previous paragraph. In the meantime I would be grateful if you would consider the repayment plan and remove any additional costs and penalties for the outstanding council tax for the tax year 2014-15.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

A Bains On Mar 11, 2015, at 09:35 AM, AJ <aj.s.b@icloud.com> wrote: Dear Sirs I wish to register my complaint about the council's participation in my harassment, torture & victimisation. Below is a letter I will send to the IPCC, it summarises the events. I would also like a data subject request on myself & freedom of information request enacted based on these events. It goes without saying that you have acted in a completely repugnant manner & completely ignored your duty of care. Dear Sirs I write with reference to the West Midlands Police.

A105 of1 A185.

My name is Ajwinder Singh Bains (Aj Bains), of 46 Parkes Street, Smethwick B67 6AZ & 5 Reservoir Road, Oldbury, B68 9QQ. The latter is my current address. I include a picture of myself above. To give you some details on the background of my situation, which I am sure you are aware of. I applied for a reality show called "Enter the wild", with a U.S. Media company which I thought was part of NBC. I made an agreement with them regarding that show, however, they fraudulently changed the concept and violated my life. They orchestrated a "bait & switch" under an illegal contract, one which I did not know that I was agreeing to. They hacked my phones and my email in an illegal manner, convinced my employer Pett, Franklin & Co. LLP to participate in this ridiculous spin on the "big brother" concept, who assisted them in illegally hacking my private emails despite Pett, Franklin & Co. LLP being a law firm regulated by the SRA. They invaded every aspect of my life, I believe they have unlawfully administered prescription drugs (I suspect they have also given me illegal drugs and tried to hide their criminality). I understand that West Midlands Police agreed to be part of the show to promote themselves. They have harassed & stalked me since October 2013. They, the media company, have lied to the authorities including the police & I believe they have made false statements before the courts. They systematically isolated me, they have intercepted all my communications be it phone, email and post. They deliberately destroyed my finances and fraudulently accessed my financial data. They even ignored Reshmo Kaur (my mother) & Mandeep Kaur Bains (my sister) physically assaulting me. On numerous occasions they have prevented me from contacting the authorities, when I contacted the police they have not taken my concerns seriously. The harassment has continued for a prolonged period of time, on at least 5 occasions the harassment has been so abusive, so vindictive & malicious that it is tantamount to attempted murder, continuously for hours telling me to kill myself, that it drove me to try and commit suicide. They told me to set fire to myself in a car, drink disinfectant liquid (which I did), and overdose on painkillers (which I also took). None of this has caused any concern for the authorities who continued to ignore the abuse. I believe that their methods have been exposed yet for some reason unknown to me, there have been no consequences. No one is able to admit the truth to me, yet I know for a fact that some aspect of my life is being broadcast. Their behaviour turned vindictive once I announced that I would be instructing lawyers once this horror was over, from that point they started on a course intended to end in my death. Yet, West Midlands Police have been ambivalent towards their criminal conduct. They tried to convince "the audience" that I had a breakdown, although it was their constant uninterrupted abuse and harassment that caused my behaviour, they ensured they were able to communicate with me in a manner that "the audience" was unaware of. They constantly called me a pedophile & have told me that they will kill me. I was unable to contact the West Midlands Police, whom I was told were working with them in this sham of a "big brother" show. They refused to help when I raised concerns of criminal behaviour. I contacted them a number of times and their response was "where is your proof". The media company concerned systematically destroyed data and evidence in an attempt to hide their behaviour after co-opting West Midlands Police in what has become a horrifically criminal enterprise. They have tried to entrap me into committing illegal acts, specifically to prevent me from going to the U.S. to commence civil litigation against the company

A106 of2 A185.

concerned. I am seriously dismayed by the behaviour of West Midlands Police, they are worse than the criminals because they should be upholding the law not helping a group of criminals shred it, all because the media seems to think it can act with impunity and that the rule of law does not apply to them in any manner whatsoever. I am at the end of my tether and fear that I would do something, in defence of my person & property. There are few people who can face the non stop harassment & attacks that I have suffered for a year and a half without flipping out. In my opinion, I have showed remarkable constraint in that face of the most egregious attacks and individual can suffer. What I have suffer is no less than torture, a vile repugnant physiological torture no human can suffer without resorting to violence, but I am unsure how long I can go on with this. I even tried to contact Action Fraud who indicated they were restrained in how they could deal with this matter and seem to have referred the matter to West Midlands Police who did nothing at all, I suspect there is an injunction of sorts but I have never been privy to the details, I also suspect any injunction would have been obtained on a fraudulent basis with perjured evidence. This is simply a small description of the unending horrors that I have suffered and until the authorities take action it will continue. I would appreciate a face-to-face meeting to discuss the matters raised, as I previously indicated my mail is being intercepted, therefore I would suggest any correspondence is sent by registered mail and to fully address the problem only a face-to-face meeting would be appropriate.

Regards

A S Bains

A107 of3 A185.

A108 of A185.

A109 of A185.

A110 of A185.

A111 of A185.

A112 of A185.

A113 of A185.

A114 of A185.

A115 of A185.

A116 of A185.

A117 of A185.

A118 of A185.

AJ From: Sent: To: Subject:

A Singh <aj.s.b@icloud.com> Monday, April 6, 2015 9:52 PM contact@sandwell.gov.uk; advice@lgo.org.uk Complaint about Sandwell Council - 78785459

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

A119 of1 A185.

A120 of2 A185.

Regards

A S Bains

A121 of3 A185.

Appendix 31 Psychology, forced labor, abuse & torture etc website & WHOIS data (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-77)

22 May 2016

A122 of A185.

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT INFORMATION ASSOCIATION PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT INFORMATION ASSOCIATION TELL YOUR FRIENDS home sitemap portal facebook psychologicalharassment.org facebook google+ youtube survey feedback contact/donate for a healthier and more productive environment

Psychological Manipulation Psychological Manipulation and Induced Psychological Illness As indicated on the home page, psychological harassment and psychological manipulation "mind control" can induce psychological and physical disorders. When an individual is targeted, the level of harassment usually begins slowly and increases with time. Anytime someone interacts with you they can influence your thoughts and also manipulate your thoughts. Usually, people "tune out" the conversations around them. If you are in a crowded room and someone calls out your name they will probably attract your attention and the same goes for other specific words or sounds. Individual's can recall or form images. The expression “I get the visual”. When someone talks about or describes a scene you may form an image even if you have never seen what the other person is talking about or describing. An individual can come in close proximity to another individual and ask a question, If the individual hears the question, whether he is the target of the question or not, his mind can respond with an answer. The answer response can be in different forms such as an image or sound. For example, if the question is what does the person look like? The individual may form an image of the person in his mind. If the IP 184.154.247.2201 of 28. A123 of A185. question is what is the person’s name? The individual’s mind may respond with the sound of the person’s http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

1/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

name. If someone says leave and slams a desk drawer or hits an object. This is a form of indirect intimidation, an indirect threat of violence. If these actions are repeated it can become a form of conditioning. The next time a person slams a desk drawer or hits an object the person may associate this as a threat. Classical conditioning can be used to associate different threats to different things. (Fear Conditioning) Bookmarks (sections): Conditioning your mind Negatively or Positively Dark Sarcasm and Negativity Condition Your Mind Happy: Act Happy ConstantStateofInterrogation: Indirect Communication and Psychological Disorders ConstantStateofInterrogation: Unfinished Ambiguities – Frustration and Negative Conditioning Conditioning Sounds: Hitting Sounds and Fear Conditioning Conditioning Words: The Identification Word or The Trigger Word Social Queues: Rejection Hurts and can Lower Your SelfEsteem Social Queues: Smiling and Acceptance The Opposite of Rejection Degrading Themes and Indirect Threats: Verbal Maneuvering to Hide Direct Threats Degrading Themes: Inducing Degrading Images and Intrusive Thoughts Degrading Themes: The Pedophilia Weapon Degrading Themes: Attack Pattern to Put the Victim on the Psychological Defensive Psychological Constructions: Constructions, Barriers, and Restrictions False Pretenses: Deception to Prevent Exposure, Torture and False Confession Pretense Subtle Attacks: Hidden, Doubtful, Uncertain, and Psychological Defenses Verbal Dialogue to Shut Down the Brain Anger Makes You Powerful or Stronger? The Funny Quick Brain Ambiguities: Self Doubt and Uncertainty (A StateofLimbo) Ambiguities: Inducing SelfDoubt and Attacks to SelfConfidence Metaphorical Speech: Hidden Threats and View on Reality Manipulation Interpretation and View on Reality Manipulation: The Workplace, The Media, Propaganda, Brainwashing FearofFear: Attacks to the Honor FearofHumiliation Responsibility and Vulnerability Ideation: To Manipulate Victims Beneficial Intentions: To Deceive Victims Beneficial Intentions: The Failure Strategy Beneficial Intentions: The Never Ending Test My Space, Your Space, Not Behind Me Staring Drills: To Provoke and Manipulate The Domination Game: Who Dominates Psychological Warfare or Manipulation: In Covert Type Investigations Psychological Warfare: Three Top Priorities or Objectives Psychological Warfare: Credibility Psychological Warfare: Who can Contradict the Qualified Professionals Psychological Warfare: Bullies and Criminals Psychological Warfare: Powerful Organizations and Secrets Psychological Warfare Pattern: Homelessness Attack Pattern: Brainwashing or Deceiving and Conditioning the FightorFlight Response to Mean Fear IP 184.154.247.2202 of 28. A124 of A185. Attack Pattern: Public Places and the Cash Register http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm 2/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Attack Pattern: Public Places and the Cash Register Behavior: AntiSocial Behavior Change A Criminal Harassment Network Routine Example (HSS Hypersonic Sound) Criminal Harassment Network Routines, Strategies, and Smear Campaigns The Rundown, Setups and Deception (video) Disclosure, Psychological Harassment Office Tactics (video) An Example of the Pedophilia Weapon (video) Criminal Strategy Examples, Motive Incarceration, No Trial, Personal Hygiene and Degrading Themes, Repression Through Cancer (Powerful Radar Assaults) Criminal Harassment and Threats (Focused Ultrasound) Racial Profiling, Discrimination Conditioning your mind Negatively or Positively (Ivan Pavlov)

Have you ever noticed that when someone is very negative and always complaining they may start to influence you and you may start to see only the negative events or negative side of things as they do? The way you think can be conditioned and a person can also be psychologically manipulated to have a negative thinking pattern, to always see the negative side of things or expect the worse, or to see the negatives out of a situation or event reflexively instead of being open minded or thinking of the positives first. A tactic often used is to constantly interpret or expose the victim to negativity. In some cases it's used to induce or can lead to depression. (linked to selfesteem or selfworth) The opposite is also true. You can condition your mind to think positively or expect positive outcomes. It’s not easy at first and does require effort but eventually it can change and become almost automatic, reflexive, where you will be thinking positively instead of negatively. You may have heard these expressions "look on the bright side, put a positive spin on it or spin it positively". Try this exercise: Think of all the positives that you can imagine out of a situation or event and try to think of the possible positive outcomes first. Dark Sarcasm and Negativity Obvious corruption and the intentional cause of hardship can lead to dark sarcasm and negativity, which is linked to depression and suicide, it can also be linked to a pattern and steps that lead to homelessness. Mobbing and mobbing in modern society are linked to the intentional cause of hardship and obvious corruption. Obvious corruption and the intentional cause of hardship can lead to dark sarcasm and negativity. Dark sarcasm and negativity are linked to depression and suicide. The intentional cause of hardship and obvious corruption leading to anger, frustration, negativity, and dark sarcasm, which can lead to depression and suicide. Links to a pattern or steps to pushing a person to homelessness and the unintentional or possible intention of pushing a person to suicide. IP 184.154.247.2203 of 28.

Condition Your Mind Happy: Act Happy

A125 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

3/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Condition Your Mind Happy: Act Happy

Act the way you want to feel and soon you will feel the way you act.

This is common in selfconfidence building therapies or courses where you are asked to act the part of or like a confident person. You soon develop that skill or behavior which results in the person having more confidence. There is increasing evidence that acting enraged, obsessed, malevolent, or depressed maybe bad for you. Actor Leonard DiCaprio developed obsessivecompulsive disorder while playing Howard Hughes in the block buster The Aviator. This often happens to actors who get "caught up" in the role they play or keep many of the same character traits of the role they played. Heath Ledger who played the Joker in the Batman movie died and was allegedly clinically depressed. If you act having an enraged or angry conversation with someone, you will usually find that your emotions do get engaged even though you are simply acting the part. When you are acting happy, you are thinking happy thoughts that go with the acting role you are playing, so it's like conditioning your mind to be happy. ConstantStateofInterrogation: Indirect Communication and Psychological Disorders (Ivan Pavlov) The group can begin by saying the individual's name, specific words, different sounds, and use other distracting actions to attract the individual's attention. The targeted individual realizes that the group is using some form of harassment and begins to listen to the group around him. Using indirect communication the group can insult the target, attack the individual's dignity, integrity, or selfesteem, threaten the victim, ask questions, and continue to use specific words and sounds to attract the targeted individual’s attention. The indirect communication is also a form of conditioning and can lead to psychological disorders in which the victim feels that he is in a constantstateofinterrogation. For example, the individual may go to a different environment and hear sounds, words, and questions. Because of the indirect communication and conditioning, the individual may feel that he is still in a state of interrogation and believe that individuals are trying to interact with him. Normally, people would usually simply “tune out” the sounds and conversations of other people. This tactic is also used to induce paranoia. ConstantStateofInterrogation: Unfinished Ambiguities – Frustration and Negative Conditioning The constantstateofinterrogation can also be used or combined with unfinished ambiguities. The constantstateofinterrogation tactic involves constant distractions and indirect questions, and this can be combined with unfinished ambiguities. For example “his work is…” ? “he thinks he’s...” ? “he thinks his…” ?. This leaves the victim guessing or wondering “what?” and it can induce frustration or uncertainty. It can also be used to negatively condition a person as to always assume the worse or negativity from ambiguities, negative conditioning. Conditioned Sounds: Hitting Sounds and Fear Conditioning (Ivan Pavlov) IP 184.154.247.2204 of 28.

A126 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

4/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Hitting sounds can affect the nervous system and can also cause or increase the fightorflight phenomenon. One tactic is to hit things or drop things randomly, the smoke screen, and then to start hitting things when threats are made towards you or indirectly. This can be an attempt to increase the reaction that you have about the threat and to condition the affect you experience from it, such as feeling threatened or fear, with hitting sounds. Hitting sounds are linked to physical violence, so if it's used in combination with hitting sounds the fight orflight response can be greater. Conditioned Words: The Identification Word or Trigger Word (Ivan Pavlov) A tactic that is sometimes used on a victim is that the group doing the psychological harassment will start using a word, different actions can also be used, that is not commonly used to identify themselves and to identify themselves as being part of this group. Because the word is now associated to a group that is psychologically attacking the victim it can become threatening in the sense that the victim identifies an enemy, can expect a form of attack or threat, or simply identifies and associates the word to the group and the repetitive attacks and their result. The word is conditioned to a threat, the group and a possible coming attack. Now that the victim has been conditioned to associate a threat, the group and the attacks, to an uncommon word, a more common word is used that is conditioned and associated in the same way to the same threat, an enemy or a possible coming attack. The word itself can also be associated to a threat, an indirect threat of physical violence for example, or a degrading theme that is not recognized by the general public which can increases the victims threat response. This can destabilize the victim further by confusing them and inducing more paranoia where the victim is wondering "who is who" "friend or foe" and can leave them responding more to more possible threats. The conditioned word can become what some have termed a "trigger" word where the victim explodes in rage or to the threat, and physically attacks an innocent and unaware person, making them a victim of physical violence and making them both victims of this tactic, strategy, and phenomenon. Social Queues: Rejection Hurts and can Lower Your SelfEsteem Rejection hurts, registered as pain by the brain as mentioned on the home page, and rejection can be used in attempts to harm and also to lower a person's selfesteem or selfworth. A person's selfesteem can be lowered or increased by conditioning the person to look only for certain social queues, disregard certain social queues, or by changing the meaning of certain social queues. Smiling and laughter, social queues, are very important and also have very positive effects on the brain. A tactic often used is to try to condition, associate, negativity to the act of smiling and laughter. Social queues like smiling indicates acceptance towards the person. A person can be conditioned to associate negativity such as a threat or rejection to a smile. If an individual is repetitively threatened or attacked by individuals that use a devilish or fake smile, that is then gradually reduced to a common smile while still engaging in this behavior, and combined with other tactics to induce paranoia such as whoiswho or friendorfoe, the result can be that the person will associate other peoples smiles to IP 184.154.247.2205 of 28.

A127 of A185.

negativity because they are reminded or conditioned by the previous behavior or because they are

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

5/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

negativity because they are reminded or conditioned by the previous behavior or because they are confused or uncertain as to its intention. A person can be conditioned to associate negativity such as threats or sarcasm and ridicule using the same tactics as described above to laughter. The desired emotion that victims are usually manipulated towards or led to is anger because of its negative health effects, instead of laughter. Laughter is associated to joy and acceptance and is also a great stress and threat reducer. Social Queues: Smiling and Acceptance The Opposite of Rejection The simple act of smiling releases endorphins in the brain and both laughter and smiling are contagious. When you smile at someone they usually reciprocate with a smile and this is associated to acceptance and making a connection with someone, it's the opposite of rejection. Smiling also enhances people's view of you and gets you noticed. Some studies show that people who are depressed have weaker smiling muscles and advocate smiling therapy in which the person practices making the smiling facial expression with eyes wide open and reaps the same benefits as a normal smile. Try this exercise and see what results you get: Make the smiling expression with eyes wide open for a few seconds and then rub or massage your face and head for several seconds. Do not do this in front of a mirror if you will view yourself negatively and look for flaws. If you do it in front of a mirror while smiling and rubbing or massaging your face, think positive and loving thoughts. It's a quick relaxing endorphins fix and see how it affects your current thoughts and mood. Degrading Themes and Indirect Threats: Verbal Maneuvering to Hide Direct Threats Sometimes a lot of verbal maneuvering and planning is used to hide or reduce the visibility and obviousness of a direct threat. For example if a group makes subtle hints or insinuations about you being a homosexual for example, even though they probably know you are not, and then one of them says something like all homosexuals should be killed, it’s an indirect threat to you because of the maneuverings or it's less visible or obvious but it is still a direct threat or threat aimed at you. As indicated on the home page, degrading themes are often used to prevent victims from coming forward and this is often the way they are used in combination with a threat or threats. The victim may have some reservations about claiming that he felt personally threatened by a threat that is made towards homosexuals. Other degrading themes, ethnics, and religions can also be used. Degrading Themes: Inducing Degrading Images and Intrusive Thoughts Degrading themes can be not only disturbing to a person, but also threatening. They are used to attack a persons dignity, selfimage, selfesteem, induce stress, and often used in combination with negative conditioning. IP 184.154.247.2206 of 28.

A128 of A185.

A group can try to make a targeted individual form degrading and perverse images by using

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

6/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

A group can try to make a targeted individual form degrading and perverse images by using combinations of words, descriptions, sounds, and actions. When degrading themes are used on individuals, the targeted individual can suffer from a psychological disorder that some psychologists have termed "intrusive thoughts". Also, as stated on the first page, insinuations, even though they are false, can have different affects on an individual. Insinuations of being a pedophile, a homosexual, a criminal, a liar, etc. Is a form of attack on a person's selfimage, dignity and integrity, selfesteem, and can induce stress. One reaction that the victim can have when targeted is to have the feeling of "feeling guilty of something". Pedophilia is at the top of the list in hated things in our society and being labeled a pedophile has serious consequences, it would therefore explain why it is so often claimed to be used. When degrading themes or different insinuations are used it can also be a form of "catch 22" if a person's claims of being psychologically harassed or targeted are dismissed and they are told that it is all in their heads. Why do you have thoughts of being a pedophile, a homosexual, why do you feel threatened by it, etc. Given the fact that psychiatry is often used to discredit the victims of psychological harassment or psychological warfare the psychological construction of a "catch 22" may work on some of the victims. Another way degrading themes are used is to try to embarrass the victim or to repetitively humiliate the victim, because of the visible signs, such as blushing, or because of the degrading theme involved. Degrading themes are often used to try to prevent people from coming forward and psychiatry is often used as a threat in the sense of building false profiles. Degrading Themes Degrading Themes: The Pedophilia Weapon Pedophilia is one of the most hated things in our society and because of this it can be used as a weapon. Being falsely accused or labeled of being a pedophile has very serious consequences for the victims of this phenomenon or use of pedophilia as a weapon. Even when the accusations or label are disproved at a later time the label or smear can stick. Although the accusations are false the desired effects on the victim are usually high levels of stress, anxiety, and fear which is a part of the pedophilia weapon. Stress, anxiety, and fear being another form of weapon with serious effects on the body. Degrading Themes: Attack Pattern to Put the Victim on the Psychological Defensive Degrading themes can be used to put a person or victim on the defensive or psychological defensive. Some example of using degrading themes is to make insinuations that the victim is a criminal or a pedophile. An example of an attack pattern used in psychological harassment or psychological warfare is: • Making insinuations that the victim is a criminal or pedophile to put the victim on the defensive. • Followed by threats to induce the fightorflight response or to induce fear. Psychological Constructions: Constructions, Barriers, Restrictions, and Catch 22's IP 184.154.247.2207 of 28.

A129 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

7/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Psychological Constructions are when a condition is built into the persons psychology. • One example is the term "catch 22" and the use of degrading themes or pedophilia to prevent victims from coming forward or to prevent exposure. There is no "catch 22" , it's a psychological construction or belief that's been built into the victim to restrict or prevent the victims from exposing the perpetrators of a crime. • Another example is fearoffear. The importance of fear is "built up", a psychological construction, where previously there was no importance in fear. After the "build up" process of inducing a high importance on fear, a normal emotion in people, if the victim experiences fear, his ego or psychology can be devastated to bring them "crashing down". False Pretenses: Deception to Prevent Exposure, Torture and False Confession Pretense The psychological manipulation of, the pretense or deception of, wanting a false confession; the threat of wanting false or pretense of wanting false confessions, to prevent exposure. In other words, wanting or using the deception of wanting a false confession has the opposite or reverse effect, the victims ceases all communication or cooperation. You would believe or think that torture is used to obtain the truth, but it's actually used in many cases to do the opposite. In some cases the confessions involve the psychological construction of “catch 22’s” or degrading themes and psychiatry or law enforcement. Subtle Attacks: Hidden, Doubtful, Uncertain, and Psychological Defenses Subtle attacks are usually used to destabilize a person and to get through or bypass the person's psychological defenses. They can leave the victim unsure or uncertain on how to react or wondering if the subtle attack was intentional. The use of something personal, sensitive, or private information is usually used to destabilize the victim and to make the person feel vulnerable and insecure. Degrading themes are also used in subtle attacks. Verbal Dialogue to Shut Down the Brain When you are scared, angry, insecure, or uncertain your brain does not function as well. When opponents engage in verbal dialogue they will sometimes try to intimidate, provoke, or make each other uncertain. • One example is to try to throw your opponent on the defensive or psychological defensive. (linked to intimidation or manipulation) • Another example is to use an ambiguity to make the person uncertain. • Another example is to use subtle attacks to try to provoke anger, intimidate, fear, and uncertainty. IP 184.154.247.2208 of 28.

A130 of A185.

Anger: Anger Makes You Powerful or Stronger?

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

8/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Anger: Anger Makes You Powerful or Stronger?

When psychological warfare is waged on someone, attempts are made to provoke reactions that are harmful to the victim such as anger. Anger is the preferred reaction of choice because of the negative effects it has on the victims health and body such as increased adrenaline, cortisol levels, and blood pressure; and the victim can be psychologically manipulated or conditioned to react with anger or deceived into believing that this makes them more powerful or stronger. Laughter is a great stress reliever and very health. It can also diffuse threats or tense situations. The Funny Quick Brain

When people are calm, relaxed, or in a humorous mode their brains are usually faster and functions better. Ambiguities: SelfDoubt and Uncertainty (A StateofLimbo) Humans do not like ambiguities and uncertainty, we like to have certainty and security, and ambiguities are often used to induce insecurity or uncertainty. Sometimes ambiguities are used to confuse the victim and to leave them wondering what it is that they are suppose to do or be doing, or what is the intended meaning. This can affect the victim by placing them in doubt or used to induce selfdoubt and uncertainty, reducing decision making abilities, and can also have the stateoflimbo affect. The ambiguities can also be manipulated as to hinting at a certain meaning and then modified to hint or indicate another meaning, and so on, to keep the victim confused or guessing as to what the true meaning of the ambiguities are. This can induce confusion, frustration, and selfdoubt. Ambiguities can also be used for emotional manipulation such as inducing regret for example. One way this is done is by hinting at a certain meaning of what the ambiguities mean, combined with very subtle hints at another and different meaning. After a period of time the meanings can be reversed or what was the subtle meaning can be clarified or made more obvious to the victim to induce regret, self doubt, and also attack or reduce the victim’s selfesteem and selfconfidence. Classical conditioning can also be used with ambiguities. For example the victim can be constantly bombarded with negativity or is lead to the conclusion that past ambiguities also had a negative meaning. Because of the conditioning the person will deduce or assume what is implied follows the same trend or pattern of negativity or theme. Conditioning your mind Negatively or Positively Song lyrics often use ambiguities so that the listener can apply the lyrics to their own life or view on reality. Ambiguities can also be used to influence a person's view on reality or in combination with efforts to change a person's view on reality. Ambiguities: Inducing SelfDoubt and Attacks to SelfConfidence

A tactic that is often used to attack a person's selfconfidence and to induce selfdoubt is to ask a question using an ambiguity, when the person answers with a deduction or guess, a negative wrong or no is IP 184.154.247.2209 of 28.

A131 of A185.

indicated and a more accurate requestion is provided with the correct answer. This is done repetitively to9/28

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

indicated and a more accurate requestion is provided with the correct answer. This is done repetitively to induce selfdoubt and attack a person's selfconfidence by having them believe that their conclusions or deductions are always false. Metaphorical Speech: Hidden Threats and View on Reality Manipulation Sometimes people will use metaphors and metaphorical speech to try to hide different threats or use words that are not obvious in their association to a threatening nature and try to reduce the risk of exposure or criminal evidence. The meaning of different words can also be changed as with sarcasm. For example if two people that hate each other are using the words "I love you", the intention and meaning of the words used do not have the same meaning or intention as the definition of the words. Metaphorical speech can also be used to change or manipulate the view on reality of a victim. For example metaphorical speech can be used to describe a certain view on reality or belief that is not the actual reality in an attempt to manipulate the person. Ideation in Suicide Factors The words "profile", "psychoanalyzed", we are going to "fill you up" in the sense of creating a bad or false psychological profile and using psychiatry as a threat. The victim is psychologically harassed and also bombarded with degrading themes, such as pedophilia for example and combined with attempts to make the victims believe that they will be labeled a pedophile, sexually confused, or a violent, angry, and dangerous person. The truth and reality is that this tactic is used by the perpetrators in an attempt to protect themselves, discredit the victim, and prevent the victim form coming forward and exposing them. Another example is referring to the victim as an animal such as a dog. The attempts made by the victim to expose the perpetrators are then metaphorically described as trying to "bite", like a dog, or "eat" the perpetrators. Using metaphors that are orally oriented are then redirected towards or used with degrading themes in attempts to prevent victims from continuing the behavior of trying to expose perpetrators. This example of the victim being metaphorically described as a dog can also imply or insinuate that the person is less than human and can be controlled by a master or as a slave. A better use of metaphors to describe the situation is that by trying to expose the perpetrators, the victim is using the light (exposure and visibility) and the perpetrators trying to use the darkness (deception and concealment). When your enemy uses the darkness and tries to hide in the darkness, you have to use the light. Interpretation and View on Reality Manipulation: The Workplace, The Media, Propaganda, Brainwashing Event or Action > Interpretation of Event > Reinforcement of Interpretation An event or reality > interpretation of this event or reality > reinforcement of interpretation and view on reality In the workplace, employees who are psychologically harassed or psychologically tortured are often described as having the wrong interpretation of events, or having a "perception problem", a "bad attitude", and the wrong view of reality. They are then asked to consult a medical professional, a psychiatrist, and are then usually subsequently discredited and classified as having a psychological problem or mental illness. IP 184.154.247.22010 of 28. A132 of A185. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

10/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

You may have seen this in the media where something will happen, the media will interpret it in a way that is false according to other media groups or to your understanding of events and evidence, and will then proceed to try to reinforce their view and interpretation on reality or events and evidence. Conflicting countries or organizations will often use what is called propaganda and their media to interpret their view on reality and events. For example the media in the US, Russia, Europe, China, and Asia may all have different interpretations of events and views on reality that they wish to induce in their audience. Controlling a victim's source of information and interpreting reality and events for the victim is also part of brainwashing technologies. An example of brainwashing and psychological attacks is Fear of Fear and Attacks to the Honor. A victim will be lead to believe that the fightorflight response is fear, they are then threatened which results in the fightorflight response, which is interpreted as fear, you were scared (showing fear to your enemy), and the victim's honor is then attacked. Degrading Themes Interpretations and evidence are not the same. For example if the interpretation of events is that Julius Caesar throw himself on the knifes of the Senators several times, that would contradict the evidence, so ignorance, intelligence, and the ability to interpret the events and evidence correctly and deduce the right view on reality is key and a factor. FearofFear: Attacks to the Honor Some people may feel that the feeling or emotion of fear attacks their honor. Fear is usually used to attack a person's honor, ego, and selfconfidence.. A tactic that is sometimes used, is to lead the victim to believe that to feel threatened, and the resulting fightorflight response, is fear. Therefore the more threatened they feel equals more fear. This tactic deceives the victim and attacks them in two ways. The first is to threaten them, causing the fightorflight response, and the second is to simply feel threatened attacks their honor, which results in a chain reaction of an increasing threat. This response results in social withdrawal where the victim tries to avoid threatening situations or public areas. The way this is usually used is to make the victim believe that to feel threatened, and the fightorflight response, is fear. The visible signs of the body having the fightoflight response, like adrenaline, are therefore signs of fear that show the individuals or the enemy threatening them that they are scared. This belief is used to attack the victim's honor and the victim can be repetitively humiliated this way. Movies or Audio that projects fear or the emotion of fear can also affect an individual. In the circle of warriors, to experience fear and still destroy your enemies makes you even braver and increases your honor. FearofHumiliation Fearofhumiliation is linked or similar to fearoffear but different. • Fearoffear is about fearing fear itself because to feel fear results in an attack to the person's honor, which can result in humiliation. • Fearofhumiliation is fearing humiliation or being humiliated. IP 184.154.247.22011 of 28. A133 of A185. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

11/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

In both cases the person or victim can become aversive to situations or the possibility of being fearful or humiliated, usually through repetitive psychological attacks in public places. The result is that the victim can become aversive to public places, which can result in isolation. Responsibility and Vulnerability A stressful situation and tactic that is sometimes used to induce stress in a person is to give a person full responsibility for a department, for example, but the control to make changes or take action is given to someone else. This can have the effect of making the person insecure or feel vulnerable because they have no control over what they are fully responsible or accountable for, and it also places them at the "mercy" of someone else that can harm their career. Ideation: To Manipulate Victims People can be led to believe things that are false in order to manipulate them and even to try to drive them to suicide or to harm others. For example a person can be led to believe that they are about to be fired or constantly on the verge of being fired to induce stress, paranoia, and insecurity. Another example is to lead the person to believe that they will be sued or going bankrupt, will be falsely accused resulting in prison time, will never be employed again, or lose their spouse. Used with degrading themes the victim can be led to believe that they will be labeled a pedophile or used as a prostitute. That the perpetrators control the world and that the victim must obey. Beneficial Intentions: To Deceive Victims Some victims may not understand why someone would do this to them or how some people can do this to others, what the motives are for doing this to them, and therefore can be deceived into believing the phenomenon is of beneficial intentions. The phenomenon of psychological harassment or warfare can also leave the victims in doubt or confused as to what is going on or what is the intention or purpose of these psychological manipulations, psychological attacks, and events in question are for. Are the intentions in some way benevolent for training purposes or self improvement. It can also leave the victim unaware that a psychological war is being waged on them and the doubt, confusion, and deception can result in preventing the victims from taking action or fighting back. • It's a test. • It's training. • It's to make you stronger or tougher. • It's an initiation or rite of passage. Beneficial Intentions: The Failure Strategy When a group with psychological warfare expertise targets a victim and tries to create situations, street theatre, scenarios, or events with the intention of embarrassing, humiliating, threaten, anger, induce fear, or other harmful effects they need a strategy to deal with the failure or failures if the events in question do not produce the desired outcome or result. IP 184.154.247.22012 of 28.

A134 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

12/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

A failure of a group who tries to intentionally attack or humiliate a victim builds confidence in the victim for overcoming this challenge or properly dealing with the event in question, so there is a need to have a strategy or tactic to eliminate or reduce the confidence building phenomenon that results as much as possible. One of the ways this is done is by trying to make the victim believe the false view on reality or interpretation that it was a test, a training situation, and that there was or may have been some kind of benevolent intention in this kind of actions or scenario. Beneficial Intentions: The Never Ending Test

One example for this strategy or tactic is to interpret the events as a test, the result is that the victim feels he is on a never ending test since these situations, events, and attacks are usually repetitive in this kind of on going psychological harassment or psychological war. Many of these tactics can also be considered to be psychological torture or used for psychological torture. My Space, Your Space, Not Behind Me A tactic that is sometimes used to make a victim feel vulnerable or more threatened, is to be threatened in some way and have the perpetrator stand directly behind them and out of view. Instinctively you would not want someone that is hostile towards you to stand directly behind you and out of view whether you feel threatened by the threats that were made or not. You may have also noticed that when a person is hostile towards you and acts aggressively by thrashing or hitting objects it can trigger more of the fightorflight response from you. A similar tactic to the first, is for a person that is hostile towards you to motion an object towards you, towards your face, or to be in or come into "your space". Staring Drills: To Provoke and Manipulate Staring drills are used to intimidate, provoke, make a person aggressive, and to destabilize victims. It's linked to manipulation, credibility, and justification. One technique is to simply stare at the victim and another is to whisper "you're scared" and engage in staring contests. The Domination Game: Who Dominates Some people may worry or have stress about who they believe they can dominate or dominate and who they may or may not dominate. The word or metaphors "alpha male", as in wolf a pack, is also often used to describe a leader or someone in a leadership position. People in the workplace or in a relationship may continually try to dominate each other causing conflicts and tensions. Domination can also be used as or in a psychological construction where a lot of importance is placed on who you dominate and this can result in a lot of stress and difficulties for people who think in terms of domination or have the "domination thing" in their head. To remove this psychological construction or view on reality, you can simply view domination as 'you do not dominate anyone and no one dominates you'. In the workplace, positions should be clearly defined as having authority or a leadership role. Employees need to fulfill their obligations as employees and when IP 184.154.247.22013 of 28.

A135 of A185.

people are in a relation, the relationship is supposed to be based on teamwork and usually does not

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

13/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

people are in a relation, the relationship is supposed to be based on teamwork and usually does not involve one partner having authority over the other. Psychological Warfare or Manipulation: In Covert Type Investigations Individuals can use words, actions, and sounds that will make a target recall memories associated to a specific event. Observers can note different reactions from the target such as fear, surprise, embarrassment (red face), anger, and different emotions. From these reactions the observers can obtain clues to the level of involvement or knowledge that the target may have about a certain event. A simple example of this is if the targeted individual was involved in an event that has a specific location. The group can say the name of the location, like a street name. If the target does not associate this to anything or any memories, he will disregard the comments of strangers and have no reaction. If, however, the target does associate it to something, he may, or may not, have different reactions. This scenario maybe repeated several times with different association pointers to get a better view or result. Like taking many measurements and obtaining some kind of average or again, a better view. This psychological manipulation scenario can also be used to stress, or panic, a target. And a possible motive would be to have them use some kind of telecommunication device, that the target believes to be secure, and to possibly push the target to communicate to a partner, that may also be involved in the event, where he would discuss the strange phenomenon that he believes is happening to him or discuss the events in question. It’s a fact that in the US, Canada, and the UK there are secret organizations that listen to all telecommunications in these countries and that they also share information among themselves. Many people also believe that these organizations share information with other organization indirectly or through indirect channels. There are many possible psychological manipulation type scenarios that can involve the use of sensitive information or dark secrets. You may have seen a movie where the “bad guy” says something like “get me some dirt on this guy”. The information would be used to intimidate the target or induce fear, stress, and paranoia. This type of scenario can easily fall into the classification of black mail where the target is in a catch 22 situation. The target would have to reveal the sensitive information or dark secrets to law enforcement in order to obtain some kind of help or assistance. His claims could also simply be dismissed as paranoia or delusions. And even if his claims would happen to be believed, there simply would be no proof or evidence. Psychological warfare or using psychiatry in strong arm tactics is not a new phenomenon and it usually involves discrediting the target or having them declared psychologically ill. These tactics and technologies are usually used by powerful organizations. An example of this can be seen in the movie blue sky, set in the 1950’s, where the army uses psychiatry to hospitalize and medicate the target. Psychological Warfare: Three Top Priorities or Objectives • Discredit or destroy the victims credibility. • Conceal psychological warfare knowledge. • Eliminate the victim's means of subsistence or resources. Psychological Warfare: Some Identified Weapons

• Psychiatry to attack the psychological integrity and credibility of victims. IP 184.154.247.22014 of 28. A136 of A185. • The weapon of degrading themes or pedophilia to use as a threat or to prevent exposure. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

14/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

• The weapon of degrading themes or pedophilia to use as a threat or to prevent exposure. • The weapon of high levels of stress and sleep deprivation. • The weapon of homelessness or eliminating a persons means of subsistence and financial resources. When psychiatry attacks the victim's psychological integrity and credibility it makes the victim more vulnerable to the phenomenon or crime of criminal harassment or psychological warfare and it also conceals the related knowledge. High levels of sleep deprivation can lead to macromineral deficiencies and acidbase disorders that can result in serious illnesses and even death. High levels of sleep deprivation can also be used to overwhelm the victims body and lead to cancer. Psychological Warfare: Credibility Psychological warfare is an invisible technology that deals with the mind and destroying the victim’s credibility in order to prevent exposure is a top priority. Destroying the victim’s credibility also results in feelings or the belief of hopelessness. Advanced technology and psychological manipulation are also used to make the victim’s claims more unbelievable or to make dismissing these claims easier or more justified. When a group or an organization engages in psychological harassment or warfare they usually use tactics or operate in a way to discredit the victim or have the victim discredited by the medical community, notably psychiatry. Campaigns of disinformation or false information and information restrictions or isolation are usually used as well. Psychological Warfare: Who can Contradict the Qualified Professionals If psychiatry and psychologist claim that psychological warfare does not exist, who is qualified to contradict them or to say differently. Over the years and decades qualified medical professionals, notably psychiatrists, and psychologist have been telling victims that psychological harassment and psychological warfare do not exist, and the victims were subsequently labeled as mentally ill. The phenomenon and its effects on victims was not documented given the fact that it was said not to exist and actually said to be a medical or mental disorder. The phenomenon of psychological harassment and psychological warfare was explained or interpreted in terms of the victim being ill and delusional instead of being a victim of this phenomenon. With the power of the internet and websites such as this one, the denial of the existence of this phenomenon is probably quickly changing given the fact that it creates a problem or dilemma for the medical community or medical professionals that would continue this practice. Psychological Warfare: Bullies and Criminals As powerful as some bullies and criminals may be, just like the common or regular bully and criminal they fear the light and exposure. Psychological Warfare: Powerful Organizations and Secrets

When powerful organizations are willing to kill you and other people to preserve its secrets and prevent exposure, you need to share that secret with the whole world. IP 184.154.247.22015 of 28.

A137 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

15/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

It reduces the value of targeting you or the value of your death. • Many organizations, including psychiatry, claim that psychological warfare does not exist and some powerful organizations are willing to kill in order to preserve this knowledge and to prevent exposure. • This knowledge has been used to drive people to homelessness, suicide, and to cause death through high levels of stress and sleep deprivation. It's called crimes against humanity and society which is another very good reason to want to prevent exposure. Psychological Warfare Pattern: Homelessness Psychological Warfare > Psychiatry and Credibility > Homelessness Victims are subjected to psychological warfare > discredited by psychiatry > lose their means of subsistence and become homeless. Victims may also be coerced into prostitution, crime, or organized crime for survival. Attack Pattern: Brainwashing or Deceiving and Conditioning the FightorFlight Response to Mean Fear Action > Interpretation > Reenforce Interpretation : attack or threat > interpretation of event or reaction > reenforce interpretation • attack: a psychological attack or threat to get the fightorflight response. • interpret reaction: the fightorflight response or adrenaline is interpreted as being fear "you're scared". • reenforce interpretation: "you were scared" or "you got scared". Participants try to deceive or brainwash the victim into believing that to feel threatened, adrenaline, or the fightorflight response means fear. Fear is used to attack the victim's honor and the victim's honor is threatened if he shows fear or if his enemy sees fear. In other words, attempts are made to deceive or brainwash the victim into believing that the fightor flight response is fear because it can be easily induced through threats and interpreted as fear, to attack the victims honor and repetitive humiliation, and to use the fearoffear tactic. Fear and the fightorflight response are two different things: • fear is an emotion. • the fightorflight response is a response to a threat. Attack Pattern: Public Places and the Cash Register • A network of participants harasses and threatens the victim while the victim is doing his shopping. • A degrading theme is used to put the victim on the defensive. This is part of psychological warfare and also done to induce the fightorflight response, adrenaline. IP 184.154.247.22016 of 28. A138 of A185. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

16/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

• The line up at the cash register is a location where participants try to stand behind victims while they use threats or used threats in the shopping area, or use subtle threats related to degrading themes, to increase the fightorflight. • Fearoffear and fearofhumiliation are used or built up with comments such as "he's scared" to induce more stress and anxiety. • Once at the cash register the victim is in a "under a microscope" situation where the reactions and behavior are interpreted as fear. • Subtle attacks related to degrading themes are used to cause embarrassment or blushing to destabilize or put the victim on the defensive. • Because of threats, fightorflight response, and adrenaline the victim's behavior or reactions are interpreted as fear to attack the victims honor and in attempts to humiliate the victim. • Things that are focused on to interpret fear are the victim's behavior, reactions, gestures, their voices, and their signatures. • It's a network that wages psychological warfare and uses threats to induce the fightorflight syndrome or cortisol and adrenaline. • The fightorflight response, stress, cortisol, and adrenaline (potassium) deplete the body of macrominerals which leads to different disorders such as macromineral deficiencies and acidbase disorders. Behavior: AntiSocial Behavior Change A change in behavior towards being antisocial or withdrawal is a classic sign of psychological harassment or criminal psychological harassment. A Criminal Harassment Network Routine Example (HSS Hypersonic Sound) A routine example is that I would go to a grocery store when highly sleep deprived through sound technology (HSS), criminal harassment participants would mix in with other shoppers and use different forms of threats and provocation to induce stress and adrenaline, try to stand directly behind me at the cash register, and interpret the adrenaline and voice fluctuations as fear, which is linked to fear and honor, and attempts at repetitive humiliation. Criminal Harassment Network Routines, Strategies, and Smear Campaigns criminal harassment network routines, strategies, and smear campaigns that involves psychological manipulation, technology, and uttering threats. Workplace Psychological Harassment and Criminal Harassment Network Strategy (Abuse Strategy)* A workplace psychological harassment strategy, abuse, any retaliation is used to justify termination so the employee is on the defensive when faced with abuse. The same strategy of abuse is used by their criminal harassment network, the "secret police" or mob and police, criminal harassment through technology, focused ultrasound and energy assault weapons, different types of radar assaults from neighboring homes, public places, weaponization of space, over months aimed at inflicting long term serious illness and deadly cancer. The targeted citizen is on the defensive again, any claims of assaults results in incarceration through police psychiatric intervention, any retaliation or violence is used to incarcerate the targeted citizen, any gun violence is used to advocate gun control, a defenseless population to subjugation through organized crime and tyranny. IP 184.154.247.22017 of 28.

A139 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

17/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Criminal Harassment Network Strategy (MarieFrance Hirigoyen, Abuse Strategy) According to MarieFrance Hirigoyen psychiatrist the intent of many emotional abusers is to systematically "destabilize" and confuse their victims (with irrational, threatening behavior that preys on the victim's fears and selfdoubts), to isolate and control them and ultimately to destroy their identity, and often emotional abuse builds over a long period of time until it becomes so unbearable that victims lash out in frustration and anger aka hitting back, only to appear unstable and aggressive themselves, which could be linked to or the cause of rage shooting and rampages. Often, emotional abuse builds over a long period of time until it becomes so unbearable that victims lash out in frustration and anger, only to appear unstable and aggressive themselves. This, according to Hirigoyen, is the intent of many abusers: to systematically "destabilize" and confuse their victims (with irrational, threatening behavior that preys on the victim's fears and selfdoubts), to isolate and control them and ultimately to destroy their identity. psychiatrist MarieFrance Hirigoyen, author of Le harcèlement moral Criminal Harassment Network Strategy (Damage, Provocation, Rampage) Pushing people to violence consist of abuse or inflicting a damage, financial loss, homelessness, smear campaign and criminal record, serious illness and cancer, fear linked to honor and repetitive humiliation, and using provocation to push people to aggressiveness, looking deranged or enraged, or violence. Any resulting violence is used to repress the targeted citizen and any rage shooting is used to advocating gun control, a defenseless population, which makes citizen more vulnerable to abuse, hidden abuse, or subjugation through organized crime. A Criminal Harassment Network Routine (Repetitive Humiliation) A routine example is that I would go to a grocery store when highly sleep deprived through sound technology (HSS Hypersonic Sound), criminal harassment participants would mix in with other shoppers and use different forms of threats and provocation to induce stress and adrenaline, try to stand directly behind me at the cash register, and interpret the adrenaline and voice fluctuations as fear "you're scared", which is linked to fear and honor, and attempts at repetitive humiliation. A Criminal Harassment Network Routine (Psychiatric Intervention) Criminal Allegations of uttering threats are combined with powerful radar assaults and assessment orders for noncriminal responsibility before trial. The threat of intervention is linked to behavior that can be used to justify psychiatric intervention that leads to incarceration during the long and delayed criminal proceedings. The behavior linked to taking protective measures against the powerful radar assaults through attenuation materials and a person's personal and household hygiene that begins to suffers due to attempts to avoid these. The criminal harassment network routine of threats to induce adrenaline and cortisol, trying to standing directly behind the victim at the cash register, and interpret the voice fluctuations as fear is changed to threats of psychiatric intervention that leads to incarceration, participants trying to smell the victim, saying "he smells bad", and criminal harassment participants theater or pretense that they are undercover psychiatrist who wants to intervene and incarcerate the victim of criminal harassment. Criminal Harassment Network Smear Campaign Strategy ("Run Away or Get Cancer")* After allegations of uttering threats and an assessment order for noncriminal responsibility before trial IP 184.154.247.22018 of 28. A140 of A185. the targeted citizen is assaulted with powerful radar with criminal harassment participants saying "run http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

18/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

away or get cancer". When the targeted citizen runs away they are recaptured and incarcerated for the assessment order, during long and delayed criminal proceedings, isolated, vulnerable to participating defense lawyers and financial exhaustion or depletion strategies "noncriminal responsibility before trial saves money and the same as being innocent". Criminal Harassment Network Smear Campaign Strategy (Uttering Threats) One psychological manipulation that criminal harassment participants try to do is to try to lead the targeted citizen to believe that if they act aggressive the participants will be fearful, which is combined with the criminal harassment networks routine of attempting to induce fear and interpret voice fluctuations as fear, and linked to manipulating the targeted citizen into reacting to this through aggressiveness and their own attempts to induce fear in return. It is a psychological manipulation and attempt at conditioning towards an aggressive response or retaliation from threats, which is supposed to eventually lead to more aggressive behavior and uttering threats, and the crime of uttering threats is linked to the smear campaign strategy. Criminal Harassment Network Smear Campaign Strategy (Uttering Threats, Neighbors) Following the allegations of uttering threats that are combined with powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes, provocation is used through sound technology along with the assaults, a cancer causing weapon, and attempts at manipulation the targeted citizen to threaten, retaliate, or utter threats towards neighbors, which can be linked to police surveillance of a "dangerous individual", another charger of uttering threats, and incarceration without release during the proceedings. Criminal Harassment Network Smear Campaign Strategy (Uttering Threats, Online Activity, Lash Out in Anger, Cyberbullying) This strategy is similar to the "Uttering Threats, Neighbors" strategy but also includes the threat of civil lawsuits and the new cyberbullying law. After wrong doing citizens want to denounce perpetrators of wrong doing, if they are isolated they will do so online. The strategy is the same as the previous, powerful radar assaults that are combined with provocation through sound technology, which leads to anger, which can lead to lashing out or uttering threats online and defaming those involved, the police and crown prosecutors. For this new online routine to work the freedom of expression needed to be weakened and a new cyberbullying law was needed to give victims the tools to obtain the IP address for a civil lawsuits, or to use these for threats to prevent online denunciation and exposure by the perpetrators, the criminal harassment network organized crime participants. (MarieFrance Hirigoyen psychiatrist) Criminal Harassment Network Smear Campaign Strategy (Uttering Threats, Addressing Constitutional Questions) The powerful radar assaults prevent civil lawsuits that follow false allegations or a failed smear campaign to recover the financial loss in the costly criminal proceedings, addressing constitutional questions that involve uttering threats and the freedom of expression, and circumventing the right to a trial through non criminal responsibility before trial. Repression of Workplace Psychological Harassment Knowledge Linked to Criminal Harassment Networks? (Repression, Knowledge, Human Right Defenders) One strategy of workplace psychological harassment is to engage in this behavior and emotional abuse in attempts to destabilize an employee so that they lashout in anger only to look deranged and aggressive, IP 184.154.247.22019 of 28. A141 of A185. through violence, uttering threats, sabotage, etc., to get rid of them. The strategy of criminal harassment http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

19/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

networks are very similar but instead of an employer being the "workplace police" and getting rid of the employee the city police are the ones who file criminal allegations towards the victim of criminal harassment. These criminal harassment networks use criminal harassment and psychological manipulation in attempts to use the criminal allegation charge of of uttering threats for any targeted citizen that lashes out in this way or is manipulated towards this behavior, similar to the workplace psychological harassment strategy. This strategy may be one of the explanations for why workplace psychological harassment knowledge and human right defenders who document these issues are targeted, repressed, inflicted with cancer, etc.,. Any resulting violence is used to repress the targeted citizen and any rage shooting is used to advocate gun control. (see Rage Shooting Factors) Criminal Harassment Network Strategy (Eliminate Functionality) Criminal harassment networks are linked to the city Police, city Court House, "secret police", and regimes. These try to eliminate the means of subsistence of targeted citizens precriminal allegations or during criminal proceedings to reduce the targeted citizens ability to defend themselves and their (functionality). They are using sound technology from neighboring homes, LRAD systems and HSS Hypersonic Sound, to highly sleep deprive targeted citizens, incapacitate them, and eliminate their (functionality), and powerful radar assaults from neighboring homes linked to deadly cancers that targeted citizens try to avoid, which reduces or eliminates their (functionality). Notes: They eliminate a citizens ability to function during criminal proceedings, which can be linked to intentionally delaying and extending the proceedings as long as possible in attempts to win convictions. The powerful radar assaults are linked to other strategies already mentioned "run away or get cancer" to incarcerate a person during the proceedings, police and psychiatric intervention for the resulting behavior linked to radar assaults, to circumvent the right to a trial and make an unlawful seizure of private computers legal through noncriminal responsibility before trial, and to inflict deadly cancers on a long term, which makes targeted citizens vulnerable to coercion similar to homelessness and are hidden homicides. All of these facts are linked to regimes but another link is advocating a defenseless population that makes the population more vulnerable to abuse, helps conceal abuse, repressing human rights defenders that document mobbing, bullying, cyberbullying, and hidden homicides through cancer that are linked to claims of a "low homicide rate". The Rundown, Setups and Deception (video) A video clip that illustrates a setup and deception, a psychological manipulation. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC883414 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKsVqeAIhMM

IP 184.154.247.22020 of 28.

A142 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

20/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Disclosure, Psychological Harassment Office Tactics (video) A movie scene that illustrates different office psychological harassment tactics. a) In the movie scene the targeted employee, the victim of psychological harassment, is given the wrong time for the meeting. The result: he is late and looks unprofessional in front of his piers. he is not prepared for the meeting, "ambushed", cannot answer questions, and looks incompetent. he is given the lowest chair, sitting below the others who look slightly down on him. other links, degradation and humiliation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpdb9j4atmk http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC763718

IP 184.154.247.22021 of 28.

A143 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

21/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

An Example of the Pedophilia Weapon (video) A movie scene of a threat and the pedophilia weapon. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC707776

Criminal Strategy Examples, Motive Incarceration, No Trial, Personal Hygiene and Degrading Themes, Repression Through Cancer (Powerful Radar Assaults) IP 184.154.247.22022 of 28. A144 of A185. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

22/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Criminal allegations are combined with radar assaults along with insinuations the accused is dangerous. THE FIRST STRATEGY MENTAL ILLNESS, DISCRIMINATION, ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL The first strategy uses assessment orders before trial, disability and mental illness, and participating psychiatrists to circumvent the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The strategy is linked to smear campaigns and using assessment orders for noncriminal responsibility of committing a crime due to mental illness before trial when the accused has not committed a crime. It uses ignorance or the claim that being not guilty of committing a crime due to mental illness is the same as simply being not guilty. The accused does not go to trial or get a trial. THE TWELFTH STRATEGY POWERFUL RADAR ASSAULTS Similar to the use of homelessness to repress and circumvent the rights and freedoms of targeted citizens, powerful radar assaults are used to repress targeted citizens through homelessness, different linked strategies such as smear campaigns, and serious illness, cancer. DISABILITY, INTERVENTION AND VULNERABILITY, Example 8 a) (Personal Hygiene, Motive Incarceration and Degrading Themes) a) Following a demand that the accused remain incarcerated for psychological evaluation that fails and a conditional release with a demand for an assessment order for noncriminal responsibility that succeeds, the accused is assaulted by powerful radar leading to strange behavior, deteriorating personal hygiene as they try to avoid these and attempts to shield themselves from these through the use of dense materials, the police try to intervene, which leads to incarceration during the proceedings and the "unlawful" assessment order before trial. Disability, Intervention and Vulnerability Scenario Illustration Example, Motive Incarceration (8 a)) After being released under conditions and an "unlawful" assessment order for noncriminal responsibility before trial, I was assaulted by powerful radar. The Police tried to intervene several times claiming the behavior linked to shielding and attenuation attempts, "microwaves?", was not normal, which would result in my incarceration at the prison psychiatric institute. I was later found "guilty" without a trial through "noncriminal responsibility", which sanctioned the false allegations, searching my home without a warrant, seizing personal computers and information without a warrant, communication interception and surveillance, .. Repression Through Smear Campaigns and Serious Illness, Cancer 1. radar assaults 2. criminal allegations (participants and uttering threats) 3. insinuations that accused is dangerous 4. "plead noncriminal responsible before trial, it is the same as not guilty" "you have to turn" "you have to run" run away or get cancer, threats of intervention, incarceration, assessment orders,, cancer, homelessness. 5. preventing lawsuits IP 184.154.247.22023 of 28. A145 of A185. Criminal Harassment and Threats (Focused Ultrasound) http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

23/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

A video about Focused Ultrasound that can "hit the brain", cause brain lesions, strokes, and heart attacks. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC747227

Focused Ultrasound for use in the medical field as shown in the video may be in use as a domestic weapon according to some reports to "hit the brain", causing damage and brain lesions to inflict strokes and heart attacks, a weapon that leaves very little evidence similar to another weapon in use, powerful radar assaults, which are linked to leukemia and other deadly cancers like lung cancer. The 2005 Award Winning sound technology HSS Hypersonic Sound that creates sound at great distances and in specific targeted locations may be linked given the same type of technology involved, focused ultrasound. Criminal harassment and threats, the mob wanting to remove your brain or "hit your brain" to prevent exposure or linked to repression through serious illness, strokes and heart attacks, similar to how powerful radar assaults are linked to repression through serious illness, cancer. Racial Profiling, Discrimination Racial profiling is linked to strategy, manipulation, interpretations, false pretenses, and discrimination has serious effects on a person's psychological and physical health. THE THIRTEENTH STRATEGY, RACIAL PROFILING There has been a lot of talk about racial profiling but it has been rejected by most judicial system courts because of its link to discrimination. Similar to a strategy to create false profiles by the mob to help in future prosecutions that was previously mentioned, racial profiles and other types of profiles can be fabricated and created simply to justify different actions linked to abuse or circumventing the rights and freedoms of citizens. Imagine a racial profile that claims a specific ethnic is more likely to be involved in drug trafficking and a racial profile is IP 184.154.247.22024 of 28. A146 of A185. http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

24/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

used to justify a search without a warrant, circumventing the need for a warrant for a lawful search and seizure. Criminal Allegations, Threats of Intervention, Criminal Harassment Network Strategy "Intervention and incarceration[2], the criminal harassment network that the defendant has been documenting for several years used the threat of intervention extensively during this period of time. The threat of intervention is linked to behavior, protection measures against the powerful radar assaults, and personal hygiene that begins to suffers due to attempts to avoid these. (So the public criminal harassment routine of threats to induce adrenaline and cortisol, trying to standing directly behind the victim at the cash register, and interpret the voice fluctuations as fear is changed to threats of intervention, participants trying to smell the victim, saying "he smells bad", .. and every criminal harassment participant is an undercover psychiatrist who wants to intervene and incarcerate the victim of criminal harassment.)" THE TWELFTH STRATEGY POWERFUL RADAR ASSAULTS Thermal imaging (FLIR thermal imaging device, Privacy , R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC) and radioactive isotopes are used to circumvent the privacy of a home, in a similar way radiation technology or powerful radar assaults linked to deadly cancers, death, on a longer term than other deadly weapons are used to assault a citizen with a weapon in their own home to circumvent the right to security, the right to liberty linked to psychiatric intervention leading to incarceration, and on a long term the right to life. The twelfth strategy is linked to the first strategy, the use of noncriminal responsibility to circumvent the right to a fair trial, and the seventh strategy, the use of intervention leading to incarceration to circumvent the right to liberty. MEDICAL NEWS ARTICLES, PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS The Damaging Effects Of Discrimination Medical News Today (article link) Researchers found that adolescents from Latin American and Asian backgrounds experienced more discrimination than their peers from European backgrounds and that the discrimination came not only from other adolescents but from adults as well. The level of discrimination also impacted these teens' gradepoint averages and their health and was associated with depression, distress and lower levels of selfesteem. http://mnt.to/f/3JNN Discrimination Often Leads To Declining Physical Health For Obese Individuals Medical News Today (article link) The discrimination that obese people feel, whether it is poor service at a restaurant or being treated differently in the workplace, may have a direct impact on their physical health, according to new research from Purdue University. "Obesity is a physiological issue, but when people have negative interactions in their social world including a sense of being discriminated against it can make matters worse and contribute to a person's declining physical health," "It seems that many people are internalizing the prejudice and stigma they feel, and it contributes to stress, which ultimately affects their health." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/218080.php IP 184.154.247.22025 of 28. A147 of A185. Social Stressors Like Racism And Discrimination Can Impact Healthy Functioning Medical News http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

25/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

Today (article link) Just as the constant pressure soldiers face on the battlefield can follow them home in the form of debilitating stress, African Americans who face chronic exposure to racial discrimination may have an increased likelihood of suffering a racebased battle fatigue, according to Penn State researchers. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/218209.php AntiGay Rhetoric Causes Psychological Harm and Suicides CNN iReport (video) A video that first shows AntiGay Rhetoric linked to hate and rejection followed by a video that shows IT GETS BETTER participants discuss how they felt and suicide. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC636548 (see also COERCIVE MIND CONTROL TACTICS, DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE PREVENTION, STRESS AND STRESS MANAGEMENT) Alphas, Influence of the Mind Illustration, Suicide Factor http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC907894 A video that illustrates psychological manipulation or a homicide through suicide method used in Canada by the regimes criminal harassment network. They use misery, hardship, depression, hate and rejection, .. , combined with repetitive suggestions to kill yourself, hang yourself, through participants and focused ultrasound technology. Repealed in Canada in 1999.

YouTube Channel See the Bullying and Workplace Psychological Harassment playlists for more videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/BullyingNewsVideos CNN IREPORT Psychological Harassment and Psychological Manipulation http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC361102 IP 184.154.247.22026 of 28. Site Content

A148 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

26/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

francais >> home introduction the brain mental health occupational health and safety psychological harassment at work discrimination it gets better sexual harassment coercive mind control tactics influence of the mind suicide factors depression and suicide prevention stress and stress management obesity epidemic & sugar selfesteem and selfconfidence positivity psychological manipulation administrative manipulation degrading themes rage shooting factors us gun debate (blogs) technology radar assaults & faraday cages bullying bullying wiki bullying reporting system bullying what to do bullying vs. mobbing psychological harassment case example workplace mobbing in academe what is mobbing? the office disease mobbing in modern society ivan pavlov professor heinz leymann, phd, md sci biography margaret singer / margaret thaler singer, ph.d. biography john b. watson biography joseph leDoux biography mariefrance hirigoyen, biography stress quotes and facts the cortisol and ptsd weapon macromineral deficiencies and acidbase disorders acidbase disorders: diet and stress acidbase balance and blood ph inflammation alzheimer’s and parkinson’s longevity cancer IP 184.154.247.22027 of 28. A149 of A185. cancer and supplements http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

27/28

22/05/2016

Psychological Manipulation

cancer (videos) stand up to cancer (videos) dr. oz show: cancer proof your life (videos) the angiogenesis foundation: eat to defeat cancer immune system tips immune system nutrition cell health and supplements orac spices orac final usda orac 2007 vitamin B complex words laws laws sweden laws quebec laws criminal videos the patterns and steps the favorite strategies advanced technology and organized crime (links to homelessness) sleep deprivation diabetes conclusion mind tools downloads tools and docs survey survey results survey form results feedback feedback results webstats links faq about us contact us terms of use

IP 184.154.247.22028 of 28.

A150 of A185.

http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychologicalmanipulation.htm

28/28

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

Gang Stalking

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING "Predatory Gangstalking is a criminal phenomenon referring to a group of loosely affiliated people who, in an organized and systematic manner, relentlessly invade all areas of an individual's life on a continuing basis, as part of their lifestyle. While each individual gangstalker does his or her small part, what defines Predatory Gangstalking is the collective intent to do harm." R.B.Ross c 2005 Tactics of Predatory Gangstalking include highly coordinated surveillance (hidden cameras, conversation bugging in private aswell as public), harassment, and psychological, psychosocial, financial, and sometimes physical assaults on an individual by a large group of people who are often strangers to the targeted individual. A Predatory Gangstalking group is a wellrun organization comprised of members who are unidentified as gangstalkers to the outside world. Until a group of gangstalkers turn their face towards someone selected to be one of their targets, members of society do not realize there is such an invisible group. The practitioners of predatory gangstalking are people who, for the most part, go about their business of daily life appearing like everyone else, except for their activities involved with Predatory Gangstalking. Predatory gangstalking activities take priority over everything else in the lives of Predatory Gangstalkers. Predatory gangstalking is actually a lifestyle for those who participate in it. Predatory Gangstalking is also called "terror stalking", "gangstalking", "flash mobbing", "cause stalking," "hate stalking," "multistalking, "happy slapping," "workplace bullying, and "covert war." . "Flash mobbing" is an event occurring when a targeted individual is spotted in society. Their photo and location is immediately and simultaneously sent out by cell phone text messages and Internet email to all gangstalkers within a certain radius. All gangstalkers then suddenly descend upon the target as a mob. . "Cause stalking" refers to gangstalking by singleissue radicals. They stalk a targeted person related to that specific agenda. "Cause stalking" has been reported to have been carried out by radical Christians who believe in "dominion theology." Dominion Theology is a religious interpretation of the Bible which these groups believe requires them to "take dominion over the earth" which they believe is the precursor to the return of Jesus to earth. "Cause stalkers" in general believe that they are bringing about social change through gangstalking activities. "Cause stalking" can be carried out by White Supremacist as a form of "Hate Stalking (Scientology groups are another eg.)." This type of predatory gangstalking is primarily for the purpose of intimidation and often is a precursor to or an adjunct to violence. . "Happy slapping" refers to group harassment of one youth by other youths carried live over cell phones equipped to handle video to peers youths. The young gangstalkers slap around the targeted youth while laughing at him or her while several other youths broadcast the incident live to as many peers as possible. . "Ritual Gangstalking" is reportedly performed by cults and secret organizations such as Satanists, secret orders of free masons, some voodoo /obeah practitioners and Scientologists as a means of control or for punishment. "Ritual abuse" is incorporated into "ritual gangstalking" patterns in this case. N.B. Obeah is considered one of the darkest forms of black magic known. Blood sacrifice is always used and the intent is to harm, even to death, another person. 184.154.247.2201 of 8. A151 of A185. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

1/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

. "Workplace bullying" involves gangstalking activities tailored to the workplace which are carried out by a group of employees against another individual employee. * "Cybergangstalking" is a situation where an individual is identified to be a target through Internet participation and their personal identity is determined. Cybergangstalkers pierce the electronic veil and are able to enter into the real life of a person, creating all forms of harassment, theft, psychological operations including slander and libel, and able to commit crimes against the targeted individual. * "Vigilante Stalking, Terror Stalking" is the same as Predatory Stalking. For the purpose of this informational writing, all activities will be referred to as "predatory gangstalking" because the tactics and characteristics of the gangstalking are the same. And often a targeted person will become the victim of more than one type of gangstalking. "Predatory Gangstalking" is a criminal phenomenon referring to a group of loosely affiliated people who, in an organized and systematic manner, relentlessly invade an individual's life on a continuous basis, to an extreme degree, as part of their lifestyle. While each individual gangstalker does his or her small part, what defines Predatory Gangstalking is the collective intent to do harm." R.B. Ross Predatory Gangstalking is reported by historians to have been originally developed by social scientists and psychologists in communist and fascist's countries as a means of control of individuals within those societies. The tactics and techniques of Predatory Gangstalking were developed through animal and then human experimentation. The methodology of Predatory Gangstalking is precise and wellorchestrated. It is reported that the technical mechanics for Predatory Gangstalking werefirst sold on the Black Market by the ruling party leaders of East Germany when the USSR political systems crumbled. These protocols were subsequently exported to other countries and implemented there against unsuspecting citizens. Predatory Gangstalking has been reportedly against citizens worldwide. Thus far, it has continued unchecked. One of the reasons for the unchallenged proliferation of this form of organized crime is that it characteristically takes place in such a way that it is invisible to the untrained eye. It is understandably, therefore, considered to be the ‘perfect crime’, as it remains unchallenged and extremely difficult to prove. The countries with the greatest number of reports are the US, Canada, Germany, and England. In the US, the states with the greatest number of reported predatory gangstalkings are California, Texas, and New York. The predominant proportion of individuals targeted by gangstalkers are nonCaucasians. It is difficult to find other predominant similar characteristics in targets. The reasons that an individual is selected for targeting are unknown. It can only be speculated to include reasons such as easy accessibility to the target, random selection for training for new Predatory Gangstalkers, minority group member relative to hatebased groups, making an example of someone, revenge, retaliation, and social control. Who are the practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking? They include career criminals, participants in the drug trade, extreme ideologists such as radical Christians, members of hate groups such as White Supremacists, members of motorcycle and street gangs, and homeless people. They are also often people with a background in the military, including disabled Vets. Higher levels in the Predatory Gangstalking organizations include people in military and law enforcement or with same experience, secret service/defence employees, government officials, Banking firms, and so on. It has been reported that top 184.154.247.2202 of 8.

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A152 of A185.

2/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

level government security and intelligence agencies use gangstalking tactics in covert operations. What is most baffling about Predatory Gangstalking is that many of the practitioners of this social pathology appear to be regular mainstream people with no prior criminal record, predominantly in the socio economic middle class. It is presumed they participate for the money or rewards they receive in the form of barter or for a socialconscience feelgood factor. The world of Predatory Gangstalking increases as new recruits are initiated into the Predatory Gangstalking process. Therefore, a target may see collusion and participation from neighbors and co workers who were once on good terms with the target. The circle of predatory gangstalkers widens with time. However, most of the time, the gangstalkers are complete strangers to the target. In most of the encounters the target has with gangstalkers, the target does not recognize the perpetrators but the gangstalkers readily recognize the target. Further, these predatory strangers possess detailed knowledge about the targeted individual. Most often, Predatory Gangstalking is being engaged in by parties unknown, for reasons unknown, to the target. People have died after a lifetime of protracted Predatory Gangstalking without having any explanations as to who was doing this or why this happened to them. Sometimes, the leaders in these large affiliated groups of gangstalkers have specialized military expertise in the areas of military intelligence, military electronics and equipment, and in military strategic and tactical training. Those without formal military training have often engaged in paramilitary activities or have technical skills commonly found in successful career criminals. Others who join a Predatory Gangstalking group without such a background are given onthejob training, in addition to other gangstalking skills. It can be said with certainty that there are specific protocols and tactics and most gangstalkers appear to be proficient in a similar set of skills. Predatory Gangstalkers each have their own individual skill that they contribute towards their common goal in the group. One person in a group knows how to pick locks; another knows how to hack into computers, while someone else provides the GPS and electronic equipment. Many Predatory Gangstalking members know how to tamper with a vehicle. Some predatory gangstalkers are practiced "look outs" while others are group leaders. Predatory gangstalking groups have their rank and file as in any other organization. Orders come from the top, just as in any other organization. However, it is unknown whether the top of the organizations are local, regional, national, or international. Predatory Gangstalkers use stateoftheart technology coupled with lawenforcement style surveillance tactics. Typically, the individual gangstalkers are strangers to the target. ("Happy slapping" and "workplace bullying" are the most common exceptions) Participants in predatory gangstalking are well trained. The tactics and techniques they use are similar all around the world in the numerous countries where this has been reported. Each group of predatory gangstalkers is a covert army unto themselves. They have incorporated specialized techniques originally used by spies during the cold war. They carry out their field work with military style precision. Then, they go about their daily lives, just like any other member of society, in most cases. Their gangstalking skills are highly sophisticated, and their commitment to Predatory Gangstalking exceeds zealousness. It appears to both an observer and a target that nothing required of them in terms of time or availability is too much trouble for them. As stated previously, but worth repeating, predatory gangstalking activities take priority in the lives of those who practice Predatory Gangstalking. Predatory Gangstalkers are a functioning subculture of society that move invisibly through society as such. This is by design, making it even more dangerous to society. The goals of Predatory Gangstalking of an individual are numerous. Predatory 184.154.247.2203 of 8.

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A153 of A185.

3/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

Gangstalking is intended to deprive someone of their freedoms and rights. It destroys a person's privacy and control of their own environments. It is intended to create distress, disrupt all relationships, deplete person's resources, destroy one's physical and mental health, and inflict great overall long term suffering. They interfere with a target's sleep thereby producing chronic sleep deprivation, as a strategic tactic. They employ a variety of interactions with the targeted individual which are likely to produce accidents and various forms of illness. One of the main weapons they use for their own protection and to enable their success in gangstalking is to manipulate the target's life in such a way as to cause them to lose their credibility with others. This is usually the first objective reached. After that, gangstalking the target involves only minor risk. Notably, people who become involved generally stop caring about the abuse by either turning a blind eye or actively joining in. While others, though concerned for the target, become too frightened to speak out or come to believe the propoganda that the target is mentally ill and needs ‘this‘ help. Predatory Gangstalking also involves provoking "accidents" and consequences of harm to the target. Predatory Gangstalkers will surrounding a target's moving vehicle and attempting to force them off of the road when they are stressed and exhausted. Worse, these tactics will be employed after tampering with a targeted individual's vehicle. Predatory Gangstalking is very serious business. Predatory Gangstalking is, at the least, psychological violence, and at most, it is a protracted sadistic sociopathic domination and calculated destruction of an innocent human being for reasons of pleasure, power, and social control by a group predatory stranger. It is rightfully assumed that money is involved in Predatory Gangstalking because of the amount of resources required to execute such extensive efforts. The gangstalkers develop capabilities directly proportionate to the amount money that funds them. In following the money trail speculatively, one looks to the possibility that drug money is involved. Some people reason that the government may be involved because of the amount of resources that are available to the practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking. Other individual situations seem to indicate that corporations, insurance companies, and even wealthy individuals with revenge motives fund a Predatory Gangstalking. In addition to cash payment for participation in Predatory Gangstalking, other forms of barter are used. These include drugs, *, alcohol, reciprocal favors, release from debts, jobs, contracts,"deals" for legal problems, and other forms of compensation. Some gangstalkers are given free housing in exchange for performing Predatory Gangstalking activities against a nearby target. However, it is clear from observing Predatory Gangstalkers in action that many engage in it for pleasure. One high ranking leader in Predatory Gangstalking stated that it was like an addiction. He described how the build up and culmination of a gangstalking assault was intoxicating, but that there was a letdown feeling afterwards that compelled him to do it again, and the cycle continued. It is also true that some people participate in Predatory Gangstalking because they are deceived into participating. Friends, neighbors and associates of a selected target are given false information and finally come to believe the targeted individual has committed a heinous crime for which they deserve what is portrayed them to be rehabilitative social intervention. Sometimes people reluctantly participate in indirect ways, such as making their homes available at times for part of the operation, for fear of consequences if they did not. Others involved in Predatory Gangstalking, including the homeless, do so for money or drugs. Disabled Vets are known to participate in Predatory Gangstalking activities for alleged government or defense contractor's projects. Predatory Gangstalkers have successfully elicited the participation of neighbors by appealing to their sense of service to the community or government, often representing themselves as affiliates 184.154.247.2204 of 8.

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A154 of A185.

4/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

of the government or law enforcement. Lastly, those who are in the underworld or secret organizations practice Predatory Gangstalking as part of their membership duties. The craft and practice of Predatory Gangstalking appears to be standardized around the world. Many similarities parallel incidents reported by targets internationally. It appears that there is a standard protocol involving a series of tactics, progressive phases, and nature of assaults. It appears that an individual has been selected to become a target and the groundwork has been established for their assaults long before the individual can be aware that something criminal is occurring in their lives and to their person. Predatory Gangstalkers achieve this strategically. By the time the targeted individual becomes aware that something very threatening and disturbing is happening to them, they have already been thoroughly investigated by their enemies, stigmatized, discredited, and compromised. All wells have been already poisoned, so to speak, and all avenues of help and escape have been blocked. Predatory Gangstalkers first establish "information dominance" over a targeted individual. This achievement alone enables them to attain excessive power over the targeted individual. It is believed that this is accomplished by means of eavesdropping devices in the target's environment, global positioning technology (GPS) secreted on their vehicles, obtaining illegal access to all of a targeted individual's personal records such banks accounts, emails, medical records, and credit card purchases. They are often able to achieve 100% surveillance of a targeted individual and almost 100% access to a targeted individual's entire lifetime of available information from any computer, paper, photographic, or personal source. They use all of the information obtained to ambush and sabotage a targeted individual. Predatory Gangstalkers ultimately become capable of entering a target's house, place of employment, and vehicle atwill and often. All forms of communications in the targeted individual's life is interfered with by the gangstalkers. They will intercept email, tamper with voicemail, and obstruct the delivery of postal mail. The net result is that all communication in a targeted individual's life will become unreliable and incomplete, both incoming and outgoing. The Predatory Gangstalkers are then capable of greater insidious manipulation and control. Predatory Gangstalkers constantly update information about a target. Updates are promptly shared with all of the participants in that predatory gangstalking group. They take frequent photographs of the targeted individual, and maintain photos of the target's house, vehicle, place of employment, family, friends, and even the target's pets. They promptly disseminate this information through email and cell phones to other gangstalkers. This is the means by which a targeted individual is continually recognized by Predatory Gangstalkers everywhere they go. The Predatory Gangstalkers sadistically prefer to maintain a file of photos taken at points in time when the victimization reaches peaks, such as when a target is reaping consequences brought about by the gangstalkers, such as upon a targeted individual's firing, eviction, or when the person emotionally breaks down, or when they appear disheveled from insomnia or is fearful. Psychological profiling is yet another tactic performed on a targeted individual for the purpose of finding weaknesses. They exploit all information obtained, including fears, triggers, valueconflicts, skeletons in the closet, areas of shame, addictions, vices, and all things they hold dear. They often successfully "interview" a target under various guises. They use the information obtained to maximize the Predatory Gangstalkers' ability to destroy the targeted individual. Practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking have their own coded language, both verbal and visual. Each targeted individual is referred to by an assigned code word. Hand signals are an important tool of their universal protocol. Some hand signals resemble the mannerisms used in baseball and other sports. Other signals are those found in law enforcement and the military. They use hand 184.154.247.2205 of 8.

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A155 of A185.

5/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

signals to identify the area of a target's body designated to be the target of a pending physical attack. This is often the eyes and the heart. They also use hand signals to coordinate the unauthorized entry into a target's home or vehicle. They also use hand signals during roving vehicle caravans and while on foot, for the purpose of coordinating attacks and pointing out the location of a target. Vehicle alarm panic buttons and horns are other commonly used tools of communication and coordination. In residential areas, outside lights have an established set of messages. They also use "dead drops" like spies have done historically to secretly pass along information to one another. Public bathrooms are commonly utilized as locations for the transfer of information and equipment. Mobile pickup and delivery systems are in place for this purpose as well. They have a set of questions and responses to confirm the identity of a predatory gangstalker to another which are also coded. In the USA they refer to money by the last names of the president whose face is on the bill. Someone may say "I have references. (translation: money). I know 5 of the Franklin's." Their coded language is universal to them. Predatory Gangstalkers will begin an intense and extensive discrediting campaign against a selected target well before the target could even suspect he or she has an enemy. This critical tactic sets the stage for neighbors and associates to become alienated from the target. One of the Predatory Gangstalkers' goals is to eliminate all forms of support and assistance for the target. Towards this objective, the police are given anonymous "concerned citizen" tips designed to lead the police to believe the target is mentally unstable or a problem in the community in advance of any actual direct gangstalking of the targeted individual. This sets the stage for having the targeted individual prejudged so they will be disbelieved and dismissed when the gangstalking begins and they seek help. The discrediting campaign includes accusing the target of being an "undesirable" for any number of reasons, including fabricated reports of having committed crimes that are the most repulsive to members of society. Practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking even go so far as to represent themselves as undercover law enforcement or government agents. It has been reported that they will even show false documents for substantiation, but they will never leave them behind. Financial devastation is another goal of Predatory Gangstalking. Towards this goal, they make attempts to destroy one's gainful employment, pose as offering services to intervene in the problem to further take your money, and will steal funds and personal property on an ongoing basis. Repeated unauthorized entries into a target's residence, vehicles, computer, and workplace are hallmark tactics of this crime and is nearly impossible to stop. Predatory Gangstalkers can pick locks, bypass security alarms, and enter any location posing as utility crews, law enforcement, or delivery men. Practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking will apply for and obtain legitimate jobs in a target's home or business in order to have access to the target and their life, relationships, and assets just to do harm. Predatory Gangstalking employs a tactic of syncronicity. This tactic involves the precise timing of interactions with the targeted individual. For example, the target can go out to get the morning newspaper and encounter gangstalking activities that suddenly appear and which are precisely synchronized. Throughout the targeted individual's day, these synchronized encounters repeatedly occur. Activities such as leaving one's driveway, taking out the trash, going to a store, or even walking the dog, are activities which result in an encounter with one or more Predatory Gangstalkers. Even when a target strategically does not follow any set routine, these synchronized occurrences continue. This makes the gangstalkers appear to be all knowing and almost omnipresent in the mind of a new targeted individual. This is intimidating, demoralizing, and even terrorizing to targets. It is often unavoidable. 184.154.247.2206 of 8. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A156 of A185. 6/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

In the case of primary targeted individuals of gangstalking (the rare individuals who are the priority target of global gangstalking) the primary objective is to induce as much fear as possible and over time as the numbers of individuals that become involved or are made aware of a target, the abuse can increase substantially, so that there is no aspect of the targets life that is private or sacred. Rarely, if ever, does a targeted individual engage in an activity of daily living without the unwanted participation of Predatory Gangstalkers. The timing and coordination of these activities are remarkably precise. The targeted individual becomes aware that all of their activities include the presence of Predatory Gangstalkers. These gangstalkers demand to be noticed by their target, and if they are not, they will take an action to be noticed. This could include honking their horn strategically, making a comment, creating a scenario to get the attention of the targeted individual. Once noticed, they will return to noncontact, knowing that by that point, the targeted individual will henceforth anxiously watch for them. Most times, however, these practitioners of gangstalking maintain the appearance of "business as usual." They rarely make direct contact, with some exception. However, these strangers often boldly smirk and openly laugh at the targeted individual at some close point in the encounter. This is the universal exception to the "no direct contact" protocol. Other times, when verbal or physical contact is made, these encounters are conducted in such a way as to appear to have been "happenstance." Since most of the practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking rotate in and out of the life of a target, the same patterns of gangstalking will occur, but it will involve different people all the time. Therefore, many different stranger and many different vehicles will walk, drive, or bike past the target and interact in some manner, at various times and locations. All of the predatory gangstalkers will be strangers to the targeted individual and they will continue to make their presence, but not their purpose, known. This is one element of Predatory Gangstalking that is disbelieved by others. These "others" include law enforcement, the medical profession, and family. Those who are unaware of activities of subcultures such as criminals, secret organizations, clubs, extremist groups, radical political groups, hate groups, organized crime groups, and other antisocial groups, the scope of attack by Predatory Gangstalkers is unfathomable. Never the less, the extent of this massive assault on one individual is as extensive as described here and even more so. Let it be said that we really do live in amazing times. The world itself has seen much change and turmoil even in the last century, and with the increase of technology, the desire in those who choose to live out of balance with life and try to live in dominance and control of the masses have opted for this horrendous path of ‘stolen power’. This may sound quite vague, and it is, only because the other face of ganstalking or rather the precise reason for its use deals with a more incredible phenomena than hasn't been touched up yet. In the first instance, we mustn't be so naïve as to assume that our governments and all those that have been granted the power and authority to run our world are acting from a selfless perspective. They simply are not. The secrets of the universe, God and true power have always been the Holy Grail of man, and the desperate desire to achieve and own them by some. To this effect the studies and research that has been conducted since time immemorial have been immense, with the one of the holiest of holiest being the understanding of the human mind, soul and will and how these can be controlled and used far more readily than man has been able to achieve so far. And it is for these reasons that extensive and more covert experimentation has been undertaken on people targeted for this work. These people are the targetted individuals of gangstalking. Our minds are complex structures, our memories (long and short term), our thought processes, our fears and so on. If it is true that we do indeed manifest what we think as countless experts have us believe and that spiritually we are indeed one soul fragmented but unequivocally connected in a unified field, then it stands to reason that if one or a few souls and minds can be controlled then this will lead to the 184.154.247.2207 of 8.

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A157 of A185.

7/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

occupation of ALL. This of course sounds like insane rantings but assuredly this is the reality humanity faces today. There is a dark agenda to control all minds by controlling the energetic fields of existence, our physical bodies, dna, etheric fields, mental and emotional fields and so on. Next, imagine for a moment if a ‘Lucifer’ were also created from one of the targeted individuals, more than just the social pariah they started as, what if society is lead to believe that they are actually a satanic entity or individual. In doing so, a common enemy is created with which to blame all eventual chaos upon. This is another portion of the agenda. It is in the end the stuff of nightmares and what has been called dark prophecy or conspiracy theory is actually ancient agenda in it’s final stages of being played out. On a personal level, participating in any form of gangstalking is not only insane but utterly immoral, and spiritually and ciminally corrupt. If you care, choose never to participate, inform the target (carefully/secretly), make a united stand with friends and neighbours not participate and log all the evidence you can takedown all information you can. Be smart, technology and the capability of those that have orchestrated these world terrors are immense. But most of all remember that the 'fear matrix' within the collective consciousness of humanity is an overall target. If people are afraid they can be controlled. Stand firm in a belief of your divinity and eternal being (whether you believe in a God or not) you are still part Omnipotent Grace experiencing on earth. Peace be with us all.

184.154.247.2208 of 8. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

A158 of A185. 8/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

Gang Stalking

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING "Predatory Gangstalking is a criminal phenomenon referring to a group of loosely affiliated people who, in an organized and systematic manner, relentlessly invade all areas of an individual's life on a continuing basis, as part of their lifestyle. While each individual gangstalker does his or her small part, what defines Predatory Gangstalking is the collective intent to do harm." R.B.Ross c 2005 Tactics of Predatory Gangstalking include highly coordinated surveillance (hidden cameras, conversation bugging in private aswell as public), harassment, and psychological, psychosocial, financial, and sometimes physical assaults on an individual by a large group of people who are often strangers to the targeted individual. A Predatory Gangstalking group is a wellrun organization comprised of members who are unidentified as gangstalkers to the outside world. Until a group of gangstalkers turn their face towards someone selected to be one of their targets, members of society do not realize there is such an invisible group. The practitioners of predatory gangstalking are people who, for the most part, go about their business of daily life appearing like everyone else, except for their activities involved with Predatory Gangstalking. Predatory gangstalking activities take priority over everything else in the lives of Predatory Gangstalkers. Predatory gangstalking is actually a lifestyle for those who participate in it. Predatory Gangstalking is also called "terror stalking", "gangstalking", "flash mobbing", "cause stalking," "hate stalking," "multistalking, "happy slapping," "workplace bullying, and "covert war." . "Flash mobbing" is an event occurring when a targeted individual is spotted in society. Their photo and location is immediately and simultaneously sent out by cell phone text messages and Internet email to all gangstalkers within a certain radius. All gangstalkers then suddenly descend upon the target as a mob. . "Cause stalking" refers to gangstalking by singleissue radicals. They stalk a targeted person related to that specific agenda. "Cause stalking" has been reported to have been carried out by radical Christians who believe in "dominion theology." Dominion Theology is a religious interpretation of the Bible which these groups believe requires them to "take dominion over the earth" which they believe is the precursor to the return of Jesus to earth. "Cause stalkers" in general believe that they are bringing about social change through gangstalking activities. "Cause stalking" can be carried out by White Supremacist as a form of "Hate Stalking (Scientology groups are another eg.)." This type of predatory gangstalking is primarily for the purpose of intimidation and often is a precursor to or an adjunct to violence. . "Happy slapping" refers to group harassment of one youth by other youths carried live over cell phones equipped to handle video to peers youths. The young gangstalkers slap around the targeted youth while laughing at him or her while several other youths broadcast the incident live to as many peers as possible. . "Ritual Gangstalking" is reportedly performed by cults and secret organizations such as Satanists, secret orders of free masons, some voodoo /obeah practitioners and Scientologists as a means of control or for punishment. "Ritual abuse" is incorporated into "ritual gangstalking" patterns in this case. N.B. Obeah is considered one of the darkest forms of black magic known. Blood sacrifice is always used and the intent is to harm, even to death, another person. A159 of A185. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

1/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

2/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

3/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

4/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

5/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

signals to identify the area of a target's body designated to be the target of a pending physical attack. This is often the eyes and the heart. They also use hand signals to coordinate the unauthorized entry into a target's home or vehicle. They also use hand signals during roving vehicle caravans and while on foot, for the purpose of coordinating attacks and pointing out the location of a target. Vehicle alarm panic buttons and horns are other commonly used tools of communication and coordination. In residential areas, outside lights have an established set of messages. They also use "dead drops" like spies have done historically to secretly pass along information to one another. Public bathrooms are commonly utilized as locations for the transfer of information and equipment. Mobile pickup and delivery systems are in place for this purpose as well. They have a set of questions and responses to confirm the identity of a predatory gangstalker to another which are also coded. In the USA they refer to money by the last names of the president whose face is on the bill. Someone may say "I have references. (translation: money). I know 5 of the Franklin's." Their coded language is universal to them. Predatory Gangstalkers will begin an intense and extensive discrediting campaign against a selected target well before the target could even suspect he or she has an enemy. This critical tactic sets the stage for neighbors and associates to become alienated from the target. One of the Predatory Gangstalkers' goals is to eliminate all forms of support and assistance for the target. Towards this objective, the police are given anonymous "concerned citizen" tips designed to lead the police to believe the target is mentally unstable or a problem in the community in advance of any actual direct gangstalking of the targeted individual. This sets the stage for having the targeted individual prejudged so they will be disbelieved and dismissed when the gangstalking begins and they seek help. The discrediting campaign includes accusing the target of being an "undesirable" for any number of reasons, including fabricated reports of having committed crimes that are the most repulsive to members of society. Practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking even go so far as to represent themselves as undercover law enforcement or government agents. It has been reported that they will even show false documents for substantiation, but they will never leave them behind. Financial devastation is another goal of Predatory Gangstalking. Towards this goal, they make attempts to destroy one's gainful employment, pose as offering services to intervene in the problem to further take your money, and will steal funds and personal property on an ongoing basis. Repeated unauthorized entries into a target's residence, vehicles, computer, and workplace are hallmark tactics of this crime and is nearly impossible to stop. Predatory Gangstalkers can pick locks, bypass security alarms, and enter any location posing as utility crews, law enforcement, or delivery men. Practitioners of Predatory Gangstalking will apply for and obtain legitimate jobs in a target's home or business in order to have access to the target and their life, relationships, and assets just to do harm. Predatory Gangstalking employs a tactic of syncronicity. This tactic involves the precise timing of interactions with the targeted individual. For example, the target can go out to get the morning newspaper and encounter gangstalking activities that suddenly appear and which are precisely synchronized. Throughout the targeted individual's day, these synchronized encounters repeatedly occur. Activities such as leaving one's driveway, taking out the trash, going to a store, or even walking the dog, are activities which result in an encounter with one or more Predatory Gangstalkers. Even when a target strategically does not follow any set routine, these synchronized occurrences continue. This makes the gangstalkers appear to be all knowing and almost omnipresent in the mind of a new targeted individual. This is intimidating, demoralizing, and even terrorizing to targets. It is often unavoidable. A164 of A185. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

6/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

7/8

22/05/2016

PREDATORY GANGSTALKING

A166 of A185. http://www.whale.to/c/predatory_gangstalking.html

8/8

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

HOME

WHAT IS MY IP

HIDE IP

CHANGE IP

VPN COMPARISON

FORUMS

Where is Geolocation of an IP Address? 2.9k

Geolocation for IP 82.220.37.17. Hide IP with VPN

IPv4, IPv6 or Domain Name

IP Lookup

Here are the results from a few Geolocation providers. Accuracy of geolocation data may vary from a provider to provider. Test drive yourself, and decide on the provider that you like. Do you have a problem with IP location lookup? Report a problem. AdChoices

► Trace IP Address

https://www.iplocation.net/ You've entered

A167 of A185. ► Find IP Location

► IP Geolocation

► Location Tracker

a domain name. We've found an IP address from the domain name you've entered. Your

1/7

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

You've entered a domain name. We've found an IP address from the domain name you've entered. Your translated IP address is 82.220.37.17

Geolocation data from IP2Location (Product: DB6, updated on 2016-5-1) Domain Name

Country

Region

City

www.whale.to

Switzerland

Zurich

Wadenswil

ISP

Organization

Latitude

Longitude

BSE Software GmbH

Not Available

47.226829528809

8.6687002182007

Geolocation data from ipinfo.io (Product: API, real-time) Domain Name

Country

Region

City

www.whale.to

Switzerland

Not Available

ISP

Organization

Latitude

Longitude

BSE Software GmbH

second IP Range

47.0000

8.0000

Geolocation data from EurekAPI (Product: API, real-time) Domain Name

Country

Region

City

www.whale.to

Switzerland

ISP

Organization

Latitude

Longitude

BSE Software GmbH

SolNet PoP SubAllocation

47.0

8.0

Geolocation data from DB-IP (Product: Full, 2016-5-2) Domain Name

Country

Region

City

www.whale.to

Switzerland

Solothurn

ISP

Organization

Latitude

Longitude

SolNet Switzerland

BSE Software GmbH

47.2087

7.53795

Geolocation data from MaxMind (Product: GeoLiteCity, updated on 2016-5-3) Domain Name

Country

Region

City

www.whale.to

Switzerland

Not Available

ISP

Organization

https://www.iplocation.net/

A168 of Latitude A185.

Longitude 2/7

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

Not Available AdChoices

Not Available ► Location Map

47.1449 ► IP Lookup

8.1551 ► Check IP

► Mobile Location

Why do you need geolocation? Pairing of IP address to a geographical location is called geolocation. There are times when you need to identify where your web visitors are coming from. You might have an ecommerce website, and would like to know where your potential customers are, pre-populate country code on forms, display different language and reduce credit card fraud based on geographic location. Or, you might want to fight against illegal spammers and hackers, and would like to locate source of a problem. Although it would be nice to be able to find precise location of a visitor, it is almost impossible to find exact location of a host given its IP address. However, there are tools available to help identify approximate location of the host. ARIN Whois database provides a mechanism for finding contact and registration information for IP resources registered with ARIN. You may also use 3rd party websites such as Geobytes or Dnsstuff to lookup the IP address. The whois lookup will reveal name of the ISP who owns that IP address, and the country where it is originated from. If you're lucky, you might also find the city of orgin. You may also use products developed by 3rd party companies like Ip2location. Our sister website, findmyip.org also provides a geographic information of your IP address. You may also use reverse DNS to find out the hostname of the IP address, which might give you some clues. Many ISPs, Corporations and Academic institutions use location as a qualified hostname, although this is not always true. A couple of things to note here: (1) Reverse DNS translation does not always work. It depends on the correct configuration of the ISP's DNS server. (2) The US domain names such as .com, .net and .org does not always imply that the host is located in the United States. You may use 'traceroute' command to find clues to the location of the IP address. The names of the routers through which packets flow from your host to the destination host might hint at the geographical path of the final location.

IP-based Geolocation FAQ 1. What is IP-based Geolocation? IP-based Geolocation is mapping of an IP address or MAC address to the real-world geographic location of an Internet connected to a computing device or mobile device. Geolocation involves in mapping IP address to the country, region (city), latitude/longitude, ISP and domain name among other useful things.

2. Where can I get a IP-based Geolocation database?

A169 of A185.

https://www.iplocation.net/ There are a number

of commercially available geolocation databases, and their pricing and accuracy may

3/7

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

There are a number of commercially available geolocation databases, and their pricing and accuracy may vary. Ip2location, MaxMind, Tamo Soft and IPligence offer a fee based databases that can be easily integrated into an web application. Most geolocation database vendors offers APIs and example codes (in ASP, PHP, .NET and Java programming languages) that can be used to retrieve geolocation data from the database. We use Ip2Location database to offer a free geolocation data on our website. There are also freely available geolocation databases. Vendors offering commercial geolocation database also offer a Lite or Community edition that provides IP-to-Country mappings. Ip2Country.net and Webhosting.info (Directi) offer free IP-to-Country database that can be also integrated into your web application. There are companies also offering free web services that can be used to show geolocation of an IP address on your website.

3. How accurate is IP-based Geolocation? Accuracy of geolocation database varies depending on which database you use. For IP-to-country database, some vendors claim to offer 98% to 99% accuracy although typical Ip2Country database accuracy is more like 95%. For IP-to-Region (or City), accracy range anywhere from 50% to 75% if neighboring cities are treated as correct. Considering that there is no official source of IP-to-Region information, 50+% accuracy is pretty good.

4. How does IP-based geolocation work? ARIN Whois database provides a mechanism for finding contact and registration information for IP resources registered with ARIN. The IP whois information is available for free, and determining the country from this database is relatively easy. When an organization requires a block of IP addresses, a request is submitted and allocated IP addresses are assigned to a requested ISP. SEARCH OUR WEBSITE Search

IP TOOLS TOOL TOOL TOOL TOOL

Trace Email Source Verify Email Address Proxy Check Subnet Calculator

DOMAIN TOOLS TOOL TOOL TOOL

Who is Hosting a Website Reverse DNS Lookup HTTP Server Header Check

ADVERTISEMENT https://www.iplocation.net/

A170 of A185. 4/7

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

IP ARTICLES What is an IP Address? WIKI What is an IPv6 Address? WIKI What is a Subnet Mask? WIKI What is a MAC address? WIKI What is an Ethernet? WIKI What is a TCP/IP? WIKI What is a DHCP? WIKI What is Ipconfig utility? WIKI What is IP Spoofing? ARTICLE What is public and private IP addresses? ARTICLE What is static and dynamic IP addresses? ARTICLE My IP address is hacked. What do I do? WIKI

A171 of A185. VPN ARTICLES https://www.iplocation.net/

5/7

22/05/2016

IP Location Finder Geolocation

VPN ARTICLES What is a VPN? What is a Proxy Server? WIKI What is Tor? ARTICLE What is a Personal VPN? ARTICLE What is difference between Proxy & VPN? ARTICLE How to detect and prevent DNS Leak? WIKI WIKI

RELATED ARTICLES What is denial of service (DoS) attack? ARTICLE Find IP address of a network printer? ARTICLE Find IP addresses of a private network ARTICLE How to protect from DDoS attack? ARTICLE How to shape bandwidth? ARTICLE DDoS Protection via Bandwidth Shaping ARTICLE How to wire a RJ-45 cable? ARTICLE Email delivery problems explained WIKI

SMARTPHONE ARTICLES ARTICLE ARTICLE

Track lost smartphone w/ IP Address Locate your lost Android smartphone?

ABOUT US Welcome to IP Location, the home of IP Geolocation and IP Resources. This website was built to offer tips, tutorials and articles on IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, and how it relates to TCP/IP and Internet. TOP RATED VPN PROVIDERS

$6.55/mo

Company Review Visit Site

$5.00/mo

Company Review Visit Site

$8.32/mo

Company Review Visit Site

1 2 3 A172 of A185.