Saturday, December 22, 2007

Burden of Proof

(This text copied from my main domain/website at


Finally, a few more words on the FBI, after denying me access to the requested data, having what's termed "the burden of proof." Stated plainly, if a federal agency denies a citizen access to requested data regarding a current or past investigation, that agency must legally prove it had the right to withhold the data!

For this purpose, the FOIPA Act includes 9 exemptions via which any federal agency can deny a citizen access to investigation data. In the case of my investigation, the only real applicable exemption would be the one that states that an agency can deny data if the agency feels that provision of such data would prevent them from bringing charges against an individual.

If indeed this is the exemption being employed, then the FBI is legally bound to bring charges against me, simply to justify the withholding of data, whether I've committed a crime or not!

Generally, however, the agencies must cite an exemption when responding to any given FOIPA request; this has not been the case with my requests. I have simply received word from the agencies that no records have shown in response to their search.

Also, it should be noted that the FBI, (as stated ad nausem to me in their replies) is not obligated to keep investigation information as records in the FOIPA system; in other words, that, at their discretion, they can employ a 'do not file' policy on their record keeping insofar as inclusion of data in the FOIPA records database is concerned.


for more reading, see the "Investigations Objectives" section at

this post is intended to be supplemental to the facts made public in my main website,; it probably will not make much sense to you if you have not already made yourself aware of the legal and personal efforts discussed in that site. please see for a necessary introduction into why this blog exists. or, if you just like reading weird stuff, then don't. and, enjoy.



Thursday, December 13, 2007

Preporn from the Ether

Occasionally I get emails from visitors to (my main domain).

The vast majority of these emails are trivial at best and some are worth reading.

Anyway ... a week ago or so, a person emailed me one of the more interesting sort of 'heads up' emails I've received.

The fellow who emailed explained that he had found my site ( upon doing some cursory searches related to psychology ... he then went on to explain that, like myself, he also had a background in computing and the late 80's hacking scene (HoWL BBS was a hack board).

The reason he was emailing me was to let me know that when he performed a google search on 'Howl BBS,' he found among the resulting links a particular URL which led to a child pornography website; this site, as indicated by it's URL, seemed to cater to those seeking "preporn" content, as in "pre-teen porn," a popular descriptor for certain types of pornographic content which caters to those wanting to see children in sexually explicit circumstances.

Anyway ... the ramifications of this fellows email are several ... and I'll discuss those possibilities after first listing the actual email received on 12/2/07.

Here is the text of the email; I've changed a few characters in the provided link to make it inoperative as a hyperlink:


Hello Joel,

I came across your blog after doing a google search looking for information on psychology and happened to see the term "Gangstalking"and looked at that specifically. Read one of your pages and began to read your whole site, mostly I admit because I also was involved in the BBS/Hacking/Phreaking scene in the 80's, ran a couple of BBS's in Seattle and was friends/acquaintances with a couple "hackers" from Texas. I also had a friend from the hacking community from the 80's had some interesting incidences with some government peeps but I blew it off as paranoid fantasies.

Anyway, I wanted to just let you know,
when I did a search of your "Howl BBS" on Google I found this at the last site listed:


Thought you might want to know about this. Not cool. When it loaded the first time it displayed some fairly disturbing images. Needless to say, I have not downloaded any of the content that is on there. Sorry to hear about your situation.

xxxx/xxxx (name removed)


So according to this fellow, when he entered "Howl BBS" into google, among those results returned, there just so happened to be a link to a child porn website.

Pretty intriguing, eh?

I thought so too.

Anyway ... here's a link to the google results when searching on "Howl BBS": RESULTS

I would suggest NOT clicking on any of the resulting links ...

It seems upon a current inspection of those links provided via the google search, there's now another item listed mentioning "lolita" and "preteen bbs" (these being new additions to the results since checking a couple weeks ago); again, these are typical and often occurring terms used to describe child pornography.

Why are these things interesting?

This is of particular interest (and possible connection to the operations against myself) because supposed inclinations towards pedophilia (or sexual deviance in general) on my part have been the NUMBER ONE tool used in the various and past neighborhood rumor campaigns which have been utilized to disastrous effect in my past home locations.

Without a doubt, and according to testimony from trusted and long term friends of mine (even ex-girlfriends), at a certain point around the 2002 time frame ... those agencies (local and federal) who are running the ongoing investigation of myself, did in fact take it upon themselves to seed communities with the claim that I was a consumer of child pornography ...

I mean, at a certain point ... I was followed around everywhere ... to coffee houses, clubs ... around my house and neighborhood ... it was classic gangstalking and, at the time anyway, it worked very well to unsettle me.

But overall, the point was/is, ... sex sells ... and if your goal is to separate a subject from any social and professional opportunities, then pound for pound ... there's nothing better or more effective than whipping up a community frenzy around sexual predation and child porn.

It's better than C-4 in terms of resulting fallout and uproar ... :-)

Anyway ... back to the guys email and what it could mean.

So How to Take the Guy's Email?

There's several different takes on why the fellow emailed me, some benign and some very very possibly malignant (to use disease terms). Which interpretation to treat as fact/truth is anybodies guess ...

I, for one, am happy to have received the information; I found it quite interesting.

But then again, had I chosen to click on any of the provided links, then the very real-world possibilities afforded by law could have been very surprising.

But here I go jumping the gun ...

Anyway ... the most likely and desirable explanation is that this really was, simply, a fellow personally concerned with what he found via Google search and he just wanted me to know.

The more dangerous/malignant explanation is that it could have been a bait operation to entice me to simply click one time on the provided links.

US and European Law Regarding Child Pornography

My own circumstances not withstanding ... the problem of child pornographic content on the internet truly has become a troubling thing.

It's all over the news every night and, despite my own experiences, I have to believe that the vast majority of cases are true; I mean, not everyone who is being hauled in by the feds for child pornography charges are being set up; I'd wager most are authentic. Otherwise ... you'd see a whole hell of a lot more sites like on the internet.

Under current US and European law, the mere act of simply clicking ONE TIME on a site related to the distribution and display of child pornographic content is, legally enough reason for authorities to serve with a warrant.

Just consider this commentary from an article discussing the case involving Pete Townsend (of The Who fame):


"Even so much as clicking on a Web site featuring child pornography could result in a jail sentence of up to five years in the United Kingdom.

And if you host a Web site or forward an e-mail containing images of children -- who are or seem to be under the age of 16 -- being abused, you could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.

If you receive and view an unsolicited e-mail -- or spam -- of offensive material and immediately delete it, then that counts as a reasonable explanation, according to Peter Robbins, chief executive of Web campaigners, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)."

Full article: HERE!


Point being, United States law is no less lenient.

Therefore, my simply clicking on the link that the guy provided could, thereotically, have resulted in some sort of legal action against myself.

This being a a perfect sort of event to get the ball rolling towards the realization of the investigations very much publicly discussed objectives regarding my personal future.

Anyway ...

Needless to say ... I did NOT click on any of the links ...

this post is intended to be supplemental to the facts made public in my main website,; it probably will not make much sense to you if you have not already made yourself aware of the legal and personal efforts discussed in that site. please see for a necessary introduction into why this blog exists. or, if you just like reading weird stuff, then don't. and, enjoy.



Sunday, December 2, 2007

From Russia with love....

I found an interesting article today about some rather gross abuses of psychiatry in Russia ...

Namely ... the creating of symptoms in otherwise symptom less subjects ... this being done for one political or personal reason or the other.

I couldn't help but be reminded of when, some five years ago or so, certain members of my local community saw fit to dose yours truly with a near fatal amount of PCP in the hopes of arguing for my own institutionalization and medication ...

Such hopes on the part of certain members of the local community still remain, BTW ... even though I've managed to gain a bit of momentum in publicizing my circumstances.

Anyway ...

Here's a bit of the article followed by a link to it in it's entirety:


"Naked and with her hands and feet bound to the corners of a metal bed covered by a rubber incontinence sheet, Larisa Arap eyed with quiet defiance the doctors who wanted to declare her mad.

It was a futile gesture. The men in white coats standing over her were bitter adversaries.

Enraged by the allegations that she had levelled against them, they also knew that, as an open Kremlin critic, the state would do little to help her.

A needle sank into her arm. Over the coming weeks, as the treatment took its effect, Mrs Arap would become everything the doctors declared her to be: her head lolled to one side, her tongue hung out of her mouth and her face went slack."


from, "Labelled mad for daring to criticize the Kremlin"


Fun stuff ... eh?

this post is intended to be supplemental to the facts made public in my main website,; it probably will not make much sense to you if you have not already made yourself aware of the legal and personal efforts discussed in that site. please see for a necessary introduction into why this blog exists. or, if you just like reading weird stuff, then don't. and, enjoy.



The Official Daily Blog

My photo
Houston, Texas, United States
This blog is a supplementary text to my main website at: The purpose of this blog is to form a semi daily dialogue related to personal circumstances as outlined in have fun.