Globalization and the plan for New Word Order > Mind Control

MONARCH: The New Phoenix Program - by Marshall Thomas

<< < (3/7) > >>

Has anyone in the other Gang Stalking camps done any research into the violent persons registry? Here is a comment I left over at a Ken 5 news investigation article on the subject.

gangstalking said on March 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I think it was very nice to see a news story on this topic. I am a little concerned that the focus for this is being shifted away from local community policing groups and the fact that they have joined forces with other organizations. Please do some research on the Violent Persons Registry and the Jane Clift story. It's possible to have a Violent Registry Marker issued against your name, without you knowing it, and this can also coincide with being followed around, and flagged pretty much where you do. Also if a marker coincides with a community investigation, you will likely be followed around by citizen informants. No satalights needed. You can have this designation against you for years. If Targets are on such lists, the Gang Stalking portion comes in because these lists are being used illegally to target specific people. Marking them as violent, crazy, pedophiles, drug dealers, etc.

Please do an investigation into Violent Person Designation or Violent Persons Registry, but do the research for America. These terms that I just used are for the UK. Under Health and Safety programs workplaces, educational facilities, must report incidents, and we have the same flagging system, which could get someone I guess you call it blacklisted, but flagged is the term. Where they go, making it hard to get jobs, rent, and live their lives. That would be bad enough, but if an investigation is opened, everyone is contacted, told not to say anything and you could be followed around by the vast networks of citizen informants that each community now has. Most people are not aware of the citizen informant networks, they are already in place thus why dozens of people can follow one person. Limited guidelines means they can and do get away with gaslighting and harassing us. I think legal action would be good. Individual or a class action if we can.


--- Quote ---various authors / CC BY-NC 2.0

Defamation and anti-social behaviour
Published by Francis Davey
14 July 2009

Clift v Slough Borough Council [2009] EWHC 1550 considers the extent to which a local authority has an interest or duty to pass on allegations about anti-social behaviour to its employees and contractors for the purposes of the defence of qualified to a claim for defamation. It is also an example of the all too common situation of a victim being targeted as a perpetrator.


On the morning of 11 August 2005 Mrs Clift witnessed a group of five people in the public park drinking. A child of about 3 years of age was pulling plants up from a flower bed and damaging other plants. Ms Clift protested at this behaviour and was herself threatened by one of the men. In addition he himself trampled the flower bed in response to her intervention.

Mrs Clift called the police and the parks department. She was referred to the council who she telephoned. The conversation “went badly” with the council officer threatening to terminate the call, although it was in fact ended by Mrs Clift. She wrote a letter of complaint explaining how upset she was about the handling matter. In the letter she said (referring the the council officer):

“…I felt so affronted and filled with anger that I am certain that I would have physically attacked her if she had been anywhere near me. I truly am not of that nature and so, surely, this should act as a wake up call to the Borough as to the capacity she has for offending people….”

Rather than trying to address the underlying problem (the anti-social behaviour directed against C and her unhappiness that it had not been properly addressed) the council’s Head of Public Protection (Mr Kelleher) investigated the incident itself and decided to enter Mrs Clift’s name in the “Violent Person Register”. She was rated as medium risk, her name to remain on the register for 18 months. The reason being noted as “threatening behaviour on several occasions” together with some inaccurate particulars of the incident.

By way of comparison, another entry on the register of medium risk referred to someone who had prevented a council representative from leaving premises for a period of 2 hours.

Mr Kelleher had circulated an email to 54 individuals stating:

“I have requested that Jane Clift’s name be added to the register of violent persons following repeated threats of violence towards a member of staff.

Whilst we will continue to provide her with our normal range of services, I would ask that any officer making a site visit, or conducting a face to face interview with Ms Clift does so in the presence of an accompanying officer. Equally, any member of staff receiving a telephone call from Ms Clift should make a full note of that conversation including Ms Clift’s manner”.

A hard copy was also sent to 12 council community wardens. The Register itself was circulated – though precisely how and to whom was unclear to the court. Evidence from Slough suggested that there would not have been more than 150 recipients of the Register but the exact number was not an issue left to the jury.

Mrs Clift was, unsurprisingly, unhappy about this and eventually brought proceedings under the Data Protection Act in the county court and a further claim for libel. The DPA claim was stayed pending the determination of the libel action.

Mrs Clift alleged that the register entry meant that she was a violent person who had engaged in threatening behaviour on a number of occasions. Slough defended on two grounds: (1) justification, that is that Mrs Clift was a violent person etc; and (2) qualified privilege. Mrs Clift replied by alleging malice on behalf of Mr Kelleher.

The jury found in favour of Mrs Clift, awarding her £12,000 in damages, but found that there was no malice.
Qualified Privilege

--- End quote ---

You can be put on these lists in the U.K. and countries such as America, Canada, and others have the same reporting standards.


This case is great. She was placed on a list. She used the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act to sue and win her case.

--- Quote ---6# The words complained of contain personal information relating to Ms Clift. That is data which is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 (”DPA”). This Act implemented in English law some of the rights recognised by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (”the Convention”). Later those rights were more fully incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (”HRA”). The Council is a public authority. HRA s.6 (1) provides:

    “It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right”.
--- End quote ---

Physical Contact. This is an area that some targets might be able to build a case on, in regards to who was given access to their data.

Data Protection Act. Human Rights Act. These are the two acts that she was able to use to file her case.

--- Quote ---    8# The question in this case is whether, and if so how, the Council must demonstrate that it has complied with its public law duties under HRA (and incidentally DPA) if it is to be able to assert that it has the interest or duty required at common law for there to be a defence of qualified privilege.
--- End quote ---

This is what the case came down to. The same would likely be true for the Acts in other countries.


    9# As a responsible employer the Council has a policy to protect its employees from violence at work. The policy is set out in a document headed “Safe System of Work (Codes of Practice) H&NS/COP/1.14 Version 1.0 date issued 11/3/03 Violence at Work (Inc Potentially Violent Persons)” (”the Policy”).
--- End quote ---

This also fell under Violence at Work

--- Quote ---  15# Mr Kelleher then conducted a number of other interviews. One was with Mr Gulfraz, a friend of Ms Clift. She was accustomed to helping him in making telephone calls and filling out official forms. She was at the time also helping him in a complaint he was making against the Council on a housing matter. He was present at the time Ms Clift made her call to Ms Rashid on 11 August. He heard the whole conversation over the speaker phone. Other witnesses were fellow employees of Ms Rashid. Ms Rashid did not have the phone on loud speaker but her colleagues sitting near her heard her side of the conversation. It was sufficiently unusual to attract their attention.
--- End quote ---

Witness close to Jane Clift were interviewed. Just like witnesses, family, friends, would be interviewed.

She basically used the Data Protection Act and The Human Rights Act to win her case. Targets might try to duplicate this effort with a lawyer in toe.

He has his own YouTube channel. Lots of his "talking head" commentaries and interviews with targeted individuals. Full of info.

Phoenix program


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version