I am going to start with how the team works.
The threat assessment team works in a four part process.
1. Identify persons of concern
2. Gather information/investigate
3. Assess information and situation
4. Manage the situation
In the case of Mrs. Clift it was her local council that was responsible for the task of evaluating individuals and placing them on the list. In other cases this will be done via a Threat Assessment Team or similar out let.
In the Jane Clift case she was identified as a person of interest because of a letter that she wrote.
Each team does things differently. But they go about gathering information as part of the next stage.
Triage questions can include:
• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts,
plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are
they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the
• Are there concerns about the safety of the
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended.
Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who
might have information:
• Other staff
• Online friends, web sites, etc.
• Previous schools / employers
• Document information and use it to answer the
Key Investigative Questions.
Threat Assessment Teams when gathering information speak to those around you, as listed above. They speak to your friends, family, co-workers, online friends, websites, etc. Places that you frequent. This is why those around the target become involved in what is ongoing.
In the Jane Clift case they would have reviewed her history and decided that she was likely someone they felt comfortable with issuing a letter letting her know that she was going to be on a list. Most people are never issued letters, again everyones targeting will be different, and have various levels. Some targets never get electronic harassment or voice to skull.
In the Jane Clift case it was decided that no further active monitoring was needed once she left the area. In other cases these teams or individuals will often decide that further monitoring is needed to ensure the safety of the community, and once the person leave the area the monitoring will continue.
In the Jane Clift case they felt that her anger had primarily been directed at individuals in her local council, so once she left, they felt safe enough to not have her further listed. If they did not feel safe she would have been followed in other areas, like many other targets are.
2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person
communicated to someone else (targets,
friends, co-workers, others) or written in a
diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning
his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or “warned away”?
Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002)
Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates.
Key Investigative Questions
I can not strees this part of the targeting enough. They do communicate with everyone around the target. So when targets say that everyone is in on it. They are fully correct. They are not allowed to say anything to the person being investigated. Also it’s scary because they become aware of how serious the situation is. The target depending on which level of monitoring they are on, will have their information distributed to the community. Anyone who is a part of these community, workplace, notification, initiatives, will then get a warning about the person.
Information Sharing: FERPA
• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat
assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,
• FERPA does not govern police records.
• If created & maintained by law enforcement, for
law enforcement purpose.
• New guidance from ED encourages information
sharing where public safety is a concern.
• FERPA does not permit a private right of action.
Information Sharing: HIPAA
• Check with legal counsel as to which laws
govern counseling center records.
• Confidentiality is held by client, not MH provider.
• In cases where privacy laws apply, can try these
• No legal prohibition against providing
information to health/MH professionals.
• Inquire about Tarasoff – type duty.
• Ask subject for permission to disclose.
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions – include date,
time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern,
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email,
Incident tracking database;
• Incident Information:
• Date, location, nature of incident, means of approach;
• Subject information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Target / Victim Information;
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Witness/Reporting Party Information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
In a nutshell they bypass privacy laws that would normally be in place, which allows them to have those around you spy on you and give their observations and communications. Very cleaver.
This also means that strangers, and those with grudges, those who want to keep the investigation opened, such as those in the community getting paid, can have anyone submit false information. Let’s say you were originally given 18 months or 5 years on one of these lists, if there are no incedents, or something significant happens in your life, they might close the case file. If on the other hand something extreme happens, such as these people provoke you into punching them out, or falsely report that you did, then that is more time added more monitoring.
Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm,
and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees
the person regularly, inside work/campus,
outside, on weekends, online, etc.?
People need to understand that this becomes like a full Stasi investigation. For those around the target many with nothing better to do, this can become addictive and fun, some people love to play spy, and if there is a target in their area a lot of them will sit and wait for reports to come in, and if the target is in the area, they run to the bus stop, cause they want to see an incident go down. A lot of people just have no lives. Others are just genuenly scared and when the community notifications go out, danger to self or others medium risk, only to be seen in pairs, or whatever is being reported, others are just looking to protect themselves or their communities.
While the case is open the team should:
• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat
• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case
member of the campus community
• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible
As the threat assessment team work your file, and reports come in, reports can either bring down your threat level, or increase your threat level, they continue to monitor you, as long as they feel you are a threat, or that there is something in your life that makes you less of a threat enough for them to close your file, and your file even when closed, can be reopened, or the previous records accessed. Everything is going and starting to be feed into central databases, similar to fusion centers.
If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?
If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.
Again in the Jane Clift case, she left and her monitoring stopped because the coucil only felt that she was a threat to that one area, but in most other cases, they will warn everyone and every area that you come in contact with, because it is felt that you could be a danger to any area.
Assessment: Case Priority Levels
PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.
PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.
PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.
PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.
PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.
The above chart is the most important thing that targets need to understand about their targeting. Most of us are on what is called active monitoring, but we can slip down to passive monitoring, or up to higher levels. I believe most targets who notice the surveillance fall into the Priority 3, 4, or 5.
This means active monitoring and they feel that you could be a threat. The active monitoring is where we are likely to notice the Gang Stalking and Gang Stalking activities as the community has termed it.
Now on their blog the person wrote, that no one broke into Jane Clifts house, nobody vandalized her belongings, and nobody assaulted her. That may or may not be accurate. There is a lot that was not said about the case, what is known is that Jane even though she was aware of the listing, the social ostercism, being followed to places she was not followed before, and other factors became so bad that she had to move. Remember she did not want to move, she had to move, she infact hopes to move back there someday. It was her home, she loved it, and hoped to be a foster parent, but being on the list absolutely disrupted her life and seriously enough that she moved.
The reality is the poster in the post that I read assumes a lot about the Jane Clift case, we don’t know the full extent to what Jane experienced. Eg. There are aspects of my own targeting that will not be publically mentioned, but it does not mean that they did not occur. What the poster of the article entiled “It’s not community notifications, either” fails deeply to understand about the targeting is that every target get’s different levels of harassment. Some will be followed, but never notice the Gang Stalking till several years into the targeting. How many times online have you seen a target write that when they checked their diaries or journals they realised that the targeting had actually gone back several years, but they had never put the pieces together? Eg. The targeting at the time was there, but not bad enough for them to notice, meaning that they were likely under passive forms of monitoring, which then slipped into active forms of monitoring.
That is likely when you noticed the mood in the community change, when you noticed the home break in’s, the harassment, and on higher priority of monitoring and targeting, that is also likely where you noticed the electronic harassment, vs just Gang Stalking. It’s all part of how these teams function. The young man in his post felt that he had discredited the notion, but the post just showed how limited his understanding was of these teams work and function in relationship to our targeting.
Once you have the most basic understanding of how these threat assessment teams work, and function, you can likely see how this is working in your own life, and the life of other targets.
Again the poster of the article felt that targets had to act out in the workplace to run afoul of anti-violence initiatives, again this poster has no idea of how zero tolerance is now working, how the psychiatric repirsials are working in conjunction with these teams. You do not have to act out, constantly complain about harassment, and you can be added to one of these lists, and be listed as having a mental health issue, this is the point that must get across to Targeted Individuals and others, this is what is happening in many cases, thus we see a lot of whistle blowers. In the community arguing with an authority figure could get you on such a list, it does not take as much as most people think it does.
Now as the research continues, I hope to introduce targets to the opperations manuals that are used for the remote monitoring, that should hopefully shed some additional light on some of the targeting that is experienced, but please feel free to do your own research in the mean time. Unlike others I do not claim to be an expert and my research into these teams continue.
I hope this gives most Targeted Inidividuals a basic understasnding of how Threat Assessment Teams work. If you truly understand the process, then you have a better idea of what is happening behind the targeting.
So let’s look at some cases.
1. Theresa Duncan. She had a workplace altercation where she had to be escorted from her building. This was the second altercation with the same individual, but they blamed Theresa. Under these violence prevention programs the incidents must be reported.
As everyone knows Theresa Duncan went on to blame her targeting on Scientology, complained of conspiracies, and she and her boyfriend Jeremy Blake later both died, listed as suicides, but many believe they were murdered.
If Ms. Duncan was evaluated as a threat to the company after her outburst and escort from the building, that could have cause passive, or active monitoring. Then start to blame a community or show a belief that they are out to get you, and these teams will increase the monitoring, and inform everyone around you, thus you notice this conspiracy and accuse everyone of being in on it. She thought it was Scientology, but the reality is that it likely began with the workplace incident. I am not discounting this group in any of her targeting, because depending on your area, each area uses different types of groups, and individuals for the monitoring. If she felt Scientologists were after her, the Threat Assessment Team would alert this group, and they would be thrown in her path without a doubt.
2. Randy Quaid. He had an incident where he upsent some coworkers. They filed a complaint and he was banned from the actors union. Now he has never said he is a Targeted Individual, but assuming that he is, this incident likely lead to his elevated Threat level and thus noticeable targeting. After he was banned, a restraining order was I believe filed against his spouse, so the company likely had them placed on active monitoring.
His brother has suggested he get a mental health exam. This is likely because he is hoping an exam will clear his brother. Most times those around you can not say anything. They believe that the system is legit and will clear the target if they get a mental health check. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Targets know that the system and company paid psychiatrist can and are often used to list targets as mentally unwell.
If Randy is a target, he was likely at some point evaluated and listed as having a mental illness. They do this and can do this legally. It’s wrong, but this is what targets have to realize. Please see the article entitled the psychiatric reprisal if you are unclear how this process works, and how someone can be listed as mentally ill without having a face to face exam.
3. Gloria Naylor. She accidentally poisoned her neighbors cat. They had been arguing for a while, having disputes, so the woman felt that it had been done on purpose. Well in that area if they felt that you deliberately murdered a pet, and well what about a person, what if you did the same to a person? Remember pets to many are like family members. The neighbor according to Gloria had connections, but the reality is even if she did not have connections, but a deep concern, and in an area like that a report, and a review of the history could have started passive, or active monitoring depending on what was reported.
The rest is as they say history. I don’t know if Gloria had anything else going on, if this woman had anyone else file a report, but at some point after this incident Gloria noticed the small things, started to complain, they likely listed her as paranoid, higher threat level, higher forms of monitoring, and so forth.
4. Ramona Lopez. She was trying to stop people from selling drugs. She realized the cops were in on it and essentially blew the whistle. Well Ramona depending on where you live, accusing the cops of dealing drugs is a paranoid disorder. We all know the police would never do that. Anyways, she also I think reported being set up for drugs, she argued with the cop if I recall correctly, which can get you listed as EDP. Emotionally Disturbed Person. Infact most of the times when we file these reports with the cops, if you get your records, you might just see them listed as EDP, no further action needed at this time.
A Targeted Individual recently posted his police report, and his complaint about the neighbor above burning him with lasers, got him listed as EDP and referred for mental health. Apparently being burnt from the neighbor above is an impossible scenario.
Remember he was reporting something simple and got listed as EDP, and referred for psychiatric assessment. Ramona Lopez was crossing the blue wall of death and in many areas, especially less affluent areas, you just can’t do that. Reporting the police as selling drugs is a paranoid belief, or so it would have been listed. Anyways she reports her targeting started shortly after trying to blow the whistle, and the rest is history. The more she complained, the more she acted out, the worst it got.
These are just a few cases, I am not an expert, I do not at this moment have conclusive proof that this is exactly how the targeting happening, but when you understand how these teams work, you can go back and get a pretty good idea of what started the targeting and why, and how these teams view the target.
The same is true for Gang Stalking, once you understand how Gang Stalking works, you can hear a target complain about surveillance, being followed, life disruptions, and get a pretty good idea or feel that this is what is likely what is happening to the target. I hope this has given some a better understanding of Threat Assessment Teams and how they work in relationship to Gang Stalking.