Ray Schumann appeared on a PODCAST for Ella Free. The podcast was posted by Ella F. on February 23, 2020.
Lively session included reviewing an instance where we used a Civil Rights Observer to monitor a person under alleged harassment. There we documented that she is telling the truth: we caught these guys on video, with fairly obvious following, blocking, aggressing and harassment of a good person whose simply trying to shop – at a store she never uses – by people she’s never met, and who therefore have no pretext to engage in that conduct. A restraining order could issue in those circumstances and cause them a tangible financial loss.
A situation in Pittsburgh was discussed, where a person faced a phony “wellness” inquiry by a county employee repeatedly knocking on her door and leaving messages where no words are spoken, but only the employees breathing can be heard. This was addressed with an urgent Letter of Concern addressed to the agency directly, regarding her civil rights directly from attorney Ray Schumann.
We also discuss a lawsuit currently in the making by an Arizona lawyer who is getting ready to file a lawsuit to address harassment. As an attorney suing regarding harassment, her action may encourage hundreds of people.
Evidence collection techniques and some potential technologies for detecting electronic harassment are being explored, questions were fielded live.
Ray Schumann appeared on a PODCAST this past Wednesday.
This podcast was organized by Derrick Robinson and was hosted by Former Police Chief Daymond Jones. It included former DARPA scientist Robert Duncan and our founder Ray Schumann as guests.
Chief Daymond Jones is an experienced former Police Chief who supports victims of harassment. Robert Duncan is former DARPA and Ivy League trained scientist. His resume includes government sponsored research on advanced technologies now used in high tech harassment.
Topics included Legal Strategies and High Tech Harassment tools. This was followed by a lively discussion on the misuses and future of Artificial Intelligence. Law Enforcement abuses & corruption were also discussed. Questions were fielded live.
Ray Schumann appeared on Ella Free’s PODCAST this past Monday.
Lively session included reviewing an ongoing harassment case involving harassment via a false Restraining Order; tips on assembling Evidence of harassment; Surveillance Industry abuses & corruption; questions fielded live.
A matter came to us which illustrates the need for understanding the difference between a Cease and Desist, and an Advisory or letter of concern.
A Cease and Desist is a letter which issues to an identified perpetrator due to documented and ongoing pattern of conduct.
When these factors are lacking, an Advisory or letter of concern is more appropriate.
Take cases which involve a pattern of mobbing within premises, like stores, for example. If it is unclear whether the owner of the premises is aware of the conduct, a duty to remedy may nonetheless arise by the issuance of an Advisory or Letter of Concern, which properly puts the owner on notice of the situation. We now have a blank Advisory form that individuals may use, along with local counsel, to address a situation of mobbing.
We are also now working on the applicability of Advisories for public settings, and have a test case for its use.
It’s one thing to hear of urgencies, but quite another to personally see the harrowing stories unfold.
So when the deluge of emails began in mid December, we focused on triage: what cases are urgent, what can be done right now.
One such case had a woman at immediate risk, due an orchestrated criminal charge right during the Holiday season.
The way it started is actually the purchase of a certain home, in Oakland, California. An illegal tent was on the next door property. When that was pointed out by the victim, it was the victim that was soon surprised by a resulting series of provocations and harassment, includinga torrent of insults being hurled at her, the dumping of noxious items into her yard, a rumor campaign alleging insanity, and exagerated/false reports to the police.
The speed of the harassment campaign left little time to react.
Before she could prepare a defense, a Temporary restraining order was filed and obtained against her, based on lies. The basic MO was to taunt, insult, and provoke the victim, and then to film the reaction. The reaction was then presented as a standalone event, as if the victim had inexplicably exploded.
The nature of a Temporary order means the merits are not fully heard, not until a future date. To compound matters, an unprepared person is hard-pressed to effectively oppose such a charge.
She reeled at the injustice, but prepared to fight the case on the merits. She was surprised by another fake ’emergency’ police call (apparently based on him seeing her watering her garden) which now meant the arrival of police at her home.
It didn’t matter what she said: She was unceremoniously arrested. Police drove her to the police station, and put her in jail. She managed to contact someone to pay bail, finally walking out of that bleak place. Now she was charged as a criminal, out the bail money, and facing a trial. Based on lies.
As if things weren’t bad enough, the distress was then compounded by an act of the Court. The Court issued a wrongful Court Order, Ordering her to stay 100 *Yards* away from her next door neighbor. Someone crossed it out because it makes no sense in this setting – but then, someone wrote it back in.
One hundred yards is a football field. You can’t recognize a person all the way down a football field, never mind know they’re inside their house which happens to adjoin yours. You’d live in fear of being accussed of violating the order. He opens his front door as you’re pulling out the driveway, and voila, you’re subject to arrest.
Fear and distress, knowingly inflicted during Christmastime: She was basically ordered out of her home, right in the middle of the holidays.
We heard of this case mid December, and immediately began working to confirm the error in the Order, generating relief and confidence. An effort was launched to understand the case and probe for weaknesses – this included level headed fact finding by the tenacious and now confident victim.
The result is the finding of critical evidence: The same exact thing, including the dumping and subsequent harassment was done to the prior female owner! That person sold and moved on, in fear, but records remain of the same tactic being employed by the perpetrator in the current case. This was not the first time the perp had done this.
The perspective on the case was completely turned, from fear and helplessness, to energy and positivity. There is now a vigorous defense on tap, and potential civil lawsuits to recover the costs. The new year, looking up.
Make sure The Legal Coop is there for you: Help us fund ongoing success by making another small donation here:
We are now in the process of drafting corporate documents and getting the organization ready.
This has not been an easy period. Shortly after the start-up drive, purely from word-of-mouth, we began receiving droves and droves of emails and communications, each detailing heart wrenching, urgent situations needing immediate attention. This confirmed the need for the org, deluged us with work, and slowed communications as evidenced by the sparse blog.
So we did not wait for an ideal situation to help people and plunged right in, which is our main goal.
Check out the next post: What we have achieved, before even opening our doors!
The interest may be fueled by the rapidly deteriorating situation for Julian Assange, the Wikileaks Publisher ‘sheltered’ in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy for the last few years.
The Legal Coop is dedicated to educating people about the methods used in harassment campaigns. The Assange situation is relevant for those who seek to understand their vulnerability – even while inside their own home.
In Mr. Assange’s case, his choice of embassy shelter came by an obvious manhunt then underway.
Embassy walls secure nominally foreign territory – any attack thereon being an act of war – thus Embassies seem very secure.
Yet it’s possible neither Assange nor his supporters fully considered current technology which renders those walls ineffective.
The recent attacks on U.S. Personnel in China and Cuba are our biggest clues: truncheons and bullets are just some of our concerns, and that plain walls offer no real protection.
Here are links to their stories of traumatic brain injuries suffered by multiple personnel, at different sites:
The Sonic weapons suspected in the above attacks are best analogized to shattering a wine glass with a high pitched note – this would travel through walls, with a sometimes apparent ‘noise’ in its wake. Our bodies are equally vulnerable.
Another possible culprit are Microwave devices, which are also suspected in some ranged attacks:
‘It’s sort of naïve to think this just started now… covert strikes with the potent beams appear to have been going on for decades:’
Misnomered as non-lethal weapons, such sonic or microwave devices are only illustrative of the range of devices which utilize injurious energy extremes.
Anyone who has left a meal in a microwave for too long can attest to the damage possible from these invisible waves. Waves produced by lowly consumer microwave ovens easily travel through ceramic plates, glass, paper and plastic to heat food, so normal walls are unlikely to offer protection.
In Assange’s case however, the true vileness of those weapons is their subtlety. If the victims cannot perceive the source of their discomfort or pain, devastating psychological routines become possible. Law enforcement, friends, and even medical personnel are likely bewildered.
The victims’ complaints appear groundless, which worsens the effect. Under these circumstances the KUBARK manual’s goal of regression becomes much more attainable, the covert psychological destruction of a human being, that much easier.
Such was the situation facing Assange when he entered the Embassy – perhaps hoping for the best. But the world’s continuing naiveté concerning injurious energy displacements creates a situation where, as Moscow, Cuba, and Guangzhou have proven, people are no longer safe even indoors.
I happen to agree with the Rapporteur. But, observing Assange’s initial constitution and his devastated condition upon arrest, let me proffer the possibility of something more. Not just internal stress as the cause but the possibility of a modern version of the Psychological Routine conducted upon Manuel Noriega’s diplomatic shelter at the Vatican’s Holy See enclave.
Noriega’s shelter was attacked with a devastating 10 day noise campaign – a combination of helicopters landing next to the enclave, massive armoured vehicles revving on the enclave fence, and the blasting of ‘music’ at deafening levels – ten days of which led to the surrender of what people described as a broken man – Noriega found no shelter behind walls.
In our time, it appears we may similarly have Assange being denied ‘shelter’ through a Psychological Routine – the consequence of which again appears as a broken man. See for yourself:
The damage is clear, obvious even – but what are the possible culprits ?
With London’s Embassy row being inauspicious for the audible type of noise campaign, we can consider the potential use of in-vogue ‘non-lethal’ weapons instead.
Other clues might manifest in the victim’s condition, with disturbance of normal body functions such as digestion and elimination; and seemingly small injuries or annoyances (which were all observed). These are then timed to coincide with starting or ending physical or mental activities, inflicting the belief or association that the victim is causing their own pain by persisting in their activity – AKA regression.
So with the above in mind, one could easily see a routine as follows: a tool employed to repeatedly attack the soft tissue in a person’s foot, with video surveillance providing the information needed to precisely coordinate and time the attacks for maximum destruction. Another example would focus on a person’s digestion or elimination, with a similar devastating effect.
Though some physical signs are seen, most of the consequences are psychological. Most modern tools fail to chart the body’s biolectromagnetic status, which is one way to detect the effects of some of these weapons. As a result, all that gets perceived is a host of (induced) psychological conditions, their existence conveniently reducing the person’s credibility to the uninformed eye.
What we’ve learned from reviewing MKULTRA grant applications is that such reduction in credibility is part of the very underlying plan for those psychological routines in the first place.
Given the gadgetry, Assange’s case may just be the latest example: another person, broken by no-touch harassment, right before our very eyes.
As the above should illustrate, we don’t have that much time, and we must do better: Failing to detect injurious energy displacements keep us all at risk, even while thinking ourselves safe inside a secured building.