Reasons why I believe I (and Chris, and my daughter) have kept under intrusive, unlawful surveillance and associated subterfuge

My intent here is not to explain the motive, but to briefly cover some of the forensic evidence that points to the fact that this surveillance is happening. At this time, August 2022, I suspect that the existence of this surveillance and associated distribution is widely known, and has been, frighteningly, normalized. Normalized not to us – never to us, the subjects and the gazed upon, but to those facilitating and consuming the surveillance and subterfuge. Again, there is not just finance behind this, but individuals and group psychology – social capital and conditioning .

I believe that the surveillance is known to a number people who may not know about the use of piezoelectric biomedical implants, and this is significant because many of these people are also not aware that they themselves implanted and under surveillance. The implants alone constitute a type of biomedical surveillance, but the implants are used for much more than that.

The primary reason why it’s necessary to provide some evidence in support of my allegations of surveillance is because this is the only reason that Officer Zach DeLong brought me to Adventist Hospital on January 20, 2014 and (allegedly) told them to evaluate my “paranoid delusions.”  Similarly, allegations of surveillance and computer interference is the only reason that Dr. Brian Frank of OHSU appears to have diagnosed me with delusional disorder beginning on February 4, 2014. Mind you, I don’t think this is the real reason for the diagnosis – my position is the diagnosis is part of a long-planned cover up operation. But if you look at my medical records, it appears that the diagnosis is based on allegations of “computer hacking” alone, with the idea that me being held on an emergency psychological hold is also sufficient evidence that something serious is wrong with me. Obviously, there are other reasons why a person could be held – and that’s what I’m trying to show. Throwing an innocent person in jail doesn’t make them a criminal, and kidnapping someone under the guise of a mental health crisis doesn’t make them mentally ill.

The evidence shown to me that I’ve not only been under surveillance but tracked, widely, not just by authorities but by the community at large, has been exhausting, but difficult to prove. And in my opinion, all I should be required to prove or at least support (for example, in a sworn deposition, affidavit, or similar) – is that there is sufficient evidence to merit further investigation of my claims. And the reason such investigation should be done is that such surveillance is unlawful. When it involves the government, it is potentially a 4th amendment violation. When it involves court or legal proceedings, it is potentially a 5th amendment violation, etc.  And there are other laws protecting privacy in certain areas as well, including schools, homes, counseling appointments, legal offices, medical facilities.

I can explain in a sworn deposition why I at first suspected, and then knew for sure, this surveillance was going on. This was all very clear by February 2014.

One thing I can show is the following image

The poster is advertising May 25, 2013 Mudhoney concert in Berlin. The adjacent photo was a selfie I took in a mirror backstage at Dante’s in Portland, probably in early 2011. I think the photos are linked. The most notable similarity is the smoke in the poster seeming to mimic the graffiti behind me. In my hand I’m holding a lip gloss. The woman on the poster seems to be smoking a joint. Also, she’s topless, and has metallic jewelry, including jewelry evoking piezoelectrical biomedical shapes (most distinctively the small globes with pins), and she’s wearing skull earrings. 

Interestingly this poster is credited to an Italian art collective called Malheus, so you can’t easily tie it to any specific individual. Also, I suspect that one of the things the poster is doing is illustrating how people’s stories are colored and exaggerated (the nudity, the lip gloss becoming a joint, etc).

It would be unusual, but not the weirdest thing in the world if I had posted the photo somewhere, and it had been used in this way, but prior to late 2014 – well after the advertised Mudhoney concert – this photo had only been in two locations – the disconnected iPhone I’d used to take the original photo, and the MacIntosh laptop we mostly kept next to our bed. I had never put the photo online anywhere.

Thus, the poster is evidence of surveillance. And arguably, it is evidence of more than surveillance – it’s evidence of surveillance distribution or trafficking, and it’s potentially evidence of associated intellectual property theft. 

By the time I noticed the Mudhoney poster and its similarities to this photo, police had let me know unequivocally that the would not take any crime reports from me, and that if I were to continue attempt to report surveillance-related crime, I’d be putting my own safety in jeopardy. Their go-to technique are these psychological mental health holds, presumably because they don’t require any due process, and they do double duty in smearing someone with a falsified and extreme “mental health” file.

There is another similar example, this time involving my daughter.

The first photo is a photo my daughter, Brook, asked me to take of her hair in 2010. She was 14, had had long hair her whole life, and like a lot of teenagers, wanted to experiment a little bit with her hair style. This was very common at her middle school – there were kids walking around everywhere with blue and pink hair. Brook asked if we would bleach just the very tips of her hair. She was concerned that maybe her father (non-custodial parent) wouldn’t approve, so her plan was to cut the bleached ends off before going to visit him later in the year. And that’s what she did. And everything should have been fine, but it wasn’t. Somehow, even after he hadn’t seen her for months, and after she’d cut off the bleached tips, her father knew what she’d done, and became angry about it, even to the point of giving us a “talking to” even though he’s normally avoidant about communication. This was traumatizing for her, and she never tried anything like this again. When I asked how he knew what happened, she claimed that a tiny bit of bleached hair was left that he’d somehow seen (something that I doubt).

When the Portland Mercury cover came out in January 2014, about the same time as the first threatening comment on my blog, or maybe shortly after it came out, when I realized there was surveillance going on, I did link the cover with surveillance, but more having to do with me than my daughter. What caused me to link it to the image of my daughter, and to re-think how her father knew about her hair-bleach experiment, was the 2018 Trinidad James video “Every Girl.” 

To me, the setting of the Trinidad James video looks like Voodoo Doughnut II (now apparently called Voodoo Doughnut Davis), which is where Brook had me buy her birthday “cake” (in the form of a giant doughnut) in December 2010 for her 15th birthday, and I bought her one again from Voodoo II in 2016, except in 2016 the whole town was covered in ice and snow and I had to walk/slide home from with ice falling off of trees all around me. 

In the Trinidad video, not doughnuts, but cake and pizza is featured. 

 

In addition to these things, I have done a wireless frequency scan of my apartment and found consistent evidence of wireless devices in walls, light fixtures, fire sprinklers. Under normal circumstances, any or all of this evidence should have been enough to elicit some kind of follow up from law enforcement. 

web page updated 16 August 2022