ACTION NEEDED
My goal is to make TI targeting civilians stop. I am not here to make friends or enemies, I am here to make change. It has been going on for decades without any progress. So I will try to do my best to change that. That is blocking the mechanisms that prevent telling the truth, or that are hindering truth-telling. Giving information about those mechanisms, their tactics, technology and methods.
Bring technical knowledge. Bring personal experience. Gather evidence. That’s it.
Evidence that civilians are under attack and being used in an experiment can be based on many elements. That is why I write, do research and publish. It is in my own interest, I am an extremely heavily targeted person. I hope it can free us all. Against all odds.
To reach that goal, we need to prove that we are victims of the state. And start a discussion about the Secret Service. The fear of terrorism has overtaken normal security for minorities; privacy rights and even the human rights of the individual are set aside to create security for others.
Ybo Buruma member of the High Court the Netherlands recently published his book and gave an interview in the Dutch newspaper NRC. I have translated it, integrated into this publication.
This issue resonates with an interview featuring Karlijn Kuijpers in the NRC Netherlands with Ybo Buruma, a retiring member of the High Court.
-This section is taken from the interview: -
“In the Netherlands, the ‘rule of law’ applies now: everyone — including the government — must adhere to the law. I am afraid that we are sliding towards ‘rule by law’, where the government rules by decree or emergency law, as we currently see in the US. Then, the law is no longer an instrument that limits the power of the government, but the government uses the law solely to achieve its own goals.
Then individuals have nothing left to counter the power of the government or those who are protected by the government.
“ Why do you fear such a shift?
“Because the value of individual protection by the law has given way to a desire for collective protection. The government responds to that.
After the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers [2001], the attack on Theo van Gogh [2004], and the attacks in Madrid [2004] and London [2005], people long for a government that protects them against known and unknown dangers.
We have gone too far in this. I am deeply, deeply, aware of the danger of a government that wants to protect its citizens from external threats at the expense of individual rights.
“ Why? “
It is a frightening step from the perspective of the rule of law. In the name of protection, the government has allowed itself too much. In the name of doing good, you can start to erode the rule of law. And meanwhile say: ‘yes, but we are trying to protect you?’ Then the government becomes too powerful.”
Get Ray’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I can do what I do, I am not a legal professional. I am skating on thin ice. But I understand we collaboratively need to collect and organize:
a: testimony’s
b: witnesses
c: technical evidence
d: other proof
Normally, if you have a witness in a crime situation, a complaint it’s enough to start an investigation, but having three similar experiences and stories is for sure enough to start an investigation. If they can not find proof, it stops. Even if it is against the interest of the state you can win a lawsuit. It happens in the Netherlands.
But if it is in the interest of the security issues of the state, it becomes very difficult. Even proof handed over to the court disappears. People have ‘no memory’. It makes it very hard. So IS it in the state interest to experiment with civilians without their consent? To work on Cognitive Warfare? If we can prove it is not, all will change. If executing their program is dangerous for the security situation of the nation, it stops too.
Publishing facts by the main and trusted press was and is always the only way to accomplish this. They can publish after doing research themselves, or they follow and inform the public about the acts from another publisher or a lawsuit that is going on.
Is it in the interest of the state to have these risks?
You can start a lawsuit yourself. As a group like Targeted Justice did. But are they representing the victims of state abuse? What about the Dutch? It is a worldwide problem: China, Russia, the US and Europe, South Asia and Australia. And the rest. Individuals can start a lawsuit if they can find a good lawyer. A big firm that has power or a group that is committed. ‘They’ also have a good judicial team present. You fight the state! You need to have proof.
I can imagine that if a person or a collective is starting a legal action against the state that you need funding. So, if there is an open professional team that is willing to share the knowledge, that is using the internet and all the specialists that are out there to start the lawsuit against the state, funding is advisable and can work. There are open and proven internet tools to set up funding, to ask people and organizations to donate.
Why did TJ not set up the case like that? Why ask for donations yourself? If you demand a big sum, you need to have a hell of a team of lawyers to defend that demand. They did not even start to be taken seriously.
What can we learn from previous lawsuits against the State? Like actions in the environment and CO2 dossiers? In the Netherlands?
We need to have supporting evidence. Like technical proof, images, video, sound, papers, digital data. Phone taps. Communication evidence. Measuring evidence. Specialists that can explain the technical possibilities.
Testimony’s, people who can convince. One of the best actions I know, is the testimony of a brave young woman, why? It is taken in a professional setting, and it is useful as an official testimony. And we need other evidence. A big search is to proof the existence of the Signal. And the V2K. If we can explain that, we have hands and feet.
to be continued…
with more sound technology!
