Government obligations pertaining responding to reports surveillance and targeting crimes.

[PayrollHRGuy]

HRguy can you link where that's stated, Law enforcement having no obligations to protect, supreme courts ruling?

DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales,

 

[army judge]

ArmyJudge if you're in cahoots like I don't know who is, tell them my doors always open.

Trust me, mate, you don't want to rile THEM.

Those people take their tasks seriously, especially their ability to do whatever they wish, to whomever they select, for reasons normally never made known to bums, such as myself!!!!

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Let's change the question. What makes you think you have been the subject of advanced radar/radio home surveillance?

 

[zddoodah]

And if I did. Then would you take my claims serious? Why is it so hard to believe?

Alright...I'll seriously address what you wrote:

I've been the victim of an advanced radar/radio home surveillance. It's a rather extensive system of tracking, audio and video-like surveillance that I stumbled into that has left me the target of a network or criminals.

Let's start with an easy question. What evidence do you have that this is happening? More specifically, what is it that happened that you perceived that led you to conclude that this is happening?

Who is doing it (or who do you think is doing it)?

WHY are they doing it? What's so special about you that you're being targeted by "advanced radar/radio home surveillance? Why would "a network of criminals" be interested in you? Are you incredibly wealthy or in a position of political power?

I've made multiple attempts to report this to the FBI and each time was turned away with either disinterest or responses of, "We are unaware of any such technologies."

Why do you think this is? Do you think maybe it's because the FBI has received these sorts of reports before and know them to be meritless?

this has been a rather large issue in my personal life.

How so?

Legally, what obligations, if any, are there that the government/law enforcement (of any branch etc.) that require them to address reported crimes and either fix or explain how they find it not worth-while to look into.

Law enforcement, from local police to the FBI, have nearly unfettered discretion to investigate or not investigate reported, suspected criminal activity. If they choose not to investigate, they are under no obligation to explain to the reporter why they will not investigate.

to actually get them to do what it is their supposed to do.

What if "what . . . their [sic] supposed to do" is absolutely nothing?

What's so crazy? With technology where it is today, who wouldn't be concerned with the potential for new forms to emerge?

No one doubts the technology. GPS and surveillance cameras (the subjects of the two links you provided) are ubiquitous and well known. But that's not what you said is being used.

By the way, those of us who have been posting on boards like this for years have seen posts like yours repeatedly. No one has yet been able to provide any reasonable explanation why they might be targeted in this way.

How about just accountability of law enforcement to take matters seriously? I could pull them to court and then let the judge decide things. Any laws or legal advice for that?

How do you propose to "pull them [the FBI?] into court"? If you sue the FBI for not investigating your suspected crime, your lawsuit will be dismissed quickly and summarily.

Again, evidence, if acquired, is intangible.

So...you have no evidence. The police and courts are supposed to take you at your word, without corroborating evidence?

The reason they're harrassing is because they want me to be quiet about what I know.

Again, who are "they"? And what exactly is it that you think you know?

 

[Tax Counsel]

Hello,
All that said, I believe that they are utilizing Ground Penetrating Radar and other wall permeating radio frequency technologies.

The problem is that to start with you have to be able to point to something more concrete that "I believe" something is happening. Courts can't make judgments/verdicts simply on your belief that something is happening. Our legal system functions on admissible evidence, not belief. And while you don't have to have ALL the evidence needed to convict someone of a crime when reporting it, you do need to be able to show the cops something that suggests a crime was committer, a computer and the right software at home). Their mysterious lack of knowledge, led. It's just not realistic for the cops or any other law enforcement agency to go out chasing vague beliefs that something illegal might be taking place. They don't have all the resources they need to even go after more solid instances of crime let alone those reports that "someone might be doing something to spy on me which may or may not be illegal." That is the reason the law doesn't require law enforcement to go out and investigate every complaint they get. The government does not have unlimited resources and cannot waste its tax dollars running around to find some crime based on nothing more than simple belief. Before going into private practice, I worked both as an officer and attorney for the IRS. I can tell you that the IRS gets many thousands of very vague reports that amount to nothing more than "I believe John Smith is committing tax evasion" without any specifics that would indicate how the evasion is being done and how the person reporting it has access to it. I got a number of those kinds of reports from people during my career with the agency, and basically all I could do with those is toss them in the shredder. I had more work than I had time to actually pursue where the agency did have some good evidence that the taxpayer owed tax or hadn't filed required returns to go chasing down vague "I believe..." reports.

Which brings me to my question. Legally, what obligations, if any, are there that the government/law enforcement (of any branch etc.) that require them to address reported crimes and either fix or explain how they find it not worth-while to look into.

No federal law or state law requires that all complaints be investigated. That's a political issue for the voters to decide — how much tax money are they willing to commit to law enforcement and do they really want the police chasing down every complaint, even those in which it's pretty clear that nothing will come of it? Contact your federal or state legislators if you think they should allocate money to look into vague reports like yours so that the agencies can hire the people, buy the needed tools and technology, etc., that it would cost to do it. You can't go to court to force an agency to investigate this and win.

A major part of your problem here is that when it comes to these complaints of secret government surveillance or government efforts to control thoughts electronically, etc., a lot of the people making such reports do indeed have mental issues that are leading them to think they are seeing/hearing/experiencing things that are not actually happening. Because the the government doesn't have the money to simply conduct these kinds of activities against random people it's naturally going to raise skepticism from others. So the most likely explanation in most of these cases is that the problem is not a legal one, but a mental health problem. Might it be happening? In theory, sure, they might be doing some of that stuff. Is it very likely? No. If you want to overcome that skepticism then provide the law enforcement agencies some evidence that supports something wrong is going on. You don't have to make their entire case, but you do have to give them something worthwhile to start with.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

AdjustableJack.

1. Radio frequencies are intangible. Look it up, not a delusion.

2. I don't remember verbatim, and that serves no purpose in solving this. Hence why I said the technology and my questions that pertain to getting law enforcement to look into the tech were the end-all.

3. What I know is they can access my house and nothing short, of get audio, and at least render high quality GPR like images to get proportions, and effectively my naked body and more. That is what I know, that is what 'causes the targeting as it can be used anywhere, I imagine, on anyone. Would want to keep that quiet, right? I don't need to stay quiet about anything, they want me to. What does me stating any of that have to do with legal advice?

4. Joe Blow threatened to kill me.

5. What, no? How ridiculous. I'm trying to report them. Whoever is behind the other side of these frequencies is committing them, which is why I need legal advice to get people to do their jobs and investigate the tech, not the liars.

6. They haven't. And this all serves suit as example of the responses I get. Very little concern, the kind one would expect to at least some degree, in terms about at home privacy. Just arguments on a board aimed at legal advice, and arguments with people that try not to do their job. Useless. No legal advice or help, just accusations aimed at the plaintiff.

ArmyJudge

I don't even know what to say to you, bud.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Just arguments on a board aimed at legal advice, and arguments with people that try not to do their job. Useless. No legal advice or help, just accusations aimed at the plaintiff.

There is not a legal solution to every problem people encounter. Some problems just have to be worked out between the people involved. Again, you saying you "believe" that someone is targeting your home with radio waves, infrared equipment, or whatever other technology doesn't give law enforcement anything to really work with. Think about it: if you can't explain how you know this is happening, don't have any evidence to support it, what can you really expect people to think.

I don't know if there is a real problem going on here or if you are facing some mental health issues. If the problem is mental health issues, the police can't help you. You need medical treatment. For those suffering mental health issues, what they see and experience is very real to them, even if it's not really occurring and no one else can detect it. That's why getting a mental health exam might be a good idea. It is not all uncommon for people to have varying degrees of mental health issues, sometimes for decades, and not know it. Because what their mind is showing them seems real enough to them and they have no way themselves to know if it is real or in their head.

Mental health exams should not be avoided for fear of being thought "crazy" or whatever and locked up in a mental institution. Mental health problems are much more common than most people realize. About 1 in 5 adults in this country have some degree of mental health issues. It's a lot more common than most think. I had undetected anxiety for 30 years that had a significant impact on parts of my life. I didn't know I had it until fairly recently when I was finally diagnosed with anxiety issues. Getting the treatment for it is making a difference for me. You might have a problem that treatment could help, too.

I wish you the best in resolving the problem, whatever it is.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

zddoodah

↑
"I've made multiple attempts to report this to the FBI and each time was turned away with either disinterest or responses of, "We are unaware of any such technologies."
Why do you think this is? Do you think maybe it's because the FBI has received these sorts of reports before and know them to be meritless?"

Don't know. The military uses similar tech, Strange they'd know nothing about it, which is why I was wondering about their obligations to answer. I already caught them lying once, pretty much.

↑
"this has been a rather large issue in my personal life.
How so?"

Been explained. Read.

↑
"Legally, what obligations, if any, are there that the government/law enforcement (of any branch etc.) that require them to address reported crimes and either fix or explain how they find it not worth-while to look into.
Law enforcement, from local police to the FBI, have nearly unfettered discretion to investigate or not investigate reported, suspected criminal activity. If they choose not to investigate, they are under no obligation to explain to the reporter why they will not investigate."

See that's why I'm wondering about accountability. That kind of power leaves them too powerful, you'd think.

↑
"to actually get them to do what it is their supposed to do.
What if "what . . . their [sic] supposed to do" is absolutely nothing?"

How can not addressing crime be what they're supposed to do? Are you guys even being serious?

↑
"What's so crazy? With technology where it is today, who wouldn't be concerned with the potential for new forms to emerge?
No one doubts the technology. GPS and surveillance cameras (the subjects of the two links you provided) are ubiquitous and well known. But that's not what you said is being used."

Those, links, were to state that humans have these tendencies toward such behaviors, to another commentor who deemed the very idea in need to show,

show that you are not suffering from some sort of psychiatric/psychological abnormality and will give greater credence to your claims.

. I'm saying something akin to GPR, which literally build images of subterranean objects would be able to be uses on houses, right? I search it and nothing, except about police having the tech. What about criminals? I can explain the tech, but I'll not bother here. Maybe if I could force enforcement to manage this situation, which was why I was here. Not to plead my case with you.

.

"By the way, those of us who have been posting on boards like this for years have seen posts like yours repeatedly. No one has yet been able to provide any reasonable explanation why they might be targeted in this way."

That's great, bud. Wouldn't it be better to offer legal advice than to attempt to hold court yourself and let that work itself out with the professionals.

↑
"How about just accountability of law enforcement to take matters seriously? I could pull them to court and then let the judge decide things. Any laws or legal advice for that?
How do you propose to "pull them [the FBI?] into court"? If you sue the FBI for not investigating your suspected crime, your lawsuit will be dismissed quickly and summarily."

To be determined, if I could and need to get them there.

↑
"Again, evidence, if acquired, is intangible.
"So...you have no evidence. The police and courts are supposed to take you at your word, without corroborating evidence?""

They should show concern, yeah. I never want to hear about another tips hotline, if not.

↑
"The reason they're harrassing is because they want me to be quiet about what I know.
Again, who are "they"? And what exactly is it that you think you know?""

Been answered.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

I can explain it. Tax guy.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

Also, your first questions have already been answered zddoodah.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

This board seems to intent on casting allegations on the plaintiff because of issues of disbelief, rather than offering legal advice. Again, no legal tactics I can use to hold any branch of enforcement to their jobs? I sure I can search it down on the web, but this easier resource is so much more enjoyable.

If actually investigated, I'll be proven right. How do I make that happen when dealing with all this nonsense though? Lol

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

Tax Guy

The government does not have unlimited resources and cannot waste its tax dollars running around to find some crime based on nothing more than simple belief.

Yet they have the dollars to go investigate people that'll lie rather than the technology? They were trying to.

or government efforts to control thoughts electronically, etc

Lol. Just lol. I never said such things. You guys are the ones making stuff up. Again, dealing with this nonsense.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

I see I'll receive no help here. Been fun. You guys are good practice for the crap I have to deal with though when I go visit law enforcement again. Thank you. So much.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales,

HRguy. Actually, best answer. Thank you.

 

[Thatguyyouheardabout]

HRguy, the best. This was what I was looking for. Perhaps coupled with actual court cases regarding this matter that help my side. Now you guys know next time someone comes asking, rather than calling them crazy.


Right to privacy - Wikipedia
"On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while right to privacy does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."[4]"

And the multiple topics that bridge off this. Topic close as far as I'm concerned.

Edit Added: The Legal Right to Privacy | Stimmel Law (stimmel-law.com) - Provides cases and examples along the lines of such issues. For any other crazy people who come along.

Strutner v. Dispatch Printing Co., 2 Ohio App. 3d 377 | Casetext Search + Citator
"The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment for defendants-appellees, is contrary to law."

 

[cbg]

I think this thread has run its course