"The first I want to say sorry I know a little English I hope you understand all of this. Of course you need to know why I shooting? Because undercover cop gave me a lot of ass during eighteen years... Cop bring about this shooting. Cop must responsible. And you have a nice day."
Here's the PDF of Wong's letter. It is clear that the man was insane.
April 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
His English didn't seem all that bad.
I might go on a shooting spree if I were being anally raped by a cop for years.
Of course, schizophrenics are just not violent, and because of the deinstitutionalization laws of the 1970s, crazy people can't be put away, but are free to walk around and believe they are being persecuted.
Thank you, thank you, Democrats!
I got the impression that this man was under a delusion that he was being watched all the time by Cops who were specially sent out to get him. The cross-cultural misunderstandings probably prevented his getting effective psychiatric help. When his paranoia was more than he could bear, he felt he had to destroy others happiness as revenge. At least he didn't get elected to a high office.
It's a shame he is a killer, because "Jiverly Wong" is an all-time great name.
Very sad. Obviously, he needed help.
because of the deinstitutionalization laws of the 1970s, crazy people can't be put away, but are free to walk around and believe they are being persecuted.
Thank you, thank you, Democrats!
No, Pogo. That was Reagan. Thanks, Ronnie!
Clearly nuts.
Yesterday, a guy in Metairie (a NOLA suburb) ran up to an old man out in his yard, grabbed him and took a bite out of his arm. Then he CHEWED and SWALLOWED. What the heck? This doesn't approach the donning of body armor and an attack on unarmed civilians, but the capacity of people to shock and dismay us seems to grow daily.
No, Pogo. That was Reagan. Thanks, Ronnie!
No, Beth. The President does not pass legislation. Reagan had a Democrat legislature. They passed the laws. One cannot veto a bill if one does not have the votes.
Thanks Democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beth:
Sounds like a remake of that Vampire flick. Wasn't that set in NOLA ? Did he resemble Tom Cruise?
but the capacity of people to shock and dismay us seems to grow daily.
Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, Richard "the iceman" Kluszinski, and Jeffery Dahmer. What is left to shock anymore.
thanks, Peter. So I should thank the Democrats every time some conservative is nostalgic about Reagan lowering taxes, making government smaller and winning the Cold War, too. Thanks, Democrats! Amazing how Reagan is such a conservative hero when all along it was the Democratic congress, merrily moving along with no White House input at all. Did the U.S. Democrats do the same thing in California, when Reagan was governor, and the number of mental health patients being treated dropped by something like three-quarters?
AJ - that, or some Zombie gathering. Voudou lives in the streets of New Orleans!
But sadly, I think he was just garden variety nuts.
Peter, at least Dahmer cooked 'em. They would have caught him sooner if he were just running up to people and biting them on the street. So I guess this guy represents an improvement in the status quo.
Sorry Beth, but the fact remains that legislatures pass laws. If the numbers are against the executive there is not too much they can do; short of blathering. It is not pretty, it is not agreeaable, and it may do more harm than good. But the fact remains that the blame falls on the legislators.
We have the same problem in Illinois. Democrats passed laws that opened the gates of the mental health facilities and let the inmates out. This created a public safety problem for them and the public at large as well as contributing to the homeless population. Democratic legislators did this under a Republican governor- Edgar. He had no way to veto the bill. Also, the mental health "professionals" did not fight it.
Beth I know bashing Reagan is so much fun for liberals but I think this suggests that deinstitutionalization began when Reagan was still making movies with Bonzo.
So I should thank the Democrats every time some conservative is nostalgic about Reagan lowering taxes, making government smaller and winning the Cold War, too. Thanks, Democrats!
You might want to consider the difference between the ability of the President to establish national policy versus making laws.
Not to interrupt the debate over de-institutionalization but I think we need some humor involving the criminally insane:
-How'd they know Jeffery Dahmer was smoking again?
-They found some butts behind his couch.
-What did Jeffery Dahmer say to Lorena Bobbitt?
-You going to eat that?
-What has 8 arms, 3 legs, 5 heads, and 7 eyes?
-Jeffery Dahmer's fridge.
Peter, are you arguing that Reagan would have vetoed such a move if he could have? No way. You're ignoring his record as governor and his support of "small government" (aside from all the big government things he preferred). Both parties bear responsibility for turning the mentally ill out into the streets to fend for themselves, and Reagan was squarely on board with it. If you want to send out a thanks to Dems AND Reagan, I'll join you.
Not to interrupt the debate over de-institutionalization but I think we need some humor involving the criminally insane:
It's all really funny until you actually witness a murder scene.
In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States.[3] In the United States the specifics of the relevant statutes vary from state to state.[4]
The tone of his letter is remarkable. At the end of the first page he instructs:
"Please continue second page."
He ends the letter:
"And you have a nice day."
He is going to return to the "dust of the earth" and bring at least two people with him, yet he expresses such concern for the reader.
Beth, just read through Hoosier Daddy's timeline, and bearbee's link. It had nothing at all to do with Reagan.
Christ, either deinstitutionalization was a great idea, nursed by Democrats from the 1960s and 1970s, or it was not. Which is it?
And if you think it's wrong, hell, here's a 100% controlled Democrat gummint. Will they address it? Nope. Why not?
Because crazy people have the right to be crazy. And who talks like that?
Democrats.
Will they own up to it? Nope.
Will they admit that cases like these were foreseeable and preventable risks? Nope.
Pussies all.
A little bit more background.
No community, no family or friends. People falling through the cracks.
Hoosier, your point is well-taken about the actual lack of humor. I think this is one of those times we use humor to cope with the outrageousness of the reality.
Pogo, I've read timelines and it's clear to me that deinstitutionalization was supported by both parties - again, including Reagan as governor in California, on financial and rights grounds.
I don't think it's a zero-sum game. There can be middle ground that recognizes that we can't lock people up for being all sorts of crazy - both on the grounds of rights and the obvious factor that we can't pay for that - but that we can respond better and more effectively when the small percentage of those people indicate they're becoming a danger to themselves or others. There's no one-step solution to keep the schizophrenic guy down the street from turning on his family or grappling with an office responding to a report of a disturbance.
Is there any analogy with child predators? Courts have been sympathetic with laws that keep child sexual predators locked up past their sentences if mental health professionals find them an ongoing threat. Is that the case with other mentally ill people who've shown themselves to be violent or unable to survive without institutional care - there are still means for commitment, yes? But again, they must be mitigated by economics, and I can't imagine many states are putting much money into that area. I know we're cutting costs for mental health care in Louisiana, including closing the New Orleans facility where cops bring critical cases.
Hoosier, your point is well-taken about the actual lack of humor. I think this is one of those times we use humor to cope with the outrageousness of the reality.
I suppose if you're the cop or EMT that has be at the scene, joking can be a coping mechanism but it just seems crass when done by someone who has zero connection to the incident. I guess I'm just funny that way.
Background on California deinstitutionalization. It was an evolving change over time starting in 1957.
Shift to Community Care and Depopulation of State Hospitals
Prior to 1957, the State of California had the sole responsibility for the care and hospitalization of the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled in a network of 14 hospitals located throughout the state. By 1957 the mentally ill population had grown to 36,300 (see Figure 2, page 4). As the hospital population grew in the late 1940s and early 1950s, some California communities recognized the need to establish outpatient facilities for people not in need of 24-hour hospitalization, and established locally funded clinics. The Legislature enacted the Short-Doyle Act in 1957 which provided state funds to local programs on a 50 percent sharing basis. The state share was increased to 75 percent in 1963. By 1967-68 there were 41 local programs and the hospital population had decreased to 18,800. The state's share of funding was increased to 90 percent in 1968.
Continued
President John F. Kennedy's 1963 Community Mental Health Centers Act accelerated the trend toward deinstitutionalization with the establishment of a network of community mental health centers. In the 1960s, with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government assumed an increasing share of responsibility for the costs of mental health care. That trend continued into the 1970s with the implementation of the Supplemental Security Income program in 1974. State governments helped accelerate deinstitutionalization, especially of elderly people. In the 1960s and 1970s, state and national policies championed the need for comprehensive community mental health care, though this ideal was slowly and only partially realized. .
You know even my Socks and Birkenstocks liberal profs at the People's Republic of __________ were honest enough not to blame this on Reagan.
I'm not blaming it all on Reagan, but it's just as silly to nail it down to Democrats when it's clearly been a long process, with a number of steps on state and federal levels. You show your hand when you neglect to recognize that.
Gah. This shouldn't be public. We shouldn't be giving these jerks national attention. It just makes more mass shootings.
Beth @ 12:53p: I'm not blaming it all on Reagan
Yes you did.
Beth @ 9:52a: No, Pogo. That was Reagan. Thanks, Ronnie!
Oops, looks lie you showed your hand first. It ruined your feeble attempt to play moderate.
Oops, looks lie you showed your hand first. It ruined your feeble attempt to play moderate.
Well in fairness she responded to Pogo who blamed it all on Democrats.
Well Republicans have always been more the crime and punishment types so how are Republicans fairly blamed again?
You could blame them for not emphasizing that enough and losing elections.
Although they are up against Oprah, the teledrama and Hollywood who like to have compassion for the bad guy.
Society has been "convinced" to give them multiple chances the recidivism rates are emblematic of that.
I did and I do blame liberals and leftists for deinstitutionalization.
Heather MacDonald:
"The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation is among the staunchest foundation supporters of litigation and advocacy.
No other foundation has had as dramatic an impact in shaping the debate over crime and punishment. Says Frank Hartman, executive director of the Kennedy School of Government: “I don’t know what the conversation would be like in [Clark’s] absence.” The foundation has bankrolled the wave of prisoners’ rights suits that have clogged the courts. But more important, Clark has tirelessly sponsored the specious notion that the U.S. incarcerates too many harmless criminals. In 1991 the Clark-supported Sentencing Project published a comparative study criticizing high U.S. incarceration rates, which sociologist Charles Logan likens to an “undergraduate term paper—one that was badly done.” Nevertheless, the study was on page one of newspapers across the country, fueling editorials and congressional speeches about America’s misguided prison policies. As Logan remarks, “Foundations are propaganda machines; that is the basis of their success.”
The McConnell Clark Foundation has one spectacular success to show for its effort to change government policies: it has helped make New York City’s homeless policies the most irrational in the nation. The foundation has been the most generous funder of the Legal Aid Society’s Homeless Family Rights Project, which has been suing the city for over a decade to require immediate housing of families claiming homelessness in a private apartment with cooking facilities. Should the city fail to place every family that shows up at its doorstep within 24 hours (a requirement without parallel in any other city in the U.S.), Legal Aid sues for contempt, penalties, and—of course—legal fees, on top of the $200,000 McConnell Clark gives it each year.
The Clark-bankrolled project has found an eager partner in the presiding judge, Helen Freedman, who has hit the city with over $6 million in fines. She has ordered the city to pay every allegedly homeless family that has to stay more than 24 hours in a city intake office between $150 and $250 a night—an extraordinary windfall. James Capoziello, former deputy general counsel in the city’s Human Resources Administration, calls the litigation “one of the most asinine instances of judicial misconduct and misuses of the judiciary” he has ever seen. Says one homeless provider in the city: “It is a crime to spend scarce resources for having to sleep on the floor. With $1 million in fines you could run a 50-unit facility for a year.”
There is considerable irony to Clark’s support for homelessness litigation, since it helped create the problem. According to Waldemar Nielsen, Clark funded one of the lawsuits that led to the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, a primary cause of homelessness today. Moreover, Clark bankrolls an array of advocacy groups responsible in large part for New York’s tight housing market—groups like New York State Tenant and Neighborhood Information Services, the most powerful advocate for rent regulation in the state. Thanks to such groups, New York is the only city in the country to have maintained rent control continuously since the end of World War II, leading to one of the lowest rates of new housing construction and highest rates of abandonment in the nation."
"President John F. Kennedy's 1963 Community Mental Health Centers Act accelerated the trend toward deinstitutionalization with the establishment of a network of community mental health centers. In the 1960s, with the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government assumed an increasing share of responsibility for the costs of mental health care. That trend continued into the 1970s with the implementation of the Supplemental Security Income program in 1974. State governments helped accelerate deinstitutionalization, especially of elderly people. In the 1960s and 1970s, state and national policies championed the need for comprehensive community mental health care, though this ideal was slowly and only partially realized."
"In 1962 the government funded Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, (APTD) an early form of SSI (Isaac & Armat, 1990). By the end of October in 1963, John F. Kennedy signed legislation for the creation of Community Mental Health Centers. This act changed the situation considerably because mentally ill individuals within the communities became eligible for federal benefits to pay for rent, food, etc.
Remarkably, none of the guidelines included or mandated a coordination of services or communication between a hospital and the CMHC. This proved to have disastrous results as CMHCs were not informed of patients being released from the hospital. The released patients needed aftercare, minimally for medication and longitudinally for rehabilitation counseling, which would have included locating community resources. Also possible admissions were not diverted to CMHCs (Torrey, 1988).
Some have argued that the real force behind deinstitutionalization came from federal monies because in 1965 the government encouraged the deinstitutionalization process by introducing several programs, primarily medicaid and medicare, which would only provide benefits to patients not in state hospitals (Isaac & Armat, 1990).
All state hospitals were suspect, under scrutiny, and defined as the problem, with the CMHC being labeled as the solution. The 60's were a time of social revolution, a time when civil rights were asserted for just about everybody and everything.
An important case that had a huge effect on deinstitutionalization was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967. "It passed in both Houses without a single dissenting vote" (Republicans saw a way to save money and Democrats saw a way to expand civil rights) and it restricted the grounds for involuntary hospitalization and its length (Isaac & Armat, 1990). So in effect, civil liberty lawyers could also be held responsible to a degree for the acceleration of deinstitutionalization."
Dr. Helen agrees:
"When Robert Kennedy called the state mental hospitals "snakepits," he must never have imagined the problems he would unleash into our communities. The community help that was to come from deinstitutionalization never materialized and hundreds of thousands of mentally ill have been left to fend for themselves. Now, instead of being in a hospital or a supervised setting, the severely mentally ill are in jails, nursing homes and homeless shelters -- often receiving services that are more expensive than the state hospitals that should have been equipped to provide them with psychiatric care in the first place.
Ever since Kennedy threw the baby out with the bath water, we have had more incidents of school shootings, mass shootings and just plain bizzare behavior..."
Well there goes the narcissism theory. Even English speaking people suffering paranoid delusions are very difficult to help. The drugs don't work that well and often totally incapacitate them in other areas.
Pogon is the Winner by KO and still Heavyweighht World Champion!
[next time you should stop punching once your opponent has died. Heh]
Republicans saw a way to save money and Democrats saw a way to expand civil rights
Which is what I've said, Pogo. If you're blaming Democrats only, you're wrong. When I first responded to you, I was flip, and I own that.
I'm shocked Pogo found Democrats to blame on this one.
muddimo said...
Very sad. Obviously, he needed help.
Nothing sad about it. If we are to accept immigrants, we should at least screen out the psychotic garbage like Seung Cho, Richard Ramirez, the Hmong hunter that did a mass murder, Jivery Wong, and that LI railroad Jamaican gunman nut.
________________
What gets me about the Binghampton shooting is the cops arrive within 3 minutes of the call.
In the aftermath, a long line of officials gets up to publicly thank the Brave Heroes in Uniform, who saved countless lives by their bravery.
Then we find out that Wong was already dead when the first cop showed. And since there was no shooting, the cops thought there was no urgency in entering the building...that they could get SWAT all assembled, go through all consultations, briefings..And they only entered 45 minutes later, then 15 minutes passed before they stopped to look at any of the shooting victims.
In Trauma, there is what they call "the Golden Hour". That was completely lost. It was almost an hour and a half before the 1st shooting victim was "cleared from the scene".
Asked about his brave heroes, the Mayor and Police Chief and the medical examiner dragged to the press briefing with the City Lawyer right behind him insisted that there was a plethora of heroism that day...and not doing anything with the people shot for over an hour didn't matter because "they would have died anyways".
Lessons?
1. Always expect the Hero Narrative to be spun.
2. Don't expect cops to storm in and rescue people.
3. In many cases, your life & fate is better left to your own positive action. To break windows, jump - (Virginia Tech) - barricade yourself in a room (VT) or even jump the gunman (LI Railroad). Better than passively waiting like sheep for either the gunman to dispatch you with ease, or for the Hero Cop to rescue you.
4. Gun nuts love to say the "armed citizen" could have stopped this, but people of a paranoid mindset that crave to pack guns to work tend to be more like Jiverly Wong than they care to admit.
5. If I was a relative of one of the victims, I would not believe a single CYA word the City Leaders and medical examiner said about how grateful they should be to the heroe cops, or how the hour and a half delay after Wong blew his own brains out "had no effect on the medical outcome of any victim". I'd be looking to get a 2nd medical opinion if any of the gunshots were not immediately fatal - but victims died much later from shock or exsanguination.
Isn't Alpha Liberal going to pop in and blame it on talk radio?
Yeah, garage, I beat that drum because the usual narrative is that this is blame to be shared.
And I say bullshit.
This was a product of the Kennedys, several Democrat congresses, and liberal activists. Republicans who joined were willing fools to believe that outpatient clinics would be cheaper and as effective.
But this was no joint project. Liberal activists pushed this and pushed this and pushed this. Now they won't own it. Big effing surprise.
@Cedarford, you were going great until you got to #4. The people I know who go "fully dressed" (to use a euphemism I once heard) are nothing like Jiverly Wong.
The discussion of deinstitutionalization puzzles me. Did Jiverly Wong receive some sort psychiatric evaluation at any time? Absent that, I suspect he'd have slipped through the cracks even if deinstitutionalization had never occurred.
"I suspect he'd have slipped through the cracks even if deinstitutionalization had never occurred."
There are no longer any boards forming cracks to slip through. It's all gone.
You are free to be crazy and homeless and violent. Who would you call when your acquaintance is a nutjob like this?
No one.
Pogo- I find it amazing how some people find in every horrible event a way to make political attacks. How would institutionalization have helped in this situation? Jiverly Wong was never diagnosed with a mental illness.
"Jiverly Wong was never diagnosed with a mental illness."
I understand the risk of politicizing an event. I abhor that myself. The man's letter however is pretty typical paranoid schizophrenic crap. I have read this sort of scary shit before and it has the earmarks of insanity.
Why would he have been diagnosed? There is no process by which any mental health authority would ever be called on this guy until he actually carries through on his threats. And even if diagnosed, so what? No one anywhere could do anything about it. he cannot be jailed or forced to take drugs in our system. So diagnosis means nothing.
Fact is, there are violent mentally ill people walking around because of legislation by leftists in the 60s and 70s. Now craziness is just another lifestyle choice.
And my apologies for the rants.
Violent crazy people really really piss me off.
There are all kinds of reasons people do the things they do, but based on Pogo's comments, it's Kennedy and other Democrats we can blame.
Actually Ronald Reagan, the ultimate Republican God of all Gods who got the ball rolling on America's neglect of the homeless and mentally ill.
The Reagan administration all but turned a blind eye to the problem of homelessness, and many of the homeless suffer from a variety of mental problems.
Federal spending for low-cost housing plunged during Reagan's watch from $32 to $7 billion.
And funding for all kinds of social services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps were slashed, all programs thousands of mentally ill and homeless Americans relied upon to survive.
And when Reagan was asked in a 1988 interview, right before Christmas, by the way, what he thought of the homeless people sleeping within view of the White House, he said:
"There are always going to be people," he replied. "They make it their own choice for staying out there."
Pogo, we're going to continue, as expected, to disagree over the political framework here. I figure you and I have before and will again butt heads and say some stupid things in the process, sometimes. I don't know why, but I still look forward to knowing you're someone I'll run into online on a regular basis. I understand the need to rant about this, even if I think your conclusions are unfair. I live three doors down from a guy who is just fine when he's on his meds and off alcohol, but about half the time is threatening and abusive. The state is closing our critical care facility for mental health cases, and that's going to cause big problems. We've had one cop killed this year by a schizophrenic guy who grabbed her gun on the street. A lot of regular folks went on meds after Katrina; imagine what it's done for the truly crazy among us.
I don't want to see a return to the snakepit era of treatment, but I would agree that people have a right to be safe from those whose refusal to be treated results in violent behavior, or those who simply are incapable of making that choice. It's hard to imagine, though, how such a thing will happen in our economic climate. I doubt conservative libertarians would support it, and anti-tax conservatives, any more than liberal mental health advocates.
There has got to be some mid-point between lobotomizing Frances Farmer and denying that deviancy exists at all.
Beth, I feel stupid that I insulted you; I always read your posts and learn quite a bit from them.
Hell, my own parents are lifelong Democrats, as are most of my sibs. I love them, but I think they are terribly wrong about these issues.
Just last month, the town schizoid somewhat homeless guy with a mat of hair over his eyes was beaten to a pulp by 5 young black men when he said the n word to them. Next day he went back and screamed, Hey, you're the n's what beat me up!, and they did it again. The state cannot keep him in a home or anywhere, because it ain't illegal to be crazy enough to get the shit kicked out of you.
If we cannot take care of the least of our brothers...
Hey, Beth and Pogo, knock it off. It's enough to deal with Althouse and Meade getting all mushy on us. Not you two, too.
Okay, seriously, I'm heartened to see that there are people in this world who can look at the same problems in different ways, disagree on how to fix them, and still respect one another. I've missed that for the past decade or more.
Now if only Jeremy/Michael could get the message.
In addition to politicians, many psychological professionals in the '60s believed that the mentally ill should be free to walk around and believe they are being persecuted--you see, it's society that is ill--and these were leftists or liberals. Dr. Huber of Germany urged his patients to leave and protest, and they did. Most committed suicide or were killed by police in the rampages that followed. Strangely, not a one was cured.
The LA Times did a Sunday cover story on a local doc who advanced this 'new and revolutionary' theory in early 2000. I believe that is what finally convinced me to cancel my subscription.
Jeremy:
Where do you get your figures?
In Philly alone, the state, fed and local govts waste [I am sorry I meant to say spend] more than $500 Million per year on low-cost housing and homeless programs.
That does even include the millions more they spend on welfare payments, food stamps, earned income credits, medicaid, paid child care, school breakfast and lunch, etc.
pogo:
I see nothing but solid evidence in your "rants".
Keep it up!
Pogo, what a heartbreaking story. That poor guy.
We're cool. You didn't insult me - we manage, you and I.
Based on the letter he left, it sounds like he was a target of a practice that is being termed Gang Stalking.
http://www.GangStalkingWorld.com
This involved rumours, slander, 24/7 surveillance, constant job loss, moving from place to place, and community harassment. Most targets of this practice commit suicide, or end up being falsly institutionalised. Other just like workplace mobbing, do commit acts of violence.
I suggest that those who care about the people that died, help request his Freedom Of Information Act records, the public has a right to know if these types of ongoing investigation are driving people to acts of violence.
sent from: fav.or.it
I think it is a sign of paranoid and delusional Schizoprenia.He seemed so confused in his writing.Taking about cammera, music, video and so on.His bad experice with cops further took him to depth of delusion and paronia.
sent from: fav.or.it
Beth,
I appreciate you acknowledging what you wrote earlier, and I hope you'll except my apology for what really was a typo. The word should have been "like".
The real issue here is turning this pendulum around, without it going back to far the other way. The issue is political, but it needs to be bipartisan, because the ability to also abuse the power to "commit" has been demonstrated in the past by political operatives.
With all the predetermined arguments of him being a nut job, I am sure this comment will not get any play, but he sounds like he might have been a target. Is it that hard to get a copy of his FOIA records, do we have to wait 10 years to learn if he was under investigation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mg2RZH0oNU
Based on the letter he left, it sounds like he was a target of a practice that is being termed Gang Stalking.
http://www.GangStalkingWorld.com
This involved rumours, slander, 24/7 surveillance, constant job loss, moving from place to place, and community harassment. Most targets of this practice commit suicide, or end up being falsly institutionalised. Other just like workplace mobbing, do commit acts of violence.
I suggest that those who care about the people that died, help request his Freedom Of Information Act records, the public has a right to know if these types of ongoing investigation are driving people to acts of violence.
http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Handbook/5650778.pdf
Post a Comment