This is not the first time in my life that I've had a situation where I had to ask the governing body to rule against themselves. Fortunately, because of that experience, I know how to deal with a situation that seems impossible with relative ease. It's not hard, it takes evidence and a sharp legal mind. In our case half of the stuff is statutorily illegal and requires very little brain work.
For instance: A judge can not sentence a person to "drug diversion" when there are no drugs present in the case he is deciding. You can't do it...it's not the reason for drug diversion if the crime has nothing to do with drugs. In the case of the Palm Springs victims, far too often we have been herded into a situation where the "court" is sentencing us to sentences that are not on parallel with others similarly situated. That's called discrimination and regardless of whether or not the numbers bear out, the statute says, "You can't sentence someone to drug diversion in a non-drug case."
For instance: The City of Palm Springs has a policy of "No Wireless Communications while at work". Every employee has to sign this policy and it was originally for cell phones, but it includes any wireless device. When we have the book that corresponds police officer RFID numbers with Lori LaFond's system of communication, there is a clear breach of this policy. This means that by statute, these police officers are using this system illegally. Period. There are many others too.
Filing civil law suits against a police department or a commissioner does a lot of things for the victims of this crime. Especially with the evidence we have.
For instance: When a rape victim reports a rape and isn't given the chance to speak with a district attorney, that is illegal. When the police officer tells you that your case is only going forward if there is DNA, is also illegal. When the case came back from the police department's crime lab showing DNA of suspects and the victim has a smashed skull and pictures from the rape, this is also illegal. It shows a bias. The thing is that we have to show a relationship between Lori LaFond, the evidence in the report and police officer's heads (RFID chip serial numbers), to show that the bias is going to the rapist and person communicating with police officers wirelessly. This, for my team, is a piece of cake.
Then there are confidential informant policies that have been tampered with. Threats by police and so forth. I am not the only police informant that was contacted by police and threatened, then lost money because of it. The protection of our confidentiality was gone the second we were asked to do the job, so we were put in a dangerous situation without consideration for our safety.
There are also considerations too. Holding criminal defendants indefinitely without any charges. Negative drug tests ignored and used to falsely imprison defendants while Lori robbed them. Taking blood without a warrant when a suspect refuses. Transporting a defendant to jail in a towel. Using a spit hood when it wasn't warranted for humiliation. There are many issues that will show that there is a broken system because of the police department's relationship with Lori. Police officers don't understand that they are monitored whether they know or permit it or not, putting the general public and themselves at risk.
Remember this too, I was supposed to drive the Big 5 shooting victim around the day he was killed by a police officer. I am implanted and it is my allegation that Lori used this bug to follow then put that man in danger which cost him his life. The information Lori gains from this system put a false impression in the minds of police officers and the victims. In essence, she is playing Svengali with law enforcement and criminals for entertainment, just like the cases of Aaron Alexis and Myron May. My position is that if the federal government wants a person's name that commits this crime that results in the death of an innocent person, this is a prime example of how that is done.
There are many ways around the autonomy of the police department's "last word on the subject". They can be forced to say more and they should have to. Protecting the public from someone intentionally spreading the AIDS virus and experimenting on them is something that the police have particular knowledge about and they aren't saying anything. In order to keep them responsible to the public, the public must know what some of these police officers are employing as a weapon for intelligence gathering. Outsourcing intelligence gathering using a person that rapes and intentionally infects people is enforced by the victims' criminal records that they share as the result of the fruit of the poisoned vine. You see police can't spy on you in your bedroom and using someone that does is illegal.
It breeds a class of citizen that is higher than others and that isn't how the law works at all. If this was the case, why wouldn't someone who doesn't like black people do the same thing in the black community? This is a classic case of one person deciding for all and unfortunately, the gay community has taken the biggest hit. It registers hate groups with the opportunity to hate in anonymity. That's where hate lives most of the time, in the dark. This is not different than Nazi Germany where Jews and Gays were singled out for the "final solution". One dictator decided for all who the problem was and law enforcement got rid of them. It's sad to think that it has happened here in the United States, but that is just what has happened. Instead of gas chambers, we were given HIV.
Reliable information is also supposed to be used in the courtroom and the person that supplies it must be able to testify or the police are just really good at guessing. We know that isn't the case. You can't expect rape victims to come forward when, if they do, the rape victims gets arrested twice the day afterward. It's obviously the job of the police informant to inform as to how this is done. That's what I do here.
There is also the preserving of testimony in a civil trial for use in a criminal proceeding. Getting the police to admit to their clandestine relationship to this technology and Lori will help with her prosecution. Getting this kind of information is as easy as presenting them with a transcript of their conversations with her or even showing them the chip numbers associated with their RFID chips. You see what we are looking for is the truth, not a watered down facsimile thereof. We want to know why we were targeted, arrested and convicted based on information that the police should not have had nor relied upon. It's important to note that "favors" for "sweeping stuff under the carpet" was done for a rapist...that's a deal with the devil.
