Locura: Bourgeois Trash

Premeditated adversity

When you listen to the recording of my father, I would like for you to consider what transpired from the vantage point of premeditated adversity rather than from the vantage point of the specifics of the adversity he experienced. Resist the inclination to sum up the adversity he faced as difficulties that impede the freedom and free association of persons in a specific class or category. In other words, do not fix the intents, interests and mechanics of the adversity to the configuration of social relations in which a specific set of adverse conditions matured as institutional and structural violence. Frame his experience in the context of the desired and the expected outcomes of a premeditation of adversity designed to calibrate the use of privileged equilibriums of power.

First, try to understand privilege equilibriums of power in terms of a capacity (desire) to affect the outcomes of premeditated adversity within a given set of social relations. Then compare that understanding to the ability (expectation) of privilege equilibriums of power to effect the outcomes of premeditated adversity as attributes of the sum and structure of social relations. The difference between the desired (capacity) outcomes and expected (ability) outcomes of premeditated adversity is the difference between how subordination and domination affect and effect social relations. Think of the capacity to affect outcomes as the power of violence and the ability to effect outcomes as the violence of power.

In the oral history above, my father shares his experience with premeditated adversity. If you listen for the function of power echoed in the exercise of power you will hear:

the desired (capacity) outcomes of premeditated adversity
– it is not just that the plantation owner wanted kill my father, he had to justify the killing in terms of policing the outcomes of premeditated adversity viz., as a means of regulating and controlling the black labor that produced the wealth financing the power used to administer subordination and domination.

– (in this case) the desire to kill my father was individual and the capacity to take my father’s life was social

the expected (ability) outcomes of premeditated adversity
– taking the life of a black man for refusing the privilege of a specific equilibrium of power to set the conditions of freedom was an act of violence over which the rule of law (the state monopoly of violence) was either rendered powerless to prevent (not prohibit) or the process by which murder becomes the execution of a criminal.

– the expectation of my father’s death was social, the ability to take his life was social

the premeditation of adversity designed to calibrate the use of privileged equilibriums of power
– when a different versions of the facts were presented that did not substantiate the claims supporting a demand for my father’s life, it was not decided that the life of my father should be spared but rather that it would not be taken by institutional and structural violence (a sham trail for the trumped up charge of attempted murder and a quick hanging). The desire and capacity simply devolved to the right of an individual privileged by the color of his skin

References to ‘the sum and structure of social relations’, ‘social relations’, ‘structural violence’, ‘institutional violence’ include the following social interactions and transactions:

  • – neighbours to report on the comings and goings of suspected NAACP, SNIC etc. members
  • – employment of persons who registered to vote, marched in protests etc. was threatened or terminated
  • – correspondence sent and received by suspected communist, labor unions, or civil rights leaders was intercepted read and used as leverage
  • – photographic documentation of the extra-marital relations of civil rights leaders used to suggest they commit suicide or submit to the social order – Uncensored Letter
  • – loans to targeted persons to regulate where they lived or whether they could start a business
  • – obstacles to prevent targeted persons from obtaining college and university education; degree
  • – criminalizing targeted persons to restrict their social mobility and potential

Having survived the attempt on his life my father’s struggle against premeditated adversity continued as it tried to suffocate his livelihood years after the gains made by the Civil Rights Movement.

  • – as a black business owner in Greenwood, MS it came as no surprise to learn that his white competitor could call his bank and obtain information about the balance of his accounts.
  • –  salesmen who supplied auto parts for his shop were told by his white competitors to sales the same item they purchased at a higher price.

In the first paragraph, I asked that you not “fix the intents, interests and mechanics of the adversity to the configuration of social relations in which a specific set of adverse conditions matured as institutional and structural violence.” By the time I was born and grew up in Mississippi, the configuration of social relations had changed. Federal law had negated and remedied a great deal of institutional and structural violence. Yet, still I had isolated and intense experiences of the outcomes of the premeditated adversity that survived civil war, reconstruction, movements for civil rights and the passage of time.

  • – as an elementary student wishing to join the Boy Scouts of America, I was told by the white scout master that his troop was not accepting black kids but he was looking for a black scout leader to start one
  • – my school ‘whose who’ program included two of everything: a black and white person most likely to succeed, a black and white most beautiful girl etc.
  • – if I missed the bus from the school where I was bussed, I could busy myself counting the number of times I was called a nigger on my walk home through white neighbourhoods.
  • – when I was admitted to the predominately white boarding school where affluent whites sent their kids after public schools were desegregated, the wife of one of the wealthy white families flew to the school to make the case – and a number of allegations – in person to the head master that I should not be admitted. Spencer McCallie III stood his ground and upheld the the school’s motto – honour, truth and duty.

‘The Thing’

My current experience of premeditated adversity with a desired outcome is ‘the thing’. The ‘desire’ is that of Mexican nationals to effect outcomes of premeditated adversity in the United States and in Canada. ‘The thing’ came into being when technocrats – lawyers, independent contractors, private investigators, persons brandishing Mexican credentials etc. – began administering purposes, intents and plans determined by the desired outcomes of premeditated adversity. The longevity of ‘the thing’ is due to a discrepancy between the capacity and the ability of Mexican nationals to effect the desired outcomes of premeditated adversity absent the corruption and dysfunction that makes their wealth and power possible in Mexico. In other words, they can pay people to set up obstacles but they can not design the obstacle course. The social, political and economic structure of social relations in the United States and Canada do not balance privileged equilibriums of power calibrated to subordinate and dominate poor and disenfranchised citizens of Mexico. On this side of the boarder, the premeditated adversity of wealthy Mexicans becomes ‘the thing‘ that they can not be, have or become no matter how many technocrats and sycophants stroke their egos and take their money.

Below are a list of tactics that have shaped my experience of ‘the thing’. Keeping with the format of the previous two tabs, I will convey my experience with a repetition of these tactics as they evolved in use from my first encounter with them at as a graduate student and teaching assistant at York University.

High-Tech Lynching

  • – Renting an apartment in the same building
  • – Obtaining academic and employment records
  • – Impersonating email contacts
  • – Registering students for my TA sessions
  • – Audio and video recording of my TA sessions
  • – Filming me in a gay sauna
  • – Facilitating the manufacture of security reports (Incident Report 2009-001969: Dana Lacarte Maule, Senior Security Official)
  • – Activating audio functions of cell phone to listen in on conversations (Riley v. California)
  • – Electronic ease dropping on telephone in lounge for Teaching Assistants
  • – Offering money to casual acquaintances for the contact information of persons I associated with
  • – Co-opting the counseling services sought by Catholic Services
  • – Co-opting legal and union services
  • – Calling managers of restaurants, stores bars, grocery stores, clubs etc. to alert them of my presence
  • – Following me in cars when I was mobile – walking or driving
  • – Tampering with computer hardware
  • – Attaching recording devices to Internet and phone cables
  • – Directing conversations with me through third persons using ear pieces
  • – Inserting comments, messages etc into Skype Chat conversations
  • – Attempts to run my car off the road and efforts to make close passes with auto as I walked
  • – Hiring underage boys to display themselves in a sexual manner
  • – Arranging encounter with males that resembled my partner in order to incite an emotional response
  • – Employing vagrants, addicts etc to walk pass my place of residence to shout messages or obscenities
  • – Use information gleaned from electronic job searches to pose as employers or to approach potential employers
  • – Enlisting person known to me to contact me and inquire about the purchase of narcotics
  • – Paying neighbours to report my coming and goings
  • – Entering Occupy Wall Street forums to message me or to respond to my post
  • – Contacting Occupy wall Street site administrators with bogus complaints about my post
  • – Employ strangers to approach me with information gleaned from monitoring my browser history
  • – Searching through my trash


Rethink Harvard’s sexual harassment policy – Boston Globe

A) My partner’s ‘girl’ friend’s knowledge of our sexual relationship extended to her pretending to be me during a Skype Sex chat she had with my partner. Later her interference with my graduate studies and the students in my charge began with the following:

  • – loitering in the hall way outside of the classes I taught peeking through the glass slots in the door.
  • – randomly approaching students registered for my class with request and encouragements related to filing complaints against me for views and conduct that she perceived inappropriate (Note: This was an extension and continuation of objections and exceptions to opinions I expressed in the margins of papers that I edited and commented on for my partner.)
  • – encouraging her friends and acquaintances to register for my classes to assist in efforts to establish a cause for York University to terminate my employment.
  • – using the email accounts set up for registered students to send me homophobic hate speech and other disparaging comments directed at opinions I shared in class, especially those similar to the ones she found in the margins of papers I edited for my partner.
  • – directed students registered for my class to record their conversation with me in order to substantiate alleged misconduct or comments she deemed inappropriate.
  • – coached and directed “attractive” male students to make sexual advances connected to request to skip weeks of class and turn assignments in late or not at all.

Attempts to eliminate me as an option for my partner after he reconsidered his relationship with her did not produced the desired results. My partner and I had broken up. He and another male friend went to Mexico where he, his ‘girl’ friend and his ‘boy’ friend attempted a three-person intimate relationship (ménage à trois) that ended with her engineering a betrayal, a baby and a marriage.

  • – partner’s male friend was sent to U.S. to speak with family and friend of mine in order to convince them that in addition to being addicted to drugs, I was obsessed with my partner and would not “let him go”, most important recruit was Josh Kussman who I had given power of attorney should something happen to me in Canada
  • – lawyers, Mexican officials and private investigators were engaged to revise and revive attempts to end my study and employ at York University
  • – access to my academic and employment record were given to person’s with fiduciary responsibilities to my partner’s ‘girl’ friend and family.
  • – approached York University employee with Spanish sounding last names to enlist them in their official function for the University in an effort to manufacture “security reports” containing false and exaggerated information


Expansion of ‘the thing’

  • – friends and acquaintances of my partner’s ‘girl’ friend began driving by in cars as I walked down Church street in downtown Toronto yelling obscenities and details they had learned of from my academic and employment record.
  • – effort to embed students in my classed evolved to having investigators and friend of hers move into my apartment building, befriend my roommates, access my room while I was at work, attempt to gain access to my computer, file anonymous complaints with my building’s management and to steal items from my room one at a time over a period of time

Recommendation:  Skip to section (I) below and review the details of what transpired in Atlanta, Georgia five years after what happened at York University in order to better understand the reason and reasoning of ‘the thing’. Pay special attention to what happened with Dunphy Properties and Mr. Phil Dunphy to get an idea of the extremes of ‘the thing’ that were not reached at York University. As ‘the thing’ pertains Mr. Dunphy there is a striking parallel between my father’s experience in a truck with a white man and my experiences in a Truck with Dunphy. A vantage point of the extremes of ‘the thing’ is a useful tool for sketching an experience of it over more than five years.

B) Steamworks Toronto 2009: A detailed account of the incident below can be found at the following Side A,Side B the purpose of the summary below is to point out patterns of behaviour that are consistent with and or mimic tactics employed by persons with no apparent affliction with law enforcement.

  • – persons unknown to me followed me from my home to a gay sauna
  • – persons unknown continued their pursuit by paying to enter the gay sauna and arranged to occupy the cabin adjacent mine
  • – person unknown to me breached the upper wall separating the cabins and used a web-cam to record me in my cabin
  • – persons unknown to me reported to Steamworks management that one of their guest was secretly filming me
  • – Steamworks management admonished the persons filming me in a conversational tone that I overheard
  • – persons in cabin adjacent mine told management that they had to speak to their leader about this incident (Note: ‘leader’ is a term designating persons in the Toronto’s police department chain of command.)
  • – persons in the cabin adjacent mine approached two German speaking guest with whom I had a brief exchange with in German to ask what I spoke to them about in German
  • – persons in the cabin adjacent mine asked the German speaking guest to return to my cabin to ascertain if I had planned to stay or to check-out

From 2009 up to and including the incidents below taking place in 2013/14 no complaint or allegation made in relation to me has been presented to me formally or informally that explain repeated attempts to investigate or substantiate activity or behavior targeted by ‘the thing’. The incident at Steamworks is instructive here as a demonstration of three aspect of ‘the thing’s’ modus operandi.

  • – active monitoring of my movement to the point of following me
  • – initiating contact that with persons that interacted with me
  • – enlisting persons with whom I had contact to assist ‘the thing’ by carrying out specifics tasks

C) Reporting series of incident to Canadian Authorities, Julian Bond-NAACP and filing initial compliant with HRTO

  • – persons unknown to me claiming to be warranted officers credentialed themselves to staff at 24 hour Internet-cafe requesting administrative access to network (Note: Upon finding this out months after the fact, I notified the Attorney General of Ontario and these persons were disciplined.)
  • – attempts to email letter to Julian Bond encountered technical difficulties: Read Letter Below
  • – after faxing letter to Julian Bond – I,II,III,IV,V– from Internet-cafe, I overheard staff at Internet-cafe being chastised for not attempting to prevent me from sending fax (Note: I took a one semester course from Julian Bond at Williams College and he served as an advisor to a winter study trip I planned.)
  • – persons unknown to me gathered outside of Internet-cafe in a last ditch to insist that I be detained based on information that private investigators had obtain. (Note: This was hours after the gay sauna incident. There was an invigorated effort to prevent me from communicating and or reporting the incident.)
  • – at the offices of the Ombudsman of Ontario I asked about the regulation of warranted offices when it come to moonlighting at private investigators or security. (Note: after laying out the details conveyed here, I was told to expect a response after they had time to look into the matter.)
  • – persons unknown to me intervened with Ombudsman office to insist that they not communicate with me unless through them and within the parameters of a warrant that had been obtained.
  • – because the extraordinary warrant did not specify communication that I had in person and spoke mainly to electronic communication, the Ombudsman office responded to my in- person visit via email.
  • – in the email from the Ombudsman office it was explained to me that they are able to communicate with me only about matter that were raised during my visit. (Note: the lines between warranted offices and private investigator is vague and the process for obtaining warrants less than rigorous.)
  • – initial complaint filed with Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) began a process by I was asked to provide more and more information.
  • – persons unknown to me approached HRTO with claims that I suffered from an unspecified illness and needed time to recover from ‘Stressors’ that had exacerbated the illness – therefore my complaint should not be accepted by the HRTO (Note: Attempts to abort my HRTO complaint were not successful. In a reply to my HRTO application allegations of an unspecified illness were repeated.)

– the initial HRTO complaint listed my partner and his ‘girl’ friend as respondents given that this matter originated with them months after my partner and I had broken up. (Note: My partner’s ‘girl’ friend was only known to me from pictures and when I noticed her outside of my classes or following me on public transportation. I did not know her full name – Paulina Garcia Del Moral – and encountered difficulties with my filing until I could provide the correct name. Another mistake that I made was in thinking that because she was a graduate student at the University of Toronto (U of T)she had attempted to leverage and influence the administrative resources there as she and her family had succeeded in doing at York University.)

Read Document: HRTO: States v. York University

– U of T responded to HRTO complaint stating that they were not involved in this matter and that if they had been approached by the persons involved in the matter they would have declined to participate

D) Reporting series of incidents to York University and York University and York University’s response.

  • – York University’s administrative apparatus was not fully engaged in ‘the thing’. The extent of ‘the thing’s’ penetration of York University included those individual staff, students and administrators lending their official functions to an effort that had not substantiated itself enough to trigger policies and procedures designed to administrate complaints and the process of handling complaints.
  • – after unknown persons contacted the owner of the apartment building where I resided with unknown and unspecified allegations my lease was terminated and I took up residence in my office at York University with the knowledge and approval of the Chair of the Department of Political Science.
  • – the department chair asked me if it was OK for a person unknown to me to sit in on a meeting I asked for about my circumstances and ‘the thing’. (Note: it turned that this person Maheen Sayaal was there as a representative and functionary of ‘the thing’ under the guise of assisting me.)
  • – Ms. Sayal meeting with me later in private suggested that I check myself into a homeless shelter. (Ms. Sayal, Taranpreet Chadha and “Cassandra” – involvement with ‘the thing’ including sending me emails filled with ‘hate speech’, Sayal: (pic) ( (905) 459-7533, ext. 2891)   (trying to buttress circumstances to designate me ‘homeless’ and Chadha: (pic) (contact)following me to 738 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY)  to take up residency in my apartment building to continue the same types and kinds of harassment that I experienced while in private housing in Toronto.)
  • – a chance encounter with a student affairs officer resulted in her asking me how I was doing. I explained what was happening to me and she met with me privately in her office
  • – the York U administrator arranged 5,000 in emergency funding for me to rent a room in housing near the campus
  • – York U took action to prevent persons associated with ‘the thing’ from coming on to campus.
  • – the last time I saw my partner’s ‘girl’ friend was when she had to exit the bus at the point beyond which she and those she enlisted in her campaign could not harass or pursue
  • – as York U attempted to disengage itself from ‘the thing’, a palpable safe zone defined the time I spent on and near the campus
  • – cars that made a point of letting me know that I was being followed self-identified as they gathered at points beyond which they could not pursue or enter the campus area of York University.
  • – my HRTO compliant continued through the HRTO process with York U as a named respondent due to the activities of those employees, students and administrators that were co-opted by and enabled ‘the thing’. (Note: this was a difficult decision considering the overall support that York U provided me but it was the correct decision as was proven by documents I obtained during the discovery process.)

E) A more robust and aggressive response and reporting of ‘the thing’ to Toronto Police, seeking legal counselling and psychological counselling.

  • – person known and persons unknown to me paid residents in the housing near campus to move out so that they could move in.
  • – recognizing guests of persons who had moved in from incident where I had been followed and the incident at the gay sauna, I called the police using the telephones in the office for graduate students.
  • – persons unknown to me were monitoring the telephone conversation that I made to police
  • – persons unknown to me contacted the officer with whom I was attempting to file a complaint while I was still on the telephone with her.
  • – the officer (Badge Number: 82124) with whom I spoke asked me after putting me on hold for a couple minutes if I suffered from a mental illness. (Toronto Police Dept. : Friday June 12, 2009 – 3:09:16 PM)
  • – I challenged the officer’s line of questioning and asked for her badge number.
  • – immediately after hanging up the telephone with the officer who declined to take my complaint or to send an patrol officer by my residence, I filed a complaint against her with the Toronto Police Department. ( Note: The overlap and intertwining of ‘the thing’ with York University and the Toronto Police Department DO NOT necessarily indicate that ‘the thing’ originated or was being administered formally by either.)
  • – Toronto Police Department responded to my reports and complaints about being stalked and harassed by assigning officers to follow me.
  • – when I noticed unknown persons following me, I would approach and confront them. When these persons were Toronto Police officers, they would identify themselves as police officer’s
  • – having ascertained the validity of my complaints that I was being aggressively stalked and harassed by persons on foot and in cars, authorities began to monitor and regulate person following me
  • – due to attempts to regulate private persons and persons working as private investigators it was no longer necessary for me to confront stalkers. (for example: when I went to purchase a new pair of glasses a person who had been following me since I left home received a phone call when he entered the store behind me. He went back outside of the store and took a seat a distance until I left the store and he resumed following me.)
  • – persons unknown to me approached counselors that I had engaged in such of psychological counseling to discuss ‘the thing’
  • – persons unknown to me identified themselves as persons in whose custody I was and as persons responsible for assisting me with legal, psychological services etc.
  • – persons making claims to represent or to be in charge of my welfare never identified themselves to me or made me aware of any reason or justification for their role or services.
  • – persons unknown to me appointed by ‘the thing’ sat with me – anonymously poising as staff of the agency I sought help – during counseling sessions that I thought were being staffed by Catholic Counseling Service

F) No longer able to concentrate on my graduate studies or continue my work as a Teaching Assistant, the Chair of the Political Science Department and the Graduate Director helped me to arrange an “indefinite” leave of absence with the “right” of return.

  • – persons responsible for ‘the thing’ continued their effort when I left Toronto for New York City.
  • – Josh Kussman and other persons unknown to me had contacted the very close friend with whom I stayed while in New York and enlisted them in an effort to subtly coax/coerce me into dropping my HRTO complaint and not to pursue other complaints that I had made or attempt any further contact/interaction with my partner who at the time I considered an adversary working with his ‘girl’ friend since our breakup.
  • – persons unknown to me had placed a monitoring device on the telephone and Internet cables at the brownstone where I stayed in Harlem. (Note: when I discovered the device, I entered the information on the back of the box into Google to ascertain its function.)
  • – I notified the authorities in New York City and explained what had been happening in Toronto and that I was experiencing some of the same in New York City.
  • – the fax, printer and copier at the home of my ‘friends’ was disabled. (a USB key had been broken off in all USB ports, and it was not possible to network with the device.)
  • – persons unknown to me credentialed themselves to the manager of a Subway sandwich shop with free Internet in an effort to gain administrative access.
  • – manager of Subway sandwich shop called NYPD, unknown persons left store location before police arrived. (Note: I overheard the manager talking to the police as I continued to type my reply to the HRTO and letters to my congressman, the FBI and other U.S. persons/officials.)
  • – persons unknown to me (apparently following me or tracking me using my cell) would call management or security at different stores, restaurants, banks, movie theaters to notify them of my presence implying that that I was a ‘person of interest’.
  • After two days of riding the subway visiting different Internet-cafes all over Manhattan to use their computing and Internet to write letters and maintain contact with the HRTO, York U and CUPE, I prepared late one evening to send out the documents via the United States Postal Service.
  • – at several points, most notably at U.S. Post Office Address: 23 W 43rd St, New York, NY 10036 , NYPD officers intercepted and or block the path of persons that I had noticed following me. (Note: The appearance and role of NYPD officers was confirmed when I had a conversation with a decorated officer outside of a precinct located near times square who gave me unsolicited advise that evidenced knowledge that he knew who I was and what was happening.)
  • – after I placed several certified mail item in the mail boxes at the post office, a person known to me and persons unknown to me approached the staff and removed the items from the mail box thereby committing a federal offense.
  • – day shift managers of the United States Post Office report the incident of tampering with mail to authorities and postal officials and arrest were made. ( Note: When I refer in the sidebar to Josh Kussman using his status and designation through the Department of Homeland Security to assist ‘the thing’, I am referring in part to this incident.)

G) The tactic of using vehicles to stalk and harass began with acquaintances of my partner’s ‘girl’ friend driving up to me shouting and yelling insults. This tactic evolved over the course of five years as follows:

  • – ‘the thing’ represented itself to York University and officials in Toronto in such a way that the identity of persons responsible for organizing and coordinating the vehicles following me could be named and issued an order prohibiting vehicles tasked with stalking from following me onto York University’s campus.
  • – staff by independent contractors, private investigators, family, friends and acquaintances of my partner’s ‘girl’ friend this tactic remained viable by not violating specific laws.
  • – relying primarily on Spanish speaking populations in the U.S. this tactic was to continue using unknown person and vehicles to stalk and harass.
  • – the tactic of using vehicles to stalk and harass was reduced to using limousines when I first moved to Atlanta
  • – as ‘the thing’ resettled in Atlanta it repeated the practice of recruiting locals to stalk in vehicles. My location in what is considered a dangerous high crime area made it necessary for ‘the thing’ to hire my neighbors as drivers and in some cases to arrange the transportation necessary
  • – rather than relying on a high number of vehicles to convey intensity, vehicles of the same color were used.
  • – the color scheme of the vehicles that replaced the limousines was champaign gold.
  • – the color scheme that replaced the champaign gold vehicles was maroon.
  • – there were/are occasions when champaign gold was switched out for maroon and a couple attempts of other color schemes.
  • – each change in tactic was accompanied by aggressive efforts to introduce and to make certain that I was aware it. Usually these shifts in tactics involved parking vehicles in my driveway, in front of my house, or some other non-threatening attention getting manner.
  • – on two separate occasions efforts to make me take notice of color schemes resulted in potential life threatening situations:

one vehicle traveling at high speeds after following a distance from my home passed within cementers of me as the driver appeared to lose control

On another occasion I was forced off the road and ran into a fire hydrant

I reported both incident to the same authorities that I had written to prior to my arrival in Atlanta : APD, GBI, etc.

H) 80 year old neighbour with whom I developed a close personal relationship was taken to the emergency room at Grady Memorial hospital.

  • – persons unknown to me demonstrated an awareness of my 911 call by staging an encounter with me at the hospital before I arrived
  • – persons unknown to me communicated to mental health officials at the hospital allegations made to the HRTO that I suffered from an apparent mental illness and required observation due to the ‘stressor’ of Mrs. Smith’s illness.
  • – while standing outside of the emergency room waiting on Mr. Smith to park the car, persons unknown to me repeated a series of drive bys in vehicles and stalking patterns

After noticing what they had mistaken for undercover police, local neighbourhood dealers informed me that they were approached by persons unknown to me and told that ‘I – not the dealer- was the person they were interested.

  • – persons unknown to me recruited young black men who hung out on the street where I lived to monitor and report my movements: proving them cash incentives and cell phones
  • – persons unknown to me monitored my Internet traffic and shared information about which sites I visited with the guys that hung out on my street who then confronted me with specific and detailed information. (on at least two occasion instances of Baedeker taps into my Internet connection were discover by me and reported, in the first case permission had been obtained from home owner, in the second case a payment was made to the owner of the building)
  • – persons unknown to me made attempts to find males that resembled my partner and positioned them so that I would encounter them in, near or at locations I frequented.

I) Recruiting persons with whom I had contact to perform surveillance and task in the same manner that students were asked to record my classes, disrupt class, send homophobic emails etc. –same manner that German speaking guest at sauna were tasked for participation

(Background) What started out in Toronto as acquaintances of my partner’s ‘girl’ friend riding up to me in cars as I walked down Church street yelling insults or details from my private work and student records that ‘the thing’ obtained from York U (e.g. the balance of my student account, grades etc)

rather than random vehicles varying in colour, type etc the first few months in Atlanta, Ga stalking ‘stand-out’ vehicles were limousines that followed me from place to place or waited outside locations that I frequented, …daily driving in front of my home

the limousines were abandon in favour of single colour stand-out vehicles

in the same manner unknown persons attempted enlisted York U staff, student etc in ad-hoc sting operations that took place in my classrooms:

  • – persons unknown to me approached Ben Hawn of iLearn Studios after he offered me employment
  • -persons unknown to me approached Don Holtz after their effort with Ben Hawn and iLearn Studios resulted in loss of employment
  • -persons unknown to me approached the management of a translation copy after an interview was set up for me by Elane Buresi and told them that I had a problem with women and would have a problem working with women
  • -person unknown to me approached Phil Dunphy and his wife Ollie Dunphy (a native of Peru, relevant because Spanish speakers where easy recruits ) to enlist their support of ‘the thing’

Ben Hawn – To my knowledge the extent of Mr. Hawn’s cooperation with ‘the thing’ was facilitating ‘sanctioned’ monitoring my access to and use of electronic and telephone communications -including conversation that I had with persons that I came in contact with in the capacity that iLearn Studios employed me.

Elane Buresi – I have no knowledge of Elane Buresi actively or passively cooperating with ‘the thing’. She arranged an interview for me in her capacity as a staffer for a temporary to permanent employment arm or Mr. Ben Hawn’s father legal firm

– persons unknown to me contact the management of the company prior to my interview and communicated to them that I “had a problem with women’ and would have ‘difficulty working for a woman’.

Don Holtz- Initially Mr. Holtz cooperation with ‘the thing’ took the form of him pointing out each of a series of appearances of similar colour (maroon) vehicles following me as we drove or were parked at various location. He would point and ask me “what is that”, “who is that” and wait for my reaction or recognition of ‘the thing’. All in all Mr. Holtz kindness and generosity out weighed anything thing he did on behalf of ‘the thing’ and I am in his debt for the humanity he maintained under very difficult circumstances.

Philip Dunphy (Dunphy Properties Inc.)

Job Description: Functioned as property manager responsible primarily for collecting late rent tenants, filing eviction notices and representing the company at Court hearings.

  • – tenants on my late rent list were recruited (some paid) to drive vehicles tasked to stalk
  • – Mr. Dunphy used our once a week routine of riding around in his truck to different properties to position and stage incidents and encounters with
  • – Mr. Dunphy used out once a week routine of riding around to different properties to park near vacant in order to stage a young black male approaching the passenger side of vehicle in a threaten manner – this was followed by the same black male over the next couple weeks appearing in exact same clothes in front of my house, following me to local store, or waiting in parking lots of places I frequented. To put this into a proper context it is important to know that of Mr. Dunphy’s tenants were drug dealers operating out of his rental properties pay rent in cash. In other words, he was in a unique position to staff various objectives and project for ‘the thing’.
  • – Undocumented Mexican workers in Mr. Dunphy employ were also tasked by ‘the thing’ until I voiced my suspicion by asking Mr. Dunphy about their legal status, implying that their stay in the USA could be jeopardized by ‘the thing’
  • – On one occasion Mr. Dunphy refused to stop vehicle and let me out after we had completed work related tasks. He insisted that I accompany him to a ‘couple places where he wanted to show me a property’. When I refused he threw a ‘scarf’ in my face and told me ‘nobody is after you.’


Go Back to section (A)

“the struggle continues” : Current Location

View GPS Tracks in Larger Map