Smile, you’re on camera.

I have been subjected to various constitutionally cringe-worthy practices by the law enfarcers of Mamasota for several decades. And, at every point, I have been completely innocent, and no charge has ever stuck in any substantial way, much less been peald out, s they say–but I was fairly bled out a decade ago, when I discovered who it was that was directing all of that unwarranted and downright illegal activity my way (Ofcr. Fartsinhercunt, from the Voyeurism division of Mamsota inner city overpaid department.) 

And, I have also been subjected to rampant speculation in police databases that I ‘might be’ this, or ‘could be’ that.

Which, of course tipped their own hand years ago–because once upon a time in America, innocent until proven guilty was the way the law worked. Not that the law doesn’t and didn’t set people up, or incorrectly charge people with crimes that in their own right deserved punishment–but today and then, what we see is lots and lots of police getting lots and lots of federal money to merely GET SOMEONE CHARGED for crimes that invoke federal funding–there is incentive to just create charges–and it doesn’t matter if there is even a guilty party-because LAW ENFARCEMNET depends upon the APPPEARANCE of law enforcement, not the actual work of policing–or the work of making a case wholesale by good old fashioned police work–OBSERVATION, interception, containment, control,charge, and convict.

These days, the wink and nod from one officer to another is evidence enough to predicate, whereas in the past, it was in the very least a little more complicated: a charge worthy offense used to be constructed thus:

1) observation of a suspect engaged in crime without provocation; without assistance, and solely engaged in such conduct in an individual or organized manner, or a report of a suspect engaged in a crime by a disinnterested 3rd party.

2) investigation of that crime, using methods that are non-controversial, wdiely accepted and verifiable

3) charge or not charge that crime based on evidence of that crime.

Pretty simple, huh? Even morons can understand that. But not these guys:

Tonight I made my rounds, and spoke with actual local informants about the nature of the subversion of justice–the enfarcement of the law, and here is what filled my ear tonight–a brief conversational snippet:

” I was out walking the other day and I seen a camera–a silver camera in XXXX window.The window was half open.”

I replied by telling them that for decades I have been over-run with cameras, and undue surveillance, based in my political viewpoints, and my need to document police abuses, and to refute the nature of specific set-ups that they had attempted when they thought I was not documenting their illegal methodologies.

I noted that I had a ten year back-log of cases they had tried to make against me, and mentioned the mental effect of same.

I also offered up a camera, for free, in case said party wanted to help document these realities as well.

Anyways–the house that this person specified as the spot where the camera was located coincided directly with one of the films on my camera tonight: a squad car pulls up; makes a drop across the street at exactly the location specified by aforementioned informant around 20:xx hour; Squad leaves around 20:xx hours; various actors take the stage between this time and now: the walking hooded girl(even their smallish men in the GS troupe look girlish– a definite asset in law enfarcement); a person crosses camera 1 heading S., juts across same and crosses street to pick up bag, heads north, etc.

This is what law enfarcement looks like, 2013.

And in all fairness, I am certain there are some of you enfarcers and GS who might have read the constitution once or twice between exercise ball time, pizza delivery,  and recreation at the front of your altar, the television–( I know this from the last time I peaked into one of your stakeouts), and know that the cumulative effect of doing this to a citizen via manipulation of a psychological profile that has been on file with feds and others who inappropriately or deviantly accessed my file since at least 2001, is certainly,read the constitution, you plainclothes cunts–it is certainly duress, and in the very least malicious prosecution, squared; or merely yearly harassment–after all you come in the spring or fall every year–March-April or September-October. It’s as if the earth and the breeding cycle regulates your obsession with me.

Well anyhoo, I took the que, and strode by your camera tonight because I was curious if what I had heard was true. Of course, I already knew this was one of your bases, and I knew that you had been monitoring from there for at least a year (your Viet Landlord is likely who you should have been monitoring, if in fact you wanted an actual case, not a contrived or coerced one-tax fraud, anyone? Under-reported income, anyone? Let’s see what he does with what you have been payng him…)


Well, you get the picture right? There are no real jobs in America–bugt GS and law enfarcers sure seem to get paid, even when the government is ‘sht down.’ Curius economy, huh?


One thought on “Smile, you’re on camera.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: