Friendly advice... - Page 5

RPK, I don't have a clue what you are referring to.  What does this have to do with a federal law enforcement procurement officer using his badge and gun to steal a GSD from a single woman breeder for his personal use, that he would be perpetually watching her and made a felonious terroristc threat to destroy her, and that he was above the law, untouchable.

What does your question have to do with that?  This has nothing to do with search warrants, it's about multiple felonius abuse of the badge and theiving and terrorizing a private civilian under authority of the badge.  And by the way, what would you do if this happened to you, RPK?

Preston,

I would excercise my constitutional rights.........Duh......... It seems you are merely ramping up paranoia.

RPK

Preston.  To answer your questions.

I would NOT give a dog to some who did this.  Period.

I would file a complaint with this persons employers.

I would make an official police report with the local police.

I would contact an attorney IF anthing came from these threats, that seemed as a reprisal for me not giving this person my dog.

I would do whatever it takes to make sure that I won and this person lost.

If it required having someone hide behind a door and listenting to this persons threats.  If it required carrying a concealed voice activated recorder in my pocket (easily obtained from Radio Shack) to "get the threats on tape", or if it required contacting this persons highest ranking superior or contacting my Congressman or Senator, I would do it.

In other words, I would not give up my dog regardless of what this person says will happen to me if I do not.  I would put this person on the defensive and make as many law enforcement people aware of it, as I could.

Yes, there are those that use their badge to do bad.  There are also Priests that use their position, for baad.  There are politicians, firemen and teachers that do also.  It should not be the question about someone with a "badge", but rather the question should be "what do you do if someone uses their position or status, to threaten me into giving them my dog".  The badge is inconsequential in this equation.  What if this person was your boss at work?  What if this person was an IRS agent?   (okay, they have badges but if they didn't, their "position" is the point, not the "badge").

I find it strange that something like this could happen and someone with a lick of sense about life, could not take care of this easily.

If a lawyer cheated me out of this or that, I would not hate all lawyers.  I would hate THAT attorney.

RPK, Do Right, and Preston, I think we have a very real threat from outsiders (and their friends/relatives/associates) who reside inside or very near our borders. Eavesdropping on telephone calls made from/to the U.S.A. from other countries has been the norm as long as I can remember. Like most of you I grew up during the last half of the Cold War and did so in two (2) different countries.

My issue with the Patriot Act is the very broad legal powers it gives to those persons and entities who have the resources and empowerment to abuse it. I have watched the changes as even our police departments have become much more "militaristic" in appearance and operational mode. Even in small municipalities many police officers have adopted the "Skinhead" appearance favoured by members of white supremacist groups that provokes fear in those who are easily intimidated. Call it an "image" thing if you will, but I see it as representative of quiet, yet disturbing changes.

I think that personal security begins with oneself, and that one must remain well-armed and aware of one's associations, intended and not intended. I also think the word "freedom" is subject to interpretation. One can never be truely free and truely safe at the same time. RPK, your explanation was quite valid.

But, do I feel that I am safer inside our borders or beyond our borders? No, I do not. The risk to my personal safety when abroad has always been there-and always will be. I deal with that when I need to do so. I am concerned about my personal safety, privacy, and the interpreted validity of my rights against illegal detainment and search and will continue to be that way.

Regards,

Bob-O

DR, very excellent reply and I agree with what you say 100%.  I do think it is hard for a single woman who is not used to people making violent terroristic threats against her and carrying federal credentials like DOD or Homeland Security and a uniform and gun and saying crazy things lijke I'll be watching you and I'll destroy you if you talk (and made other theats even more extreme).  Many men would immediately start shooting in self defense if someone threatened them with a gun and made crazy & extreme terroristic threats.  It's hard for a woman who was unarmed at the time, especially if the abuser wears a badge and says he is above the law and can't be touched, and leads her to believe that he will destroy her dogs too.  But agree with you that this needs to be dealt with.  It is my understanding that important steps have now been taken to provide protection through proper channels.  And there is a good deal of incontrovertable evidence (which I'll not mention here) that this incident occurred (so much that it could never be denied successfully). The perp has a lot to lose personally, lucrative side businesses, etc., plus there is a change coming in administration which can shake up any old boy network that may exist to protect him.  The victim is a very credible nice lady with a completely clean background and very fine reputation and is a poster on this forum.  It won't take much to break this story loose if any theatening behavior continues (of any kind) and it will then be plastered in quite a few newspapers, on national news and on many dog related web sites.  She wants maximum protection and all her bases covered at every level, local congressional, federal, etc., but also wants  to let sleeping dogs lie if there are no more threats and surveillance of any kind (including surveillance of her computer usage), and she feels safe.  Individuals with extensive federal law enforcement experience who have been briefed on this incident want this perpetrator exposed and brought to justice so that he cannot pull this again on any one else he thinks is weak (they think his behavior was outrageous and discredits every honorable and honest law enforcement person, but they will not proceed without the victim's permission--some have said how do we know that he is not continuing to do this to others he sees as easy marks?).  Anyhow here is my message to the victim:  those of us that know the details are behind you and you have our full support, and if this abuse continues we will do everything we can to assist you.  If the abuse continues and you then share the details with everyone on this forum and the many other dog forums you can be sure that many of them too will publicize this to the max and create a storm of publicity in this case with many letters and emails to the appropriate authorities in your support.

And Bob-O, I fully agree with your post above.

Bob-O:  I agree with you in essence, but with slight "qualifications".

Having carried a badge myself, I found on the one hand that, yes, I had the ability to do things that a normal citizen could not do.  In fact, I could probably have done things and got away with them, that would have been a great misuse of my "powers" of office, just because I carried a badge.  I have seen it happen also.  But, it isn't just the badge or the position held.  It is the knowledge of how things operate, how things are investigated and handled.  One could argue that someone who has the knowledge of how "things" work, could also do these things.  Such as attorneys, bail bondsmen, professors, etc.  It's not really the position, but the knowledge.  I could do things even being retired, but not because of my position or badge, but because of my knowledge of how things work.

On the other hand, there is so very much more scrutiny of those in certain positions, than "everyone" else.  Law enforcement, because of experiences and fears like those expressed by you and Preston, are watched so very closely.  If I rob a store in uniform, I am going to be sentenced to a more harsh prison term BECAUSE" I did so under the color of law, than if I robbed a store as a citizen.  If two groups of citizens are arguing on the street corner, few bystanders in the adjacent homes will grab a camera and record what occurs.  But, if one of the two groups arguing on the street corner are cops, then a multitude of bystanders will grab their cameras and record the event.  "Hoping" to capture and record the cops doing wrong.  Make no mistake about it.  They (the bystanders) will not even consider that they might record the cops being wronged.  It will not enter their minds. It wil be all about hoping to capture the cops doing wrong.

Now, that is on the lower levels.  On the upper levels, CIA, FBI, ATF and such, it is a different story but the same story.  There are and have always been those "behind the scenes and unseen" that have protected us and abused that power of being unseen but priviledged.  It is LESS now than in past times.  Not more.  Take for instance the poisoning of a current or former (I'm not sure which) spy that has been in the news over the past several months.  There has never been a time in history when the poisoning of a spy, by another country, was the subject of an investigation, prosecution and possible civil litigation.  In past days, if you were a spy and you got assasinated, then it was just accepted because you were a spy.  Different now.  Law Enforcement and the government agencies are more scrutinized now than ever in recorded history.

But I do think that "we" have to be ever vigilant and not let up with our watchful eyes, towards these and other agencies.  "Vigilance is the price of freedom" as has been said.  That is why in this country, we do not have a King.  We rotate the President, at least every eight years.  Many countries are controlled by the same person for 20, 30 and sometimes 40 years.  There is no better system in history nor in geography.  Someone has to be the "parent" and make the hard decisions for the family.  If everyone makes their own decisions, chaos will be the result.  It is a fact of life.  You may be able to make decisions about your own life, but what about your neighbors unwise or downwright evil decisions?  Someone has to be the "daddy" and protect you from them, and punch "them" in the nose when they come after you or I.  As confident as I am in my judgement and abilities, I would not want a world where there was no one looking out for me behind the scenes.  I can not do it alone

  No on can or could.  As flawed as government agencies may appear sometimes, as a whole, they do wonderful things and do what individuals could not do.  We need the CIA, FBI, NIS, etc.  We just have to be vigilant about keeping our eyes and ears open.

As to personal weapons.  I have said before that I am not found of them, but I do feel that the more there are "out there", the more assured I am of the government not overstepping its boundaries.

To put things simply, about conspiracy theories:

What kind of life would a person have, if everyday they thought that there spouse might be out messing around?  That would not be the way to live happily.  But yet, it would be unwise to think that it was not possible. So, what most do is assume everything is okay in that regard, but if there is an articulable suspicion of otherwise, then due observance is necessary to find out.  "Trust but verify."

"Perhaps the person making the friendly warning should be included in the investigation ?"

Please re-read my post about having to sign my life away on SIX discrete documents to get my badge upgraded; I am already being investigated, and if they find ANYTHING, even if it is a product of some cybersecurity geek's overproductive imagination, I will be making friends with "Mully and Scudder" from the FBI (as two of my fellow employees have already found out). If I were a HR specialist for FEMA, I would not have to worry about going through this crap; I, however, have a technical position in a critical portion of the DOE. I cannot tell you what I do, but if the lead engineer in my workgroup screws up one of her key projects, the nights will be dark and cold from Montana to the Mexican border....for a week or more.

NO, you never answered my questions. Why did you make this "friendly warning" in the first place out of the blue with no reference point and to who was it addressed?  And this was at the exact same time when the victim referred to above was in the process of establishing documentation of the offenses through proper legal channels without actually starting prosecution, wanting to involve authorities that can assist her in case the threats to perpetually surveil and stalk ever come to pass. Well, your posts and a suspect email have caused the victim to think that the perp is surveilling her computer usage and email as he had threatened, that he became aware of her communication for appropruiate authorities who have the skill and power necessary to investigate a perp who claims to be above the law, has access to inteklligence surveillance methods, reports directly to the potus and threatened to destroy her and her dogs.  Of course any investigator hearing this story immediately wants to know if the perp has abused other women like this, is still doing so, habitually uses terroristic threats and talk of extreme violence to do so, is linked to certain other unsolved crimes, or even remotely has a history of special ops, pegasus type ops, David type ops, TF 140 type ops, etc.  The question then arises has perp a secret "covert ops" military SOG past and may fear exposure of this. Maybe he is just a deranged bully and wasn't serious about these threats to the victim and is now sorry. These are the questions any high level alphabet  investigatior wants to establish even if the victim wants no active prosecution, to thereby sufficiently establish and review the case and prepare it for legal action in case any needs to be taken. The victim must be protected above all.

The victim is a well known poster on this forum and this makes your post appear very curious and suspect at face value. This could easily draw you into a major investigation alone if you are in any way associated with the perp, because then you could be viewed as an accessory to stalking and terroristc threats that were made previously to any stalking.   I hope you can clear this up before it goes any further. There are several suitably sophisticated, high level investigators that have been briefed.  If you are a badge holder and are associated with the perp who is a badge holder, your "friendly warning" may be viewed as abuse of process, misfeasance, and accessory.  You say you are a badge holder, and if you are not then that is impersonating a federal officer (very serious stuff all of this).   I would appreciate if if you respond with a suitable explanation this time so it can be put to rest without involving you.  And I hope the emailed veiled threats stop now.  Folks on this site have been contacting me and are outraged that this lady has been living in fear.  There will be an avalanche of support for her from GSD breeders everywhere unless everything stops immediately. 

Coincidence can be a terrible curse on those of us that happen to walk in on other's misfortune's; the intent of my intial post was to highten the awareness level of breeders that have a sideline as private detectives, bounty hunters, and some bonifide (particularly county level) law enforcement officers that may not have a good sense of their boundaries as dictated by common sense. I know that those people are out there, as I have lost count of those that I have met.

On the bright side, the people that have posted on this thread seem to have an abundance of common sense...maybe a little paranoid,  but, after the next ten years, we may find that what is currently percieved as paranoia will be known as prescience.