Responses and replies from government and public

[Soleilmavis]

If you get any response and reply when you write to government or public, please post here by "reply to this discussion"

 

Mailteam works during the past few years

http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/mailteam-1

Mailteam members

http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/mailteam-members

Mailteam Mass Petitions

http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/mailteam-mass-petitions

 

Lawsuits filed by victims  http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/lawsuits-of-mind-control

Mind Control technologies
http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/introduce-mind-control-and

 

Please go to LAST PAGE OF "Replies to this Discussion" to read NEWEST Information

[Soleilmavis]

Here is the receipt letter from Congressman Chis Van Hollen.

It reads -Dr. Mr. Burnell, I was pleased to learn that you met with Officer Scott A. Davis of the Montgomery County Police Department and that he was responsive to your needs. I am glad to have been able to help you with this matter and I wish you the best of luck.

From Mr. Marc Burnell

Please see attached file for the letter

 

[Annie Svensson]

I had an answer today from the Ethic Commitee in Sweden (SMER) it´s of course in Swedish, but it said shortly,that they do not look into individual cases, and that their assignment is to look over the hole research program in the country,and that science test done to each persons should be signed and consent by the involved person (execpt for a few-I wonder who those few are-us?) And if you think that you are exposed to such science tests, it should be filed to the policeoffice. But they also said- and this is important- that they have received several requests that claims focus and attention to look further into the ongoing Brain Science Tests. (so I guess that the more letter they get...) 

[Soleilmavis]

From: "foiarsc, foiarsc" span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1295420671_94" style="border-bottom: #366388 2px dotted; cursor: hand;">[e-mail]>
To: vincent valerio <[e-mail]>
Cc: "foiarsc, foiarsc" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 4:29:36 PM
Subject: RE: Cisco Telepresence/ Who's using it and for what?

Mr. Valerio,

 

My office is in receipt of your request submitted via the Internet on 31 December 2010

for “any past, present, intended future surveillance records from 1996 to current,

esp. in Seneca County in Connection with Ontario County, New York State U.S.A.”

I interpret your email below as a request for the status of that submission. Your

request has been reviewed and you will be receiving a response letter soon.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have questions or need additional

information.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Michele Smith

POC, FOIA Requester Service Center

National Security Agency

[phone]

[Soleilmavis]

Greetings everyone,

 

I am in receipt of the reply from the National Security Agency.

The reply is not directly informative and affirms my inititial request in brief, with executive orders and other laws cited.   They seem to speak in code.

I belive that the operational division of the nsa as opposed to the administration are commiting these radiation crimes as well as others.

I believe that the U.S. Presidents, whom signed the Cited Executive Orders are actively involved in criminal activity in this undercover surveillance world and not being held accountable, as well as their other agents and officers, as they do it all in secret protected by their own signatures, which is illegal.

 

since I have a certain amount of time to Appeal this Response, I was hoping maybe some of those on this email list had any idea's on how to proceed, so that I/we can formulate the best possible Appeal Reply to the F.O.I.L. Denial, Direct or Indirect.

 

Please find attached nsa reply.

 

Please and thank you,       

Vincent P. Valerio

[Soleilmavis]

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/intel_oversight/NSA_IOB_response.pdf

Some other New Yorkers NSA Response, It has other Executive Order Citations that were not in vincent's NSA Response which may be helpful in researching out.

[Soleilmavis]

 Anyone who has been determined to fall under the auspices of Executive Order 12958, which was implemented at the beginning of the Iraqi War, could possibly challenge the determination if the following "conditions are" NOT "met" ...

[Copied from:  http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html]

Part 1. Original Classification

Sec. 1.1. Classification Standards.

(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(c) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels.

(a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority.

(a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.

(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

(2) “Top Secret” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(3) “Secret” or “Confidential” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President; or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section; or the senior agency official described in section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated “Top Secret” original classification authority by the agency head.

(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position title.

(d) Original classification authorities must receive training in original classification as provided in this order and its implementing directives. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and of the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be brought against an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. If it is not clear which agency has classification responsibility for this information, it shall be sent to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. The Director shall determine the agency having primary subject matter interest and forward the information, with appropriate recommendations, to that agency for a classification determination.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories.

Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

(h) weapons of mass destruction.

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification.

(a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall attempt to establish a specific date or event for declassification based upon the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. The date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it shall be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision. All information classified under this section shall be subject to section 3.3 of this order if it is contained in records of permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code. 

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.

(d) Information marked for an indefinite duration of classification under predecessor orders, for example, marked as “Originating Agency's Determination Required,” or information classified under predecessor orders that contains no declassification instructions shall be declassified in accordance with part 3 of this order.

[Soleilmavis]

(1) The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
Targeted people in America give testimony Feb 28th, 2011
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/bioethics/110228/default.cfm?id=13288&type=flv&test=0&live=0

More reports of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues by Deborah Dupre
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/extreme-human-rights-abuses-through-experimentation-presented-to-obama-1-vid

[Soleilmavis]

From: Wendy Davis span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1306453949_1" style="border-bottom: #366388 2px dotted; cursor: hand;">[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 3:14:00 PM
Subject: RE: Ban mind control/directed energy weapons abuse and torture

Dear Mr. Dixon,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding international human rights. I truly appreciate you sharing your comments with me.

As this is a federal, and not state issue, my office is not able to offer you any assistance. Please contact your U.S. Congresswoman, Kay Granger, who can be reached at:

WASHINGTON OFFICE FORT WORTH OFFICE
320 Cannon Hob 1701 River Run Road, Suite 407
WASHINGTON, DC 20515 Fort Worth, Texas 76107
(202)-225-5071 [phone]
(202)-225-5683 (fax) [phone] (fax)

Thank you again for writing. I hope you will continue to share your perspective with your elected representatives.

Sincerely,


Wendy R Davis
Texas Senate - District 10

-----Original Message-----
From: joe dixon [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 11:02 AM
To: Wendy Davis
Subject: Ban mind control/directed energy weapons abuse and torture

Sen. Wendy Davis
Capitol Extension, EXT E1.608
1100 Congress Avenue
Austin TX 78701

Dear Representative,

Thousands of people are asking for an international investigation of enormous human rights violations that are silently taking place worldwide at this moment.

In recent years the numbers of those crimes against humanity rose so much that we can openly speak about the civilian population being under attack.

This attack is committed with technology working invisibly at a distance, beyond the bounds of borders, and is at this moment being used against helpless and unsuspecting citizens.

The victims are constantly lobbying to report these crimes to government officials, human rights organizations, world leaders and the press. Mostly, they don't get answers because of a general lack of knowledge about the technology. Mental institutions may diagnose the victims as delusional. And complaints lodged at local police stations are often treated as psychological problems or ignored.
It may take several years, before the "silent holocaust" becomes public knowledge. And for the victims, the comparison is very real.

The scale of the crimes being reported, and the seriousness of the accusations, justifies an urgent international investigation.

Because there are so many victims worldwide, spawning a worldwide movement coordinated via the Internet, it is only the most diligent and conscientious of victims who are able to report this crime; the actual number of victims being many times larger than this group of activists.

In January 2007, the article "Mind Games" appeared in "The Washington Post", written by journalist Sharon Weinberger, about the American victims and the activist organization, Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance.

Meanwhile, from all parts of the world new victims are showing up in greater numbers. They are asking for these crimes to be made public and are insisting on an international investigation of this problem.
And starting a collective campaign against abuses and tortures of the following:-

DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS; COINTELPRO; AND any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.
Thank you and Best Regards!
Your sincerely,


Note: this email was sent as part of a petition started on Change.org, viewable at www.change.org/petitions/ban-mind-controldirected-energy-weapons-ab...  . To  respond, email [e-mail] and include a link to this petition.

[Soleilmavis]

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

A letter from Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues on 27 Jul 2011

They will not hear further testimony of mind control victims in their next meeting.

But they have provided our information to White House.

http://peacepink.ning.com/photo/presidentcommission

More about President Commission

http://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-presidential-commission

[Soleilmavis]

Here is the response letter that I received from Senator Rubio and the letters he wrote to the Presidential Bioethics Commission and President Obama. Thanks to all those whom helped write the letter and those who signed it, as well. We will contact his office on Wednesday @ 9:30am to follow up and thank the staff member who helped us. We will also contact Senator Udall's office and see if our information was submitted to the Oversight Committee. I hope you will all continue joining our calls as we are continuing to make progress.

Sincerely,
Melissa Sanderson

 

 

[Soleilmavis]

Anthony Forwood

7:40am Jan 10 2012

 

Update on Freedom of Information Request

 

Many months ago I sent an FOI request to two different Canadian government agencies (RCMP Complaints Commission and Canadian Human Rights Commission) regarding any information they have on file that mentions gang-stalking, watch lists, etc. I reported here earlier how they have both taken the full 90 days allowed to fill the request, PLUS an extra 60 days extension that they’re allowed under Section 9 of the Act.

 

In both cases, my request had to go to the Executive Director of the agency, it was that sensitive.

 

On Dec. 13, 2011, I contacted them both to remind them that the time limits were up, and asked if the information was on its way.

 

The RCMP Complaints Commission replied soon after and stated that they still needed more time. I haven’t heard from them since.

 

On Dec. 29, 2011, I received an email from the Human Rights Commission that stated that a package of information had been sent to me on Nov. 29, 2011, but had been returned to them.

 

I assumed that this was because my landlord (a perp) had decided to not accept any parcels for me because I had had a parcel stolen from my mail that was in his receivership, and he took offense to my reasonable suspicions that he or one of his staff (all perps) had been the thief.

 

Today (Jan. 9, 2012), I received an email from the RCMP Complaints Commission stating that the returned parcel was being resent by normal mail, but they also indicated that ANOTHER parcel that had been sent in December had not come back to them yet. I hadn’t known that there was a second parcel, and it was strange that this was only mentioned today.

 

I have a strong feeling that the machinations of the secret gang-stalking arm of the Canadian government are being applied to avoid delivering the information I have rightful access to. I suspect that they are fully aware of the problems I have with my mail (as they would if those events are tied together in a gang-stalking campaign against me), and are attempting to use it to their advantage, so as to avoid disclosure of information that will incriminate them.

 

We will see.

 

They need to understand, however, that they will only delay the inevitable, if this is the case...

[Soleilmavis]

Dear Senator Johnson,
I understand that due to our, "War on Terror", we must be ever vigilant against further attacks on American soil.
I understand that the Bush/Cheney, "Electronic Surveillance Initiative", may be a step that continues to be necessary, along with drones and satellite surveillance.
I understand that every American is a suspect of domestic terrorism and as such must be surveilled - have our phone calls and emails analyzed for possible intelligence and our persons searched before entering a public facility.
I understand that our Bill of Rights had to be pushed aside to allow for the pre-emptive measure of picking up possible domestic terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act.
What I don't understand is the extraordinary incompetence with the use of the micro-wave and laser technologies employed by our military, law enforcement and government contractors during surveillance.  Is it really necessary to burn holes in my body while I am sleeping in order to keep America safe?
Is there a fear that I may do some mischief while trying to sleep?  Am I being punished for crimes and misdemeanors of which I am unaware?
In this zeal for National Security, hideous human rights violations are being committed.  I know because they are being committed against me.
There is absolutely no reason to cook me alive, burn me, vibrate me and mistreat me.
As this atrocity has been going on for some time, I have learned that the crimes and incompetence being perpetrated are covered up with accusations of mental illness on the part of the complainant.  I can assure you that my  mental health has been well documented.
What I am seeking is a Congressional Investigation into the torture I have been subjected to.  It is senseless, barbaric and as you well know illegal.
I have attached only a couple of examples of what has been done to my person.
I thank you for your prompt consideration.

Regards,
Lisa R. Becker

 

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Senator Ron Johnson a id="yui_3_2_0_6_1330057835441420" href="mailto:[e-mail]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" name="yui_3_2_0_6_1330057835441420">[e-mail]>wrote:

Dear Ms. Becker, Thank you for contacting me regarding the "detainee" provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). Defending our nation is a top priority of government. Accordingly, it is important that Congress pass defense authorization and appropriation bills so that military leaders can plan effectively and our troops can rest assured that their efforts will be funded.
This year's defense authorization bill included language addressing the detainee policy for illegal combatants who have engaged, and been captured, in a war against America and our allies. From the war's beginning on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has attempted to strike a delicate balance between security and civil liberties. It is not an easy task. On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, popularly referred to as the "Underwear Bomber," attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Within 45 minutes of his arrest, his Miranda rights were read and invoked, effectively stopping all information gathering. His attempted bombing was certainly a crime, but it was also an act of war and he was an illegal combatant in that war.  Our future security depends upon the military's ability to capture, detain, and interrogate our enemies in this war regardless of where they are found. This legislation reaffirms the authority for those detentions in an appropriately narrow fashion. I supported Senator Feinstein's amendment clarifying the limited legislative intent of the detainee measures. The amendment provides that "[n]othingin this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."  This bipartisan amendment passed 99 to 1. Additionally, the legislation requires military custody for captured members of al-Qaeda or associated groups who are planning or carrying out attacks against the United States or our coalition partners. This requirement does not apply to U.S. citizens. In cases of indefinite detention, including those at Guantanamo Bay, detainees are afforded due process. While I am sensitive to concerns about civil liberties and limited government we cannot ignore the fact that we live in a dangerous world. We face threats both at home and abroad. Our military must be able to plan and have the tools to keep America safe.  National security officials need flexible approaches to face current and future security challenges. I will continue to work to give them the necessary and limited authority to accomplish this.   Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts. It is important for me to hear the views and concerns of the people I serve. Since taking office, I have received over 300,000 pieces of correspondence and have had over 150,000 people participate in live forums and telephone town hall meetings. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can further assist you or your family. It is an honor representing you and the good people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate.  

Sincerely,
Ron Johnson United States Senator