legal protections during investigations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jurisdiction
Illinois
Ok, it looks like I've had [alleged] federal investigators in my life since 2014 or 2012, possibly earlier. They've been nice, I feel pretty magnanimous, and whatever case was originally hoped for isn't going anywhere (my interpretation is that they made understandable mistakes). So that's all good.

Nevertheless, there's been a bit of unpleasantness, and this question concerns that unpleasantness. So let me take a moment to describe it:

(a) Back in 2015, they tried to lure me into the world of gang-stalking paranoia and convince me that the symptoms of stress they were inflicting were actually symptoms of DEWs. This appears to be a common and abusive tactic intended to foster self-triggering PTSD (ie. the symptoms are interpreted as a threat).

(b) Since at least 2014, detectives in my workplace have generated some pretty disruptive rumors. This disruption was recreated each time I change jobs.

(c) This item sounds a bit crazy, but bear with me. They've used online psychological operations* to create a few complementary impressions: (i) something bad is about to happen; (ii) anything bad that happens is my own fault; (iii) that I should feel ineffectual; (iv) that whatever authority they represent is virtuous and unassailable; (v) that I should be worried if they stop "taking care" of me. None of these things I actually believe. Rather, they appear to be coordinated double-binds that somehow combine to create a strong need to seek approval or redemption from authority.

(d) They worked to foster negative associations to things I find comforting, like cats and beds. The approach is straightforwardly Pavlovian.

Overall, the effect is a kind of psychological "stress position", probably intended to extract information. And as you'd expect, it's relentless, next to impossible to avoid, and has an impact on my quality of life and emotional well-being. That means that the investigation has been effectively a punishment.


So now my question: what sort of legal protections exist to address this kind of thing?** I believe that these guys are probably the most responsible law enforcement team out there by miles, but still-- what sort of abuse would be crossing the line? If there's no legal recourse, is there anything helpful I can document or do so that other people can start laying the foundations for those legal protections? Is it worth contacting the media?

It's a difficult situation. On one hand, I'd like law enforcement to have powerful tools at their disposal, but on the other hand, if those tools are effective punishment per se, we've effectively abandoned due process.


* For example, while I was writing this, all ads on my Reddit tab became broken links and this one popped up: Imgur. Coincidences like this have happened continually, usually paired with threatening or demeaning messages.
** Skepticism is good, so feel free to treat the situation I'm describing as a hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
You're winning.
Your detractors/abusers are losing.
A win is a win.
You can't win or lose if you don't play their reindeer games.
Ignore the distractions.
Focus only on pleasant things.
You're winning.
They're losing.
Good luck.
 
You apparently would have great difficulty proving who these people are or that they even exist.
You don't seem to have a legal problem.
Why not simply ignore them if they have been ineffective? They will go away.
 
Good points. Nevertheless,

a) I'm not concerned about winning and losing, so long as the outcome is correct.
b) These techniques are going to get more powerful with better technology. There should be recourse when they're applied problematically if there isn't already, or else the constitution risks becoming obsolete.
c) At least in my case, efforts to manage the fall-out don't seem sustainable long-term. So it isn't clear that this win isn't Pyrrhic.

Anyway, if this were just about me, I'd be happy to ignore it. But honestly, there's more at stake than that.
 
What kind of legal action do you believe you can take when you don't even know for sure who is doing this, or even for sure anyone is?
 
That's what I'm trying to figure out, if any kind of legal action is even appropriate or ethical.

To rephrase you, I'm witnessing powerful and potentially destructive tools that make attribution difficult and are plausibly deniable. In that sense, the new reality of cyber-operations is potentially a threat to constitutional principles. I don't think that part of my question is trivial at all.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say anything about your question being trivial. I just don't know how you expect to file a lawsuit regarding actions you can't prove were taken and, if taken, by whom. And which will be exceedingly hard to prove were taken by anyone and didn't naturally happen.
 
I haven't gotten to the point of even considering a lawsuit, really. :)

Here's a more concrete question: what legal protections in the United States exist to prevent investigations from being used as de facto punishment?
 
Last edited:
In US law, what mechanism exists to prevent punitive or harmful investigations?

For emphasis, I'm not worried about my situation. I'm worried about how it generalizes, and how it might evolve.
 
Maybe you should define "punitive and harmful investigations".

There are plenty of things in place regarding law enforcement conduct. An investigation is not punitive or harmful, but certain conduct during an investigating could be.

What specifically do you believe is punitive or harmful?
 
Sure, let's call an investigation harmful if it inflicts a tort, eg. reputational, professional, or psychological harm, and let's call an investigation punitive if it is both bad-faith and harmful.

Some more concrete questions:
a) Does a suspect bear liability for reputational or professional harm inflicted by an investigation? What about other torts?
b) Are there reasonable limits on the psychological pressure that can be applied during an investigation? I think people underestimate how far this can be taken with modern technology and gas-lighting. Is it acceptable to threaten to frame a suspect? How about threatening mob 'justice?' How about death threats?
c) What are the consequences of a punitive investigation? This seems like it should be a criminal matter, but is it?

As far as gang-stalking goes, it's extremely distressing for me to see people swept up in that delusional paranoia. But maybe that's not a conversation for a legal advice forum. :)
 
what legal protections in the United States exist to prevent investigations from being used as de facto punishment?

NONE, just ask president Trump.

There are NO protections against being investigated, heck, not just Trump has been pursued.

I know hundreds of others who have been investigated by federal authorities just because they CAN.
 
Consensus among whom?

Just among people here. But you could make a stronger statement and assert that there's consensus among legal professionals as well.

For example, public laws are only one way to address the issues I'm raising. It might be more sensible to establish a strong internal policy that's invisible to suspects, who might be more likely to act in bad faith than investigators (on the whole).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top