Targeted individual gang stalking lawsuits in the news–are FBI political smear campaigns actionable under the Privacy Act? KHALID M. TURAANI v. CHRISTOPHER WRAY, et al. US Supreme Court

Khalid Turaani is a targeted individual, and he was stalked, and smeared in a cowardly behind the scenes campaign of undue process, and he was denied the legal purchase of a firearm. The case is now on the US Supreme Court docket.

As we see repeatedly, the goals of gang stalkers match the claims of their victims–and the goal is to interfere at every level of a persons’ life, and deny them the most basic services and basic protections that are guaranteed under the law. In this case, a man was racially profiled by the FBI, likely at the behest of the ADL, targeted politically, and denied a basic right, to whit:

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
The Privacy Act prohibits unlawful disclosures by
government officials to those with no need to know.
Petitioner Khalid Turaani brings this action in response
to statements by federal officers to third parties that he is
the subject of a federal investigation and that “we don’t like
the company he keeps.” These disclosures have a coercive
chilling effect on Mr. Turaani’s right to make lawful
constitutional purchases, including exercising his Second
Amendment rights, and also damage his reputation in the
community.

Targeted individuals are well aware of how the FBI and other agencies, local law enforcement, sheriffs departments and others in their narcissistic, psychopathic webs of relations are in fact doing these things–the Pasco County FL cases in the courts today offer us an example of their handiwork too.

These insanely evil sociopaths who work in policing have figured out more ways to circumvent the legal process than even the most cunning criminals are capable of, starting with a Catch Me If You Can police model where these cowards wage whisper campaigns behind their targets backs, and ending in courts where sheriffs dare their victims to “sue or move away,” as we see in the Pasco Cty cases.

The lawsuits are starting, and targeted individuals across America are documenting these things now. You can watch it in action on Youtube, and other social media–watch as TI’s like Richard Moore is denied basic curb-side pickup service from Walmart, as a slothful manager gibbers on about “Well, the order was cancelled–I don’t know how it got cancelled…” but that slob of a manager does NOTHING about fixing the situation. Someone, somewhere, has cancelled a man’s order for food–a basic human need–and most targeted individuals suspect that this type of activity is done from Fusion Centers.

Another case from Canada is Real Gang Stalking on Youtube has the target making predictions before he leaves his house, saying things like “Ok, watch, I will walk down the sidewalk, and an ambulance will appear,” and as certain as science, his predictions come true within minutes! He replicates that with amazing results–nearly 90% of his predictions come true, validating his hypotheses with evidence.

Related Story: The MIAC Shadow Report documents the malicious, targeted actions of one Fusion Center, the Maine Information and Analysis Center, focusing its resources on harassing the poor, marginalized, and activist communities–and ZERO results targeting or catching “terrorists.”

The FBI and others agencies are indeed waging slander campaigns EXACTLY as they did during the COINTELPRO era–and in fact, many posit that COINTELPRO never ended in the first place–that this secret police organization has ALWAYS done this to people. I concur.

Well, Turaani was denied a gun permit, and he investigated the reason why. It turns out that some coward was talking behind his back, and calling him a threat to society. An evidence free claim of course, but that never stopped cowards in the US from saying such things–no, the entire Fusion Center spy apparatus, the FBI, and its cowardly Infragard agents do this stuff every day, to tens of thousands of people.

So he sued the FBI, and specifically named the sneaky, blabber-mouthing FBI agent Jayson Chambers, who was waging the slander campaign behind the scenes, and inhibiting his ability to legally purchase a weapon with which to protect himself against the threats that are created when one is targeted by political factions of the FBI and its community assets.

Does that scenario sound familiar–a bit like the case of murdered attorney Abe Dabela in Redding CT? If you recall, in that location, Dabela was also denied a gun permit, despite a spotless record, clean background check, and a law degree. He eventually got his gun permit, but he had to fight for it, appealing to the highest level–going above the head Sandy Hook police chief Douglass Fuchs to get it, as Fuchs stood directly opposed to Dabela’s requests.

Then finally, Dabela finds himself being stalked by a gang of firefighters, and then, he turned up dead in his car, with a bullet in the back of his head–from that very gun, and muddy footprints on his back. This is what happens to targeted individuals–it’s plainly bizarre police-gang activity, and many cases involve Freemasons, who follow no laws. That case carries a $125,000 USD Reward for information leading to the arrest of his murderers.

As in all of these cases, unsurprisingly, Chambers has a record of targeting racial minorities (and their allies, friends, and associates), and in the case at hand he lurked in the shadows of Turaani’s life, waging slander, and denying opportunities–a classic 14th amendment claim of discrimination, denying rights, and bridging his opportunities, but instead, being litigated under the Privacy Act.

The levels of spying and rights violations in these cases is striking–how did the agent get wind of the gun purchase? Why is a basic right under scrutiny when no criminal charges or proceedings have occurred? –the questions are more than the answers at this point, and only lawsuits will compel government disclosure in these cases. That is, unless they kill the target as happened with Abe Dabela; and what certainly has happened with ther activists and dissidents in the US today.

Again–the question at hand:

Whether the standing analysis for Privacy Act
improper disclosure claims requires determining if the
plaintiff sufficiently alleged an “adverse effect” to satisfy
traceability, as recognized by previous decisions of this
Court, as opposed to requiring allegations of a “command”
or “compulsion.” If so, does a plaintiff demonstrate that
adverse effect by alleging that the government’s improper
disclosures produced a determinative or coercive effect on
a third party who refuses to do business with the plaintiff?

This could well become a standard in these cases–grounds whereby targeted individuals can sue and prevail. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.