1. What is the earliest incident you recall which could have been connected with falsified law enforcement reporting regarding you yourself?
Answer: My stalker's falsifications are likely the earliest crimes committed against me in this realm. Following that, I have a suspicion regarding the next incident, though it's important for me to state that my thoughts about this have not been independently verified.
2. What is your suspicion?
Answer: In November of 2017, I was visiting a friend of mine in the Berkshires, and she recommended that I speak with her "life coach," a man by the name of Rudy Bach, about whom she spoke very highly. So, on November 16, 2017, I spoke with him for an hour, paying him $285.00 at the end of the session.
3. Was there anything unusual about that session?
Answer: I considered a few of the things Mr. Bach said about my stalker to be unusual at the time. I considered his fee to be high, given that small towns within the Berkshires are fairly sleepy in the autumn. But by far the biggest shock about this session was that Mr. Bach attempted to kiss me at the end of the meeting.
4. A perfunctory goodbye kiss?
Answer: No, it qualified as a pass. I turned my head away, so his effort was pointless. And my friend, Judy Seaman, was in the next room during the entire discussion, so I did not feel in danger given that help was nearby if I needed it. But the pass on his part was inappropriate from one hundred points of view.
5. Did you recount this incident to anyone?
Answer: I recounted it to my husband. I did not recount it to Judy, because she described Mr. Bach as her good friend. But I never followed up with him over the phone as he exhorted me to do. There was a complex predatory element present, a duplicity that I could not identify at the time.
6. And now you think he could have been paid in order to violate his professional ethics during this session?
Answer: I think it's possible. I think he may have been the first gang stalking "contact" who preyed upon me for pay of some kind from my stalker or his associates. Was there falsified reporting associated with this session? It would be helpful to find out.
7. This was approximately five years ago.
Answer: Yes. What is interesting is how early this incident was in the whole process. I had just left a physical therapy setting with my stalker in September of 2017. The two intervening months, I had spent on Cape Cod by myself. So, if I am right about this, the predation began almost immediately after I left physical therapy treatment.
8. Did your stalker convey to you that he placed your name onto the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative list for pay?
Answer: Yes. He alleged that he was paid $2250 to place my name on the NSARI list. He had access to my social security number and my address on my medical record in his office, so he likely had all the information he needed.
9. So, there were financial incentives for him to commit this crime.
Answer: Yes, and I think it's important to recognize that when money is allotted by the FBI for "lists of criminals," corruption may dictate that the law-abiding are wrongly included. Beyond this, the timing certainly says something about the reach of my stalker, and, further, his capability of utilizing the FBI to track, surveil and harass people who have not been involved in any unlawful activity whatsoever, but rather, simply wandered into the wrong physical therapy office for treatment.
10. Isn't there something terrible about being preyed upon by a "life coach" who professes an interest in helping you?
Answer: Yes, and that's what professional ethics rules are for. "Life coaches" are responsible for presenting themselves honestly in circumstances such as these. For the FBI to introduce conflicts of interest by extending pay from Infragard to those who have privileged access is deeply wrong. If falsified law enforcement reporting is associated with that corruption, the malfeasance becomes egregious.
11. Is Mr. Rudy Bach accountable to you for an explanation of the causes of his behavior on November 16, 2017?
Answer: Under the circumstances, he most certainly is.
12. Do you certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Answer. Yes, I do.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment