This is to document my itinerary away from my residence this morning. My experiences appeared to involve an extreme level of surveillance, to the extent that it constituted harassment and forced both my husband and me to return home
I explained to my husband this morning that I was concerned that USPS certified mailing #7020 0640 0001 5530 8303 could be routed to a mail sorting facility, where its contents could possibly be altered by FBI personnel. I asked him to accompany me to an open post office, where I could inquire about the advisability of restricting delivery to the signature of an investigator within the OIG Hotline itself.
We drove separate cars due to the fact that I have received hundreds of threats of staged car accident by FBI affiliates. It seems to us that two vehicles would be more difficult for FBI affiliates to assail than one.
We left the house at approximately 9:45 a.m., stopping at the Shell gas station on Alpine Rd., where both my husband and I filled our cars with gas. I asked the station attendant whether she knew the location of an open post office, but she did not. A man in his twenties appeared to take an unusual interest in us at this gas station, but we did not take much notice of his presence.
After that, we traveled to the Palo Alto Post Office located at 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, which my husband had determined, after a search on his iPhone, is open on Saturdays. While waiting in line to speak to the postal officer, both my husband and I were actively and continuously filmed by an older gentleman wielding his phone quite aggressively.
I spoke to the postal officer to inquire whether the delivery signature required for mailing #7020 0640 0001 5530 8303 could or should be further restricted. She explained to me that it was not possible to make this change. She updated me on the letter's current location, telling me that its sorting and processing were now complete in a Washington, D.C. postal facility at zip code 20530. I expressed surprise that this letter had traveled 3,000 miles in the space of a day and a half. The postal officer appeared to acknowledge that this was unusual.
It is my hope that this mailing will be acquired directly by investigators from the OIG Hotline without its being routed to a internal mail sorting facility. As I mentioned previously, I consider the envelope itself to be important from an evidentiary perspective. I do not believe that anyone except for an OIG Hotline investigator should open this letter, originating from Viktor Goldmakher. There is a strong possibility that anyone else opening this envelope could be coerced into altering its contents before OIG Hotline investigators could take possession.
Following herewith is my documentation from the Palo Alto Post Office:
My husband and I left the post office to order breakfast at Starbucks #565, 376 University Avenue, Palo Alto. After being at the location for approximately five to seven minutes, a teenager walked in off the street and began to film us as our table. I found the experience to be invasive and aggressive enough that I suggested that we leave.
Our Starbucks receipt:
We returned to our two cars, which were parked on Waverly Avenue, Palo Alto. While seated in my vehicle and waiting for my husband to reach his own car, a middle-aged male pedestrian aggressively began filming me with his cell phone, without any apparent justification whatsoever. I opened my car door to alert my husband to this individual's actions.
I believe my language was close to the following: "Ken, this man is filming me while I'm seated in my car."
The response of the middle-aged man was astonishing, in my opinion. "Yes!" he shouted. "That's right! Because you're suspicious!"
Neither my husband nor I responded to him.
The man's use of the word "suspicious" certainly raises the specter of the FBI's corruption of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative to harass and harm law-abiding American citizens.
My husband and I drove home following these experiences without incident. His own account of this outing will soon appear below my own.
But what I will say is this. When an FBI whistleblower is filmed everywhere she goes in public, how will the FBI attempt to misuse these films? In what manner will the FBI attempt to engage in falsified law enforcement reporting about the very citizens who have pointed out the agency's systematized lying about "targets of interest," who are primarily Democrats and journalists? How is the FBI not violating the civil liberties and human rights of law-abiding American citizens by engaging in extensive falsified law enforcement reporting toward them? Why am I not allowed to have a bowl of oatmeal in a coffee shop with my husband without being surveilled and harassed?
If this is the America envisioned by Christopher Wray, in which law-abiding citizens are slandered, defamed, and assailed in a process that reaffirms the power of the unelected on the far right, I think he should be forced to defend his preferred form of government against that so carefully conceived by the founding fathers within our Constitution. Mr. Wray should explain to the American public why totalitarianism is preferable to democracy, in his view, and why his view outweighs that of the American electorate. I, for one, will be listening closely to what the Director has to say.
It is my considered opinion that there is no justification for the FBI's willful and continuous violation of my civil liberties and human rights other than the agency's knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting for anti-democratic objectives.
It's 12:48 p.m., and I am, once again, an unwilling, unconsenting prisoner within my own residence.
Meanwhile, I would assume that the far right infiltrators of the FBI have been free to enjoy their private family lives and their personal errands within their homes and communities on a lively and engaged Saturday morning.
How lovely for them.
The problem is that, in a functioning democracy, the civil liberties and human rights of a nation's citizens are to be enjoyed by all, not by an elect few. All.
That means Democrats should be able to go to the post office without being filmed. That means journalists should be able to eat their oatmeal at Starbucks. That means a woman or a minority should be able to sit inside her own car for two minutes without being filmed by a stranger, simply because the FBI wrongfully slandered her as "suspicious."
It does appear that the FBI, and likely affiliated agencies, are rather desperate not to have anyone discover whatever deceits are concealed within certified mailing #7022 0410 0001 4482 4689/# 7020 0640 0001 5530 8308.
But that doesn't mean that I should have to suffer yet further lies created by the FBI and its affiliates in their attempt to justify their own malfeasance. It doesn't mean my husband should have to suffer continuous falsified witness statements coerced from his friends and colleagues at the express direction of far right segments of the FBI either.
The FBI needs to acknowledge its wrongs in surveilling, harassing, slandering, defaming, and harming law-abiding members of the American public for its own anti-democratic objectives.
The blame for those crimes should not be shifted onto those the agency has already scapegoated in unconscionable ways through spurious claims of law-breaking.
Far right segments of the FBI are responsible for extensive and ongoing predatory malfeasance toward the law-abiding American public.
Do my husband and I need to worry about a law-enforcement raid at our home tonight, because the FBI leadership cannot acknowledge its own wrongdoing?
I certainly hope not.
I would challenge Mr. Christopher Wray not to attempt to interfere with certified mailing #7020 0640 0001 5530 8308. Let the truth of the FBI's malfeasance toward law-abiding Americans be illuminated. Let OIG Hotline investigators -- no one else -- open the envelope originating from Mr. Viktor Goldmakher and his FBI handler.
Let the facts be examined in their entirety, without further FBI obstruction, disinformation, and false reporting, as Mr. Wray's oath to the Constitution requires.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Lane MacWilliams
**********************************************************************************
My husband Ken MacWilliams' statement about today's events, included below, is transcribed herewith for ease of reading:
Saturday 5 November 2022
Summary of today's events traveling to the Post Office and Starbucks in downtown Palo Alto, California.
- Approximately 10 a.m. this origin my wife Lane MacWilliams and I left our home at 45 Vista Verde Way, Portola Valley, CA driving separate cars. We stopped momentarily at the top of our driveway to coordinate my needing to stop for gasoline on the way. We stopped at the Shell station at Ladera Heights in Portola Valley to refill our cars.
- While at Ladera, I searched my cellphone for multiple post offices in the are and found a few that are open on Saturday. We decided on the local post office in downtown Palo Alto on Hamilton Ave.
- As we were standing in line at the Hamilton Ave. Post Office, an individual standing behind us appeared to be using his cell phone to film the inside of the post office as well as the individuals waiting in line. He appeared to be middle aged, dark prescription sunglasses, dark hair, medium build and about 5 ft. 8 in. tall.
- While at the post office, my wife ascertained the status of her package, and was shown how to track its progress with a very helpful post office employee.
- After this, we walked about a block to the Starbucks coffee shop on University Avenue. It was relatively crowded. After we ordered, we had a short discussion with a woman, caring for a yojng child in a stroller, who offered us her table as she was leaving.
- While we were waiting for our order, two adolescent boys (about 15 years old) entered the waiting line. Each was carrying their phones, and using them to film the inside of the coffee shop and individuals at the Starbucks. With this concern, we picked up our drinks and food and returned to our parked cars (near the post office).
- My wife and I spoke briefly at her car, and I walked to my car (parked about 50 feet in front of her car) to start our drive back home. While I was unlocking my car, I heard my wife beeping her horn and turned to see a man walking from the sidewalk, crossing the street in front of her car. As he was walking, he was filming my wife with his cellphone. As I returned to my wife, she beeped the horn again, opened the car door, gestured to the man, and stated that the man was filming her. The man responded that "yes, he was filming her, because she was suspicious." After this, we drove directly back to our home without incident.
- Due to these multiple experiences, my wife was shaken and very concerned, and I share in these concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment