Saturday, February 11, 2017

A Demoniac's Guide to Snitching: How to tattle on the demon mafia, and live to write about it

On Quora, someone asked whether it is legal to fetch and display public personal data about people? I answered because I have a little experience publishing personal data about people [see PLACES | Demon-infested homes]—and that under the most extreme circumstances anyone might do this—and I thought that, based on that fact, my answer might add some color and interest that others answers are not likely to have.

I think it is indeed colorful, in that, somehow, my answer segues into a series of things you must do prior to publishing personal-but-public information about criminals who committed crimes against you. For the first time since putting people on blast since 2006¸ I've enumerated and described how to prevent increasing crime against you, and otherwise snitch with the likelihood of the least volatile reaction. It was culminated per the counsel of police, the criminals themselves, and their peers—a multitude of other career criminals who did not commit the crimes complained of and were not affiliated with the criminals who committed them, but who offered "advice" on how to do what I did "correctly" as possible, if I must in fact do it. After I posted the dirt (as it were), my counsel (as it were) all said three things:

  1. they didn't like the idea or what they heard about it before they read it, but they don't blame me now that they have read it, the circumstances being more egregious than what they themselves feel comfortable imposing on one person;
  2. they approved of the way I did it (I didn't say more than I had to, and the amount of work I put into it was obviously substantial, and hard work is appreciated by all; and,
  3. they intend to keep their disgust silent and unmoving, which meant I escaped the designation of being called a snitch, and all the things that come with that.

Here's what I wrote:
Before I answer your question: 
In every state, there are statutes governing the acquisition, use and publication of public information. They are published online, and hard copies are freely available at every public law library. These statutes are invariably prefaced by the meaning of public, but it is a common sense definition, with no pitfalls or loopholes. So, I'm not concerned that you mean anything different than information that is freely and readily available to everyone, and information that is distributed by a custodian who is under and complies with a legally prescribed obligation to provide that same information to anyone requesting it. 
Now, my answer: 
Yes, and for any purpose, except to commit a crime, such as criminal stalking or for subsequent fraudulent use by a third party, or to influence or alter trade market shareholder values (where applicable) in order to unlawfully obtain financial gain by any subsequent dividends or surplus or by short-selling; misuse without criminal intent or use without permission under certain circumstances may incur civil penalties. There is no such thing as a legal obligation for any common citizen to protect the personal information of another outside of a legal, business or contractual arrangement clearly established prior to disclosure—and, if it's public as defined by statute, especially so. 
It’s even legal to slander someone, provided it does not place the subject in danger, nor does it impute them to a serious crime for which you did not witness or a criminal complaint has not been filed or for which the subject has not been charged, arrested or convicted, and if the publication is not a component of a crime or of a crime to which it can be composited (or enhances the degree to which either was being committed). 
The illegal publication of personal data does not usually define a crime itself, but merely forms an element of proof for another crime and/or enhances or supplements the degree to which a given crime was alleged to be committed or provides a complement to a composite of crimes to form a single crime that carries a charge. In the case of the latter, criminal intent is usually established only when personal data was published repeatedly, and each publication can be readily ascertained as a means to further the commission of another crime under the circumstances and in its purported context. 
While some crimes are constituted by the unlawful acquisition of personal information, it may be technically legal to publish it, even though it was stolen; however, the publication of stolen information can be used to prove the commission of the theft. On the other hand, some data thefts are not defined as such until the data is published. 
Law enforcement agencies generally only pursue allegations where victims sustained substantial loss (usually corporate victims) due to the cost of and time involved for an investigation to prove criminal intent by and to calculate loss or damage from the unlawful acquisition and/or publication of personal information is exorbitant. District attorneys generally will not file affidavits for a crime of data theft or unlawful publication thereof even if it can be established by a single occurrence unless it is committed multiple times by the same offender and under the eye of an investigative body to which the complainant filed a report. 
Even if legal, publication of personal information may not always be advisable, particularly when doing so provides no remedy for loss or damage or fails to prevent same (or warn), or when another remedy for loss or damage exists and has yet to be pursued, and especially when loss or damage has been remedied or when doing so may place you or others in danger of harm. 
In 2006, I publicized personal information of persons purported to have committed crimes against me and others. Attack of the Gangstalkers is a video summarizing that information in less than a minute, and directs you to a perfect example of a legal publication of personal but public information that follows several of the above advisements, specifically:
  • The publication of the criminal acts/history warn others of the stated intent by the subjects to repeat and/or habitually commit those acts
  • All available alternative remedies were exhausted, but failed by no fault of the publisher (me), and there were no penalties imposed on the subject that can be compounded by the publication of personal information
  • It places me in danger, but not others—and that, not by design, but by circumstance; not even an infinitesimal possibility of danger to others had been ascertained, in that there are no appearances that remotely suggest that the publication of the information and the manner in which it was published was carefully crafted to protect others from danger by hiding their involvement
Although I advise against snitching, it can be (and was) a reasonable risk under these specific circumstances:
  1. You are already in danger to the extreme, and exposing the crimes committed against you might dissuade the persons committing them, as well as others providing their material support
  2. You have no means of third-party, physical protection and are unable to provide your own for all reasons
  3. You are the sole victim of the crimes you publish, and you are the only witness
  4. The crimes are serious, and you have, in fact, sustained significant loss or damage to property and/or have been injured or threatened with brandished weapons, and you have overlooked everything than what most people would consider less (you’re going by the judgment of others on this, not your own)
  5. The crimes are likely to be repeated or will lead to other crimes or compel others to commit crimes against you
  6. Every other legal means of remedy has been pursued with due diligence [completely, thoroughly and in timely fashion], and your full cooperation was given to those who can facilitate remedy, and to their complete satisfaction
  7. That, prior to pursuing available remedies, you made at least one attempt to resolve the matter with the subjects in a way deemed reasonable and feasible by both parties, and that the attempt was witnessed by peers on both sides
  8. That you were not contributorily negligent in any way, shape or form to the crimes committed against you (some say this shouldn't matter; but, when it matters to someone, it then matters—especially with career criminals. I added this qualifier to emphasize that a balanced picture of the circumstances surrounding the crime(s) is essential; although you are a victim, you could incite further and more serious crime at the acquiescence of others who may have frowned on such if you use your victim status as a license to portray a monster that doesn't exist to literally everyone the subject knows—including his/her parents)
  9. That you have taken every available step to ensure your safety and the safety of others around you prior to publication, and employed any and all means at your disposal for preventing a reoccurrence of the crimes you publish
  10. That you have provided the fewest possible details to achieve adequate warning and prevention
  11. That you can ensure that your publication is distributed to every person who could be affected by it, including the subject, persons like the subject, and everyone inside the geographical area in which the subject committed, commits or may commit the crimes you published
The now-shuttered, but downloadable The Sunnyvale Knock blog met all 11 conditions prior to publication, and even was announced prior to the subjects before it went live; moreover, it used the words of the criminals and accomplices themselves to provide an account of the crimes (via voice recordings). 
By the way, if you’re interested in the information I posted about the subjects after shutting down the blog, read these posts to The Life of a Demoniac:
If you’re not in the mood to read, listen to Secret Recording Reveals Demonic Agenda, by far the most compelling recording of them all, primarily because the subject matter discussed between the two persons heard in it is still relevant.