I'm a reporter with the Pasadena Weekly working on a story examining allegations of law enforcement officials monitoring and/or harrassing activists and demonstrators. This especially includes environmental activists.

Anyone who belives he or she has been monitored or harrassed, please call me at (626) 584-1500, ext. 119, or email me at joep@pasadenaweekly.com as soon as possible, as my deadline is pretty tight.

Do not respond this is an FBI setup

DO NOT RESPOND - THIS IS AN FBI STING OPERATION DESIGNED TO ASCERTAIN YOUR IDENTITY AND LOCATION

You mean I fell for the oldest trick in the book?

It just goes to show you can't trust anybody!

I should have known, Piasecki is such an obvious Jewish name. I bet his parents were from Warsaw.

I am so stupid sometimes.

The previous post in my name is not mine, it was posted by KOBE.

In any case, thanks for grabbing my attention. I will check out whether this reporter is for real.

>I will check out whether this reporter is for real.

You do that.

I don't think we've got those down here in the 'glades. Weren't too long ago we got internet hookup.

Activist, is that anything like a terrorist? Them terorists deserve to be harassed by the police. Down here we'd just gut 'em and toss im in the swamp. But you big city folk wouldn't know anything about that. You ain't from around here.

If'n ya likes deep-sea fishin', activists make good chum.

You guys got to be kidding. If anyone actually checked out the link I provided, you'd see I'm a legit reporter. I've been to every major LA war demonstration and reported on them, talked to Blase Bonpane, Martin Sheen and all those who've led marches as media. I've called the president a retard and a fascist in print.

The Pasadena Weekly is the only left-leaning non-corporate newspaper still in print, generally known for reporting on real news and not just whitebread entertainment like other weeklies in town. Ever heard of LA Citybeat? That's me too.

So, I am legit and looking for someon who can substantiate claims that demonstrators are being harassed and surveilled.

And by the way, Piasecki is Polish Catholic. I'm from Cleveland.

This is a classic example of a government counter-intelligence operation. It takes more than showing up to a few anti-war demonstrations and bad-mouthing Bush to establish your bona-fides. Respond to this request at your own peril.

This is a classic example of a government counter-intelligence operation. It takes more than showing up to a few anti-war demonstrations and bad-mouthing Bush to establish your bona-fides. Respond to this request at your own peril.

This is a classic example of a government counter-intelligence operation. It takes more than showing up to a few anti-war demos, or badmouthing Bush to establish your bona-fides. Respond to to this "reporter" at your own peril.

This is a classic example of a government counter-intelligence operation. It takes more than showing up to a few anti-war demonstrations and bad-mouthing Bush to establish your bona-fides. Respond to this request at your own peril.

This is a classic example of a government counter-intelligence operation. Respond to this "reporter" at your own peril.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of the pathalogical paranoia of the political left. They are paranoid even of each other.

Regarding the claim that Mr. Piasecki's request is part of an FBI sting "to ascertain your identity and location": the request is for caontact from people who have already suffered harrassment for their political beliefs and Constitutionally-protected political activities.

Now, if someone has already been targeted for harrassment by a gummint agency, the said agency ALREADY BLEEDIN' WELL KNOWS THEIR IDENTITY AND LOCATION- and has probably shared that information with whatever alphabet-soup Feds you'd care to name.

Trying to make people who have been harrassed afraid to speak out and tell their stories can only help the harassers to conceal their activities.

Posters want to claim without evidence that this is some sort of COINTELPRO operation? It's every bit as logical to conclude that the people trying to spread FUD about publicizing incidents of gummint harrassment are themselves staging a COINTELPRO operation aimed at suppressing potentially embarrassing information.

Pasadena Weekly
50 South Delacey Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91105
Phone: (626) 584-1500
Fax: (626) 795-0149


Circulation: 40,000 (as of March 2003)
Audited By: Verified Audit Circulation

Publication Day: Every Thursday
Market Served: Los Angeles DMA -- Northeast Los Angeles County / West San Gabriel Valley


National Advertising: Alternative Weekly Network


http://www.pasadenaweekly.com

For more than 19 years the Pasadena Weekly has reigned as the San Gabriel Valley's newsweekly of record. Located just minutes from Downtown Los Angeles, the city of Pasadena is perhaps best known nationally for a certain flower-oriented parade and football game. But Pasadena is also home to a plethora of great news and world-class arts & culture. Pasadena Weekly cover stories, news features and arts & entertainment coverage offer an alternative for the more than 500,000 people in its circulation area who seek a fresh source for their news.

Pasadena Weekly is available at over 625 distribution locations throughout North East Los Angeles County including the cities and communities of: Pasadena, Downtown Los Angeles, Altadena, Glendale, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, San Gabriel, South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, San Marino, Monrovia & Arcadia

Publisher: Harry Jigamian, harryj@pasadenaweekly.com


Editor: Kevin Uhrich
Art Director: Micheal Swank
Business Manager: Michael Nagami
Group Publisher: David Comden

Well that's my idea of quality journalism. Are you sure you don't work for the NY Times? Why bother looking for sources for you article when you can just fabricate a few and whip together a real snoozer?

A "retard and a fascist in print"!

HAR!!!

The loony liberals here on IMC do that hundreds of times a day.

Time for you to get some new material.

It's all KPC and the others can do. They go to the corporate media, hear the latest way they are bashing Bush, and repeat it. These people are nothing without their leaders to tell them what to say.

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.
People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.
This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

Joe Piasecki is a thug who works for the Pasadena Weekly (which openly sources right-wing extremists).

do not do anything he asks.

Virginia