Gangstalking Chronicles 2

Tag: Gangstalking

  • Fusion Centers Under Scrutiny: Karen Stewart’s Claims

    In the interview excerpts, Karen Stewart challenges whether fusion centers are fulfilling their stated counterterrorism purpose. She describes a system intended to connect national intelligence with local authorities after 9/11, but alleges that it has become a vehicle for targeting innocent Americans. Her central accusation is that the fight against terrorism provides cover for harassment, reputational destruction, and retaliation against people who have never been charged with a crime.

    Stewart alleges that ordinary Americans are fraudulently placed on what she calls “tier 3 and tier 4” terrorist lists and designated “non investigative subjects.” She claims operatives then approach their neighbors with false allegations of terrorism or sexual misconduct, encouraging community members to participate in harassment. If substantiated, such conduct would raise serious questions about civil liberties and accountability. However, the excerpts provide no watchlist records, operational documents, or independently corroborated testimony establishing this alleged process.

    Her allegations extend to the recruitment of neighbors, churches, community organizations, and criminal gangs, sometimes through gift-card payments. Stewart describes coordinated vehicle following, property damage, and harassment that allegedly continues when someone moves across state lines. She also attributes physical symptoms to electromagnetic weapons and alleges that her own treatment followed an employment dispute involving the NSA. These are serious accusations, but her account alone does not establish who caused the incidents she describes, whether they were coordinated, or what caused her symptoms.

    Stewart further claims that fusion centers have failed to identify terrorists or stop terrorist plots while receiving billions of dollars, and that officials evade congressional scrutiny by invoking security clearances. Those sweeping assertions require evidence beyond the interview: the excerpts contain no comprehensive performance review, funding analysis, or congressional record supporting them. A balanced assessment would also examine the centers’ responses, documented activities, and the distinction between producing intelligence and directly making arrests.

    The interview ultimately presents a demand for scrutiny, rather than proof of a nationwide harassment operation. Stewart’s allegations warrant careful evaluation against records and independently verifiable evidence, with an opportunity for the institutions accused to respond. Counterterrorism responsibilities should carry meaningful oversight and protections against abuse, while conclusions about specific wrongdoing must rest on more than the seriousness of an accusation.

  • Could A Secret Surveillance Opinion Expose The Targeted Individual Program?

    A still-secret surveillance court opinion is raising serious questions about government intrusion into Americans’ private communications. In an October 26 letter, Senators Ron Wyden and Adam Schiff demanded the release of a March 17, 2026, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion that they say documents “serious abuses of Americans’ rights” under FISA Section 702. According to the senators, the administration missed the September 13 deadline for releasing a declassified version. The distinction matters: the public currently has the senators’ description of the opinion, rather than its detailed findings. wyden.senate.gov

    Section 702 is designed to collect foreign intelligence by targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States, without obtaining individual warrants for each foreign target. However, Americans’ communications can also enter these collections when they communicate with those targets. Subsequent searches involving Americans’ identifiers raise a separate privacy concern: how far can the government examine someone’s communications without individualized judicial approval? Intelligence agencies argue that these searches help identify threats, while the program’s restrictions prohibit deliberately using a foreign target as a pretext to surveil an American. intelligence.gov

    For people who describe themselves as targeted individuals and report intrusive surveillance, publication could provide a clearer basis for evaluating specific allegations. If the opinion identifies improper searches, inadequate safeguards, or failures of oversight, those findings could help journalists, civil liberties organizations, and attorneys ask more precise questions about government practices. But documented abuses within a surveillance program would not, by themselves, establish that any particular person was monitored or substantiate broader claims of coordinated harassment. Individual allegations still require evidence connecting the person’s experience to identifiable conduct.

    The opinion’s potential value therefore lies in what disclosure might make possible: informed scrutiny, stronger safeguards, and accountability for demonstrated violations. Wyden and Schiff identify proposed reforms including warrants for searches of Americans’ communications, restrictions on government purchases of Americans’ information from data brokers, and limits on entities compelled to assist surveillance. Their letter also notes a significant complication: the same March opinion that reportedly detailed abuses allowed surveillance to continue for another year. It should therefore not be portrayed as a blanket ruling outlawing Section 702 or automatically granting relief to people alleging surveillance. wyden.senate.gov

    A balanced response should take both national security needs and privacy violations seriously. People reporting surveillance deserve a fair assessment of their evidence, and government agencies deserve scrutiny when credible findings indicate they exceeded their authority. Releasing the opinion would help the public distinguish lawful intelligence gathering from documented misconduct—and documented misconduct from allegations that remain unverified. For targeted individuals seeking recognition of a specific privacy violation, that transparency could be useful, even though it cannot substitute for evidence in an individual case.

  • Gangstalking, Undocumented Immigrants, and the Intelligence Community: The Question of Plausible Deniability

    Among individuals who identify as targeted individuals (TIs), a persistent and controversial belief is that intelligence agencies and their intermediaries recruit undocumented immigrants to participate in organized surveillance, stalking, intimidation, and psychological harassment. According to this theory, individuals whose immigration status makes them vulnerable to exploitation may be particularly attractive to clandestine operations because their identities, employment histories, and movements can sometimes be difficult to verify. Some targeted individuals allege that participants operate under assumed names, provide false biographical information, or conceal their actual places of birth, creating additional obstacles for anyone attempting to establish their identities. These allegations remain unsubstantiated as a widespread intelligence practice, but they raise broader questions about accountability, exploitation, and the potential abuse of vulnerable populations.

    Another recurring allegation concerns how these purported participants are compensated. Targeted individuals frequently describe arrangements involving prepaid gift cards, cash payments, transportation, housing assistance, and other benefits that allegedly leave little conventional financial documentation. The theory is that such compensation could obscure the identity of whoever finances an operation, particularly if intermediaries are used to distribute payments. However, gift cards and cash are not necessarily untraceable; investigators can sometimes reconstruct transactions through purchase records, surveillance footage, electronic communications, and other evidence. Nor is there verified evidence establishing that American intelligence agencies systematically compensate undocumented immigrants to harass civilians. Nevertheless, the broader concern about covert financing deserves consideration because financial opacity can complicate efforts to identify who authorized, funded, or benefited from unlawful activities.

    At the center of these suspicions is a concept familiar to intelligence professionals: plausible deniability. Intelligence organizations have historically employed intermediaries, informants, contractors, and proxy networks to conduct sensitive operations while limiting direct institutional exposure. That documented history helps explain why some targeted individuals suspect similar arrangements could be used against ordinary Americans. In their view, recruiting people with uncertain or difficult-to-verify identities, compensating them indirectly, and maintaining several layers of separation between participants and government officials would create an especially effective shield against accountability. Yet the existence of covert methods in legitimate intelligence operations does not establish that the specific gangstalking arrangements alleged by targeted individuals are occurring. Distinguishing historical precedent from contemporary allegations is essential to any credible investigation.

    The controversy also raises an important ethical question about undocumented immigrants themselves. Individuals lacking secure immigration status can be vulnerable to coercion, financial exploitation, and threats involving deportation. If government personnel or private intermediaries were ever found to have exploited those vulnerabilities to recruit participants for unlawful surveillance or harassment, the consequences would be serious for both the alleged victims and the individuals pressured into participating. At the same time, immigration status must never be treated as evidence of criminal conduct. The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants should not be implicated by accusations directed at unidentified individuals. Any legitimate investigation would need independently verifiable evidence, including financial records, communications, witness testimony, and documented connections to identifiable officials or organizations.

    Ultimately, the issue deserves neither automatic acceptance nor reflexive dismissal. Allegations that intelligence agencies secretly finance civilian harassment through undocumented intermediaries are serious and require equally serious evidence. If substantiated, such operations could raise profound constitutional questions involving privacy, due process, civil liberties, and government accountability. If unsupported, the allegations risk unfairly stigmatizing immigrant communities and diverting attention from demonstrable wrongdoing. Plausible deniability must never become a substitute for accountability, but neither can the mere possibility of plausible deniability serve as proof of a conspiracy. For targeted individuals seeking answers, the strongest path forward remains transparent investigation, independently corroborated evidence, and meaningful oversight capable of establishing what actually happened, who was responsible, and whether any laws were violated.

  • A UK Legal Challenge Could Offer Lessons for Targeted Individuals in America

    A British advocacy effort involving people who identify as “targeted individuals” is seeking international scrutiny of allegations of organised harassment and electromagnetic abuse. In a circulated announcement, Justice4All says group applications were filed against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights on August 10, 2026, alleging government failures to disclose and regulate microwave weapons. For people who have struggled to have their complaints heard, the reported filing represents a potential avenue for seeking accountability. Its significance, however, must be measured carefully: submitting applications does not establish that the Court has declared them admissible or found the allegations credible. (echr.coe.int)

    The announcement also highlights a graphic describing a Metropolitan Police response of “neither confirm nor deny” to a freedom of information request concerning microwave devices and through-wall sensors. That language can frustrate people seeking clarity, but it does not establish that the alleged abuse occurred. A separate, documented 2024 Information Commissioner decision upheld the Home Office’s refusal to confirm or deny holding information about such devices on national security grounds. The decision concerned the government’s disclosure obligations; it did not find that individuals had been subjected to electromagnetic attacks or torture. Maintaining that distinction is essential to understanding what these proceedings can—and cannot—demonstrate. (ico.org.uk)

    Behind the dispute lies a legitimate public question: how can governments protect sensitive capabilities while ensuring that allegations of abuse receive meaningful examination? People reporting harassment, pain or unexplained injuries deserve respectful treatment, appropriate medical care and an impartial assessment of their complaints. Determining what caused those experiences requires reliable evidence, including documented incidents, independently assessed medical findings and technically sound measurements where relevant. Secrecy should be subject to lawful oversight, while allegations should be tested through a process capable of distinguishing substantiated misconduct from explanations the evidence does not support.

    For targeted individuals in the United States, the potential value of the British effort would largely be indirect. The United States is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and a judgment against the United Kingdom would not bind American courts or prove an American claimant’s allegations. Nevertheless, credible evidence or substantive findings emerging from the proceedings could inform American advocacy, research and public debate. A carefully documented case could also offer practical lessons about framing complaints, challenging secrecy and identifying the evidence needed for meaningful legal scrutiny. Any influence would depend on what the proceedings actually establish. (app.echr.coe.int, wsj.com)

    The reported applications are therefore worth following with both interest and discipline. Their importance will become clearer through official documentation, admissibility decisions and any eventual findings. For Americans seeking answers, the greatest contribution would be a verifiable record that lawyers, researchers and oversight bodies can evaluate independently. Whatever the outcome, the principle remains compelling: people deserve a fair hearing, serious allegations warrant careful examination, and accountability is strongest when transparency is paired with evidence.

  • House Hearing Set For MKULTRA

    Rep Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) recently posted on X that a House hearing on MKULTRA has officially been set for 05/13/2026.

    This will come as welcome news to targeted individuals who have for years contended that such programs never really ended, and that part of their targeting has to do with non consensual human experimentation, not very different from what occurred under MKULTRA

    It will be interesting to see how the 05/13 hearings play out but my bigger hope is that it acts as a door opener to more such hearings regarding classified ills of the past.

    Rep Luna should be commended for having the courage to touch a topic that most of her colleagues would not dare touch

  • Ray Of Sunlight For Targeted Individuals?


    “Classification should protect national security, not cover up illegal actions.” That single sentence, coming from a sitting member of Congress, carries more weight than it might seem at first glance. It is not merely a comment about UFOs or UAPs; it is a statement that cuts to the core of how power is supposed to function in a constitutional democracy. For individuals who believe they have been targeted, surveilled, or otherwise affected by undisclosed government programs—especially those funded through opaque “black budgets”—this kind of public acknowledgment can feel like a rare crack in an otherwise impenetrable wall. It signals that at least some within the system recognize the potential for abuse when secrecy becomes untethered from accountability.

    Historically, black budget programs have existed precisely to shield sensitive national security efforts from adversaries. That is their legitimate purpose. However, history also shows that secrecy, when left unchecked, can evolve into a mechanism not just for protection, but for concealment—of mistakes, overreach, and even outright violations of law. From covert surveillance programs later deemed unconstitutional to clandestine operations that sidestepped congressional oversight, there is a documented pattern: the more insulated a program is from scrutiny, the greater the risk that it drifts away from its stated mission. This is why the Congressman’s statement resonates beyond the specific context of UAP investigations. It reframes secrecy as a tool with limits, not an absolute shield.

    For those who believe they have been affected by classified programs, the statement offers something that has often been missing—validation of principle, if not yet of specific claims. It acknowledges that classification can be misused, and that misuse is not hypothetical but historically grounded. Even without confirming any individual case, the idea that secrecy should never be a refuge for illegality provides a foundation for legitimate inquiry. It suggests that questioning the scope and conduct of black budget programs is not inherently fringe or conspiratorial, but aligned with the responsibilities of democratic oversight.

    At a broader level, the existence of programs operating with “zero accountability” stands in direct tension with the basic structure of a free society. Democracies depend on informed consent of the governed, which in turn requires transparency—or at least the possibility of it. While not every detail of national security can be public, there must be mechanisms through which elected representatives, courts, or independent watchdogs can evaluate whether those programs adhere to the law. When programs are so deeply classified that even meaningful oversight becomes impossible, they effectively exist outside the constitutional framework. That is not a technical flaw; it is a structural contradiction.

    The danger is not only theoretical. If a program can operate indefinitely without oversight, it can develop its own internal logic, priorities, and justifications, detached from the public interest. In such an environment, individuals could be affected—directly or indirectly—without recourse, without explanation, and without the ability to challenge what is being done. Whether one believes specific claims of targeting or not, the underlying concern is valid: systems that lack transparency and accountability create conditions where abuse can occur and persist. That is precisely why democratic societies place such emphasis on checks and balances.

    The Congressman’s statement also implicitly challenges a cultural tendency within government institutions to equate secrecy with necessity. Not everything that is classified is essential to national security; sometimes it is simply inconvenient to disclose. By drawing a line between protection and concealment, the statement invites a reevaluation of what should remain hidden and why. It suggests that classification should be narrowly tailored and rigorously justified, not broadly applied as a default. For those concerned about black budget programs, this is a crucial distinction, because it opens the door to the idea that some currently hidden activities may not meet that standard.

    In this sense, the statement serves as a kind of institutional acknowledgment that reform is both possible and necessary. It does not dismantle secrecy, nor does it deny the need for it, but it insists that secrecy must coexist with accountability. That balance is what separates a functioning democracy from a system where power operates unchecked. For individuals seeking answers about programs they believe have affected them, this perspective offers a path forward—not necessarily immediate disclosure, but the possibility of oversight, investigation, and, ultimately, truth.

    What makes this moment significant is not that it resolves long-standing concerns, but that it reframes them. It shifts the conversation from whether such programs exist or whether individuals are justified in questioning them, to whether the principles of governance are being upheld. In doing so, it provides a measure of legitimacy to calls for transparency and accountability. Even if the road to full disclosure is long and uncertain, the acknowledgment that classification should never be used to hide illegality is a meaningful step. It is, in a very real sense, a ray of sunlight—small, perhaps, but powerful enough to illuminate the edges of a system that has operated in the dark for far too long.

  • Havana Syndrome Goes Mainstream

    Television show on Prime Video had its first episode of its first season based on Havana Syndrome and directed energy weapons

    Clearly shows that the topic has over from the “conspiracy theory” realm into a real national security threat discussion.

    Importantly, the attacks happen on regular civilians working at an office that handles sensitive government contracts. The narrative from the government has always been that the attacks are only aimed at government officials in the intelligence community.

    The show however depicts rogue South American actors attacking a private company in the United States

    Hopefully this will lead to some concrete action from Congress regarding the real threat these weapons pose, and importantly how these new weapons also threaten regular civilians

  • Income Tax Drama

    2025 income tax refund is finally here, and yay, it’s a lot of $$ this time, quite a decent amount.

    But guess what—you knew there had to be a but😂🙄—the IRS deducted $3500, yeah you read that right, deducted $3500 and gave it to my baby mama even though I’ve had the two kids since late 2023

    They did the SAME thing with the previous tax return. I wrote about it here but the website got shut down by malware shortly thereafter. Weird huh?🙄

    Think about that for a second. A targeted individual is someone the Feds follow everywhere, everyday, every hour but somehow, the IRS “doesn’t know” that he has had the kids since 2023? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale😂

    Moral of the story is they are constantly STEALING from TIs, yes I said that, stealing. They deliberately do that knowing you will NOT recoup the entire $3500–your earned, rightful money. You may get some back, but not the entire $3500. And then after that they start getting after the rest of your stash—chip away at it slowly by slowly. The $3500 is just the start.🤔

    Remember the goal is to keep the TI living paycheck to paycheck with zero financial cushion. That’s their sweet spot. Stay tuned

    The $3500 was supposed to be sent out by IRS on Monday 03/09/26, but as of today, Friday 03/13/26 she has NOT seen any of it. Now whether that’s true or not, there’s no way for me to verify, but you get the point. This is a targeted individual’s hard earned money which so far looks like will just get STOLEN from him, or even if he gets it, it will NOT be the full amount.

    You’ve heard about TIs complaining about government criminals and their minions STEALING from them. Well, here’s your slam dunk example. We’ll give them a little more time—one more week—but, not looking good🤷‍♀️

    **Update On Income Tax Drama 032526**

    So as of Wednesday 03/26/26 Baby Mama says she STILL has not received the money IRS took from me and sent to Texas on 03/09/26🙄. She says she called Austin (child support office) and was told that the IRS stood on business and sent the money to them on 03/09/26–exactly as it says on my IRS account. 

    According to her, the folks in Austin told her it will take 4-8 WEEKS before the money hits her bank. No, I didn’t stutter, not 4-8 days, 4-8 WEEKS. 

    Now, let’s analyze this situation for a second. This is not the first time IRS has sent my tax refund to Austin. They did so with the 2024 tax refund too. In that case, according to my IRS account, the deducted funds were sent to Austin on 03/10/25. Baby Mama had the $$ on 03/12/25. Nobody said anything about 4-8 WEEKS for processing🤔

    And even putting that aside. What would be the point of taking money from somebody’s tax refund and then just have it sit at the AG’s office in Austin? Shouldn’t they be moving heaven and earth to make sure the “custodial parent” get some much needed financial relief?🤔

    Aaahaa!! Therein lies your answer. It was never about that. It was ALWAYS about robbing the TI. Crooked Ken Paxton’s office took money from a TI they had no business taking, and now they are just sitting on it in Austin

    Just goes to show you folks, TIs are not as 🦇 💩 crazy as they would have you believe. When you analyze this stuff closely, the targeting is all out there for you to see🤔

    Stay tuned. I’ll keep you posted as this drama plays out

    **Update on income tax drama on tax day 041526**

    So on Wednesday 041526—tax day—I decided to inquire into the missing $3,500 that IRS took from my refund. I have an online IRS account that I check regularly for notices, but they never put the notice there. Most likely they mailed it to an old address🙄

    So on 041526 I actually called the IRS inquiring about this $3,500 deduction and came out with some, let’s just say, interesting discovery. The IRS folks directed me to the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS), and gave me a number to call for details about the $3,500. The actual figure is $3,521.

    So I called BFS and was pleasantly surprised to find out that it’s actually a straightforward process. You don’t even need to speak to a live person. You just call the number, it asks for your social and other identifying info and all the information is available via voice prompts—“press 1 for details of the debt” etc.

    So I followed through with the voice prompts and found out that the $3,521 was sent to two agencies—The Louisiana Department of Revenue (basically Louisiana’s IRS) and, you guessed it, the Texas Attorney Genenal’s Office(child support). Roughly two thirds went to Texas AG’s office and a third to Louisiana

    Now, the Louisiana debt is a legit debt from before 2020–I want to say 2018 or 2019. I had taken a refinery job in Louisiana but when the tax filing season came, I just filed my federal taxes and did not file the Louisiana state taxes as was required. I remember them sending me notices to my Texas address for some $500 that I owed the state. My assumption was that they would just take that $500 from any subsequent income tax that I filed, but apparently they never did so until 2026, some 7-8 years later. Kinda weird, but hey. The amount they took was also way more than $500, which I’m assuming is late charges plus collection fees.🙄

    So because Louisiana was actually a legit debt, I never called them to inquire about the amount they took. Seemed a little high to me, plus a little out of the blue (could have collected long ago, especially during the COVID cash boom😂) but hey, it is what it is.

    So that leaves us with MAGA corrupt Texas AG’s office, who got the large chunk of the $3521 and like I said earlier, has ZERO claim on the money. None. They KNOW the children have lived with their dad in NY for two plus years but STILL conspires to STEAL his income tax refund every tax season. Yeah, you heard that right, I didn’t stutter—conspire to STEAL a targeted individual’s tax refund—a CRIME

    Luckily, this is an issue that targeted individuals have raised for years, and is now catching steam even with some members of Congress—-these, so called “covert operations” that are basically organized crimes that serve no national security purposes. I wrote about this in a previous post. Make no mistake about it, theft is the “covert operation” in this case. But it’s classified, so you can’t do anything about it. Total travesty that has nothing to do with national security.

    But anyway, this is the story I got on 041526 from the Texas AG’s office. The money that—according to Baby Mama—was still being held by the Texas AG’s office for some 4-8 weeks WAS ALREADY PAID OUT on 03/10/26. You read that right. A TI is being fed all these stories while his money was already stolen a long time ago. Now you see what I mean when I say CONSPIRE TO STEAL. It’s not just some arbitrary term I’m throwing out there, it’s exactly that.

    But stay tuned, this might be a great opportunity to raise this classified crimes issue in a Texas court. I’m working on it. I also have to make sure the crooks don’t steal my next tax refund too, so court action may be inevitable.🤔 Stay tuned.

  • Major Milestone in the Havana Syndrome Debate

    Havana Syndrome has once again surged back into the national conversation following a bombshell investigation by 60 Minutes that explored the possibility that a portable microwave or directed-energy device could produce symptoms consistent with those reported by victims of the mysterious condition. The report described how investigators obtained and examined a suspected microwave-emitting device believed to be capable of delivering pulsed electromagnetic energy from a relatively compact platform—potentially small enough to be concealed in a backpack. For years, critics of the directed-energy hypothesis mocked what they called the “ray gun theory,” arguing that any device capable of producing such effects would necessarily be large, complex, and difficult to deploy covertly. The idea that such technology might exist in a portable form therefore represents a striking development in a debate that has simmered for nearly a decade.

    The phenomenon known as Havana Syndrome first entered public awareness in 2016, when U.S. diplomats stationed in Cuba reported sudden neurological symptoms that included severe headaches, dizziness, cognitive difficulties, and hearing disturbances. Over time, additional cases were reported among intelligence officers and military personnel stationed in multiple countries. These incidents triggered investigations by several U.S. agencies and eventually drew the attention of lawmakers in United States Congress, who held hearings focused on the health impacts experienced by affected government employees. Although the precise cause of the condition remains unresolved, the possibility that some cases could involve directed energy has never been fully ruled out.

    What makes the latest reporting so consequential is not simply the discussion of a suspected portable microwave device. It is the way the report implicitly challenges long-standing assumptions about what technologies may be feasible in the real world. For years, skeptics insisted that directed-energy attacks on individuals were implausible because the equipment required would be too bulky to deploy discreetly. Yet the notion that investigators have studied a compact system capable of emitting pulsed microwave energy undermines the certainty with which those claims were made. Even if the device ultimately proves unrelated to the Havana Syndrome incidents, the mere existence of such technology suggests the debate is far from settled.

    This renewed attention also raises an uncomfortable question that has hovered over the Havana Syndrome discussion for years: why has the conversation been limited almost entirely to government personnel when civilians have reported similar experiences for decades? The official narrative has largely centered on diplomats, intelligence officers, and military personnel. Their cases have understandably received serious attention, medical evaluations, and congressional oversight. Yet outside government circles there exists a large group of civilians who claim they have experienced symptoms or incidents they believe involve similar technologies. These individuals are commonly referred to as “targeted individuals,” and their claims have historically been dismissed outright by many officials and commentators.

    The disparity in how these two groups are treated deserves scrutiny. When government employees report sudden neurological symptoms that cannot easily be explained, the response is immediate and serious. Investigations are launched, intelligence assessments are produced, and hearings are convened on Capitol Hill. When civilians report similar experiences, however, they are often ignored or portrayed as delusional without any meaningful investigation. This double standard is difficult to justify, particularly now that the possibility of portable directed-energy devices has again entered the mainstream discussion.

    One argument frequently made against considering civilian claims is that there is no verified evidence linking those reports to the same phenomenon described in the diplomatic cases. Yet that argument overlooks a fundamental point: evidence cannot be gathered if the claims themselves are never seriously examined. The early Havana Syndrome cases among diplomats were initially dismissed as well. Only after multiple reports accumulated did the issue receive sustained attention from the U.S. government. If similar patterns were occurring among civilians, they might never be detected precisely because those reports are excluded from the investigative framework.

    There is also historical context worth remembering. Research into microwave and directed-energy effects on the human body has existed for decades. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union studied electromagnetic radiation and its potential biological impacts. In the early 2000s, the U.S. military explored concepts such as the MEDUSA project, which investigated the so-called microwave auditory effect—an interaction in which microwave pulses can produce auditory sensations in the human brain. The existence of such research does not prove that operational weapons have been deployed against individuals. However, it demonstrates that the scientific principles behind directed-energy interactions with human physiology are not imaginary.

    That history is precisely why the broader debate should not be artificially restricted to a single category of victims. If governments have studied these technologies for decades, and if investigators are now examining portable microwave devices capable of producing neurological effects, then the question of who might be affected becomes more complex than previously acknowledged. It is entirely possible that some civilian reports are unrelated to Havana Syndrome. But it is equally possible that a subset of those reports could contain information relevant to understanding the phenomenon.

    Another reason civilians deserve attention is that patterns sometimes emerge only when data from many sources are examined together. Intelligence analysis often depends on connecting scattered pieces of information that initially appear unrelated. If investigators limit themselves to cases involving government personnel, they risk overlooking broader trends that could provide clues about the underlying cause. Expanding the scope of inquiry to include civilian reports would not automatically validate those claims, but it would allow researchers to evaluate them systematically rather than dismissing them outright.

    As the new reporting from 60 Minutes fuels renewed debate about directed-energy technologies and Havana Syndrome, pressure is likely to mount for additional hearings in United States Congress. If lawmakers do revisit the issue, they will face an important choice. They can continue focusing exclusively on incidents involving diplomats and intelligence officers, or they can broaden the conversation to include testimony from civilians who believe they have experienced similar phenomena. Including such voices would not mean endorsing every claim. It would simply recognize that understanding an unresolved scientific and national security mystery requires examining all available information.

    The Havana Syndrome story has evolved repeatedly since it first emerged nearly a decade ago. Each new report, study, or investigation has shifted the boundaries of what experts consider possible. The latest revelations about a suspected portable microwave device may prove to be another turning point. If so, the next phase of the debate should not only examine the technology itself but also reconsider who is allowed to participate in the conversation. A mystery of this magnitude cannot be fully understood if entire categories of potential witnesses are excluded before their accounts are even heard.

  • Income Tax Season 2026–An Important Milestone

    For those of you who have not kept up with the saga, I arrived in NYC from Houston Texas in early January 2024 and surprise surprise, ended up in a single men shelter in Brooklyn. My kids joined me in the Summer of 2024, so I was transferred to a family shelter in Queens. 

    In late September 2024 a housing voucher was requested for me, which was supposed to get me housing right around December 2024, but as we now know, stretched out all the way to November 2025. 🙄Yeah, that was so ridiculous, I had to file a lawsuit in federal court about it—details of that later.

    Anyway, sometime in November, I secured a two bedroom apartment in Jamaica Queens—a very nice apartment building—zero complaints so far. So me and my family ended 2025 at our new spot and ushered in the new year there

    On 02/01/26 I filed my 2025 federal income taxes and to my pleasant surprise, I’m looking at quite a “healthy” refund—I’m talking COVID era good tax refund—5 figure amount 😳which should be hitting the bank very soon, probably even before March.

    Why is that important? It marks an important milestone for me and my family because in many ways this is my official arrival in NYC, now that we have a permanent residence. The healthy tax refund also gives me a lot of flexibility in terms of where I want to work next. I could even take a month off and look for something more suitable and hopefully paying MORE🤔. I already have a security guard license on the way which should give me more flexibility. Simply put 2026 already looks like it’s going to be a very good year.

    However however however, that would be the case for a “normal” person—an opportunity to kick back and relax. For a targeted individual, it’s the complete opposite because history has shown me that THAT’s when the crooks crank up their operation to STEAL the financial cushion. They ALWAYS want you living paycheck to paycheck🤔

    So while I’m super excited about the 5-figure tax refund headed my way, I also know that I will really have to crank it up in terms of job earnings. I know enough to expect A LOT of manufactured drama, all aimed at depleting my stash😂🤦‍♀️

    As a matter of fact, the post right before this—“Stuck In A Deli”—where I was talking about being unable to use my debit card at the deli or even withdraw from an ATM, guess what bank account my income tax refund is scheduled to be deposited into? That SAME account. 🙄I’ve used it with zero problems throughout 2025 but now as IRS is getting ready to make a deposit, we have “problems”. Even more troubling, the SAME thing with the SAME bank account happened in early February 2025, RIGHT AFTER I filed my 2024 taxes. I remember they put me through some “verification process” that lasted several days. 🙄 Can’t make this stuff up, folks

    So like I said, expect A LOT of drama in 2026. I’ll be sure keep you posted so you know how the game goes—how they keep TIs poor.