Dear :

In the past few months, I have written you concerning
the unique problems in applying current criminal laws
to the new breed of electronic surveillance and
neuro-influence weapons.  These weapons leave no trace,
and if applied in short bursts and when no witnesses
are present, are, under present law, the perfect crime.

Perpetrators using this weaponry can harrass and
torment a chosen vengeance or recreational victim for
years and never come even close to prosecution.

I have been the target of both surveillance and
acoustic weaponry for the past couple of years, and 
I can't even go for a walk in the woods without having
unknown persons follow me with weird shrieks and 
whistles originating from the acoustic weapon known
as an "acoustic heterodyne", currently manufactured
by American Technology Corp. in Poway, CA.

(This technology was used by military intelligence
during the Persian Gulf War.)

When I complain to police and police visit my premises,
the activity (naturally) ceases and they say they can't
help due to lack of evidence.

In response to this late-90s situation, I'd like to 
offer some suggestions to both legislators and to the
police as to how to deal with this new and growing
threat to peace and privacy.

1.  The cornerstone of civilized justice is presumed
    innocence;  that can't be changed.

2.  Day-to-day POLICY, both legislative and at the
    law enforcement level, CAN be changed, however.

    The 1990s have seen policies put in place which
    now make it mandatory to believe victims of
    domestic abuse and stalking.  I suggest this
    same policy be extended to those who claim
    they are being stalked and harassed by electronic
    surveillance and neuro-influence weapons.

    It is extremely important that WRITTEN
    policies plainly spell this out.  Verbal won't
    help when someone enters a police station with
    a complaint of this type.

    (The Jan. 22/98 article from Nature magazine,
    which I sent you not long ago, will remove any
    doubt that such weapons are feasible with
    current UNclassified technology.  I can furnish
    you with other unclassified electronic weapon
    articles if you wish further confirmation.)

3.  Police agency policy must make the gathering 
    of evidence by police, not the victim, an
    obligation of police agencies.  This too must
    be IN WRITING.

    In the matter of sophisticated surveillance
    and neuro-influence weapons, there is no 
    possible way an ordinary working citizen 
    can pay for their own evidence collection.

4.  Because the cost of evidence collection is
    high, the forensic lab agencies at both the
    federal and provincial levels must be equipped
    with their own test equipment.  Since this
    type of case is not likely to be continuously
    reported at this time, the contracting of
    e-weapons detection experts would be done at
    the times of specific need.

    All police agencies should be able to request
    the services of these equipment and expertise
    "depots" AT NO COST TO THEIR
    LOCAL BUDGETS.  This "no cost" suggestion is
    ESSENTIAL to ensure the willingness of busy
    local police, snowed under by drug cases
    and robberies, etc.

    It will be federal and provincial taxes 
    which will fund these e-weapon detection
    units, not local governments.

5.  Nobody, in any line of work, likes to have
    nearly impossible assignments "open" on their
    desks for long periods of time.

    This type of case is VERY likely to be of
    the open-for-lengthy-periods type.

    In light of this, policy should require the
    complainant to renew their complaint every
    six months in order to keep the matter open.

    The complainant should be able to freely
    add relevant information to their file, 
    by transmitting or delivering to their 
    local police station.  In my case, any
    material I have submitted is returned,
    politely, but with the statement
    "I'm too busy to read that."

    The officers who are assigned such 
    cases must be allowed the time to
    read or view the evidence submitted,
    and secure storage space to keep it.
    This too must be IN WRITING.

6.  There will be, no doubt, cases where the
    complainant is not satisfied with the 
    actions taken by their police agency.

    In such cases, the policies of all of the
    Police Civilian Review Boards must make
    their services freely available to the
    complainants, and in such a way that the
    complainant does not fear additional prob-
    lems coming from local police authorities.

I'd like to suggest that all of the above points
can be easily added to EXISTING boards and agencies
with no fear of political cost.  All I'm suggesting
is the ENHANCEMENT of existing policies and lab
facilities, not the creation of entirely new agencies.

If such legislative and policy changes attract the
attention of the media and public, such changes will
very clearly paint the legislators and administrators
carrying out the changes as highly forward-looking.

Remember that enough of the surveillance and neuro-
influence technology has now been made public that
no politician now need fear for their credibility.

The cost is not particularly high - the equipment
needed to cover both radio frequency and acoustic
(ultrasound) detection might run $350,000 CDN for 
a federal and/or each provincial lab.  That is far
beyond what the victim can pay, but is not a large
percentage of federal and provincial budgets.

One modern bus or street car can run close to that
price.

I sincerely hope you will seriously consider taking
part in preparing for this relatively new type of
crime, and I stand ready to furnish detailed infor-
mation on the weapons technology already in the
public domain.

Sincerely,