My Own Personal Surveillance Man

Cam3.20130912.102415

 

I was able to get another picture of my own personal surveillance man tonight. As I wrote previously, I was paid a “visit” at my house in the mountains. Radio antenna and laptop in hand, this man was either checking signals (on the rear of the second story) at my house or aligning listening cameras. If the government thinks that I am important enough to monitor, they must be desperate.

David DeGerolamo

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Domestic Enemies, Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to My Own Personal Surveillance Man

  1. Wirecutter says:

    Well, it looks like your assumptions were correct as far as what he was carrying. Now it’s all about finding out who and why.

  2. Bob says:

    Time to sweep your place for listening devices and cameras. Start a scatter plot chart to see if by some stroke of luck you can pattern his movements and be there to confront him next time he shows up. Although it may not do any good show the pictures to the local sheriff, maybe they have seen the guy around and noticed what he was driving. Any neighbors close enough to notice anything, get plate numbers, vehicle description, anybody else with him? Good luck.

  3. Harpo Marx says:

    I think he’s casing your place. The guy is a threat. Too bad he only shows up when no one is at home. Wonder if it is time to camp out for a few days and catch him in the process of trespassing? Might be interesting for him to be held at gun point for as long as it takes the local police to arrive and arrest him for trespassing. Wonder if he would mess his pants?

  4. John Chambers says:

    He could be from a cell phone company or a WiFi club trying to measure reception. If his purpose was nefarious he would be unlikely to knock on your door as stated in your previous post about this. For all we know he could have been trying to make contact with you to let you know what he was attempting.

    • David says:

      Based on the terrain and remote location, anyone from the cell phone company would stay on the road in front of the house which is above the house to measure the signal. There is no Wi-Fi club in this area. If there was, someone in the area would know him. I sent the pictures out to neighbors for identification prior to posting the article and no one knew him. The county that I live has 53 people per square mile and we are not in the populated area. I would estimate 30 people per square mile. Everyone knows everyone.

  5. John Chambers says:

    If you’re concerned about this have you considered posting “No Trespassing” signs? If those are up and he comes back you can have him charged.

    Radio signals are peculiar because they reflect so much. You can be at a particular elevation and get service, go up 50′ and get no service, and then go up another 50′ and get service again. For a cellular test you don’t want to be at the optimal location like the road you describe, you’re looking for where the service breaks.

    In the previous post you state “This location of the alignment is the only part of the house where it would be practical for monitoring due to the terrain. Also, the monitoring point is across a valley two miles away but conveniently across state lines.” If that monitoring point is where a hypothetical antenna lies would you know the people around it? Many WiFi clubs are rogue but innocuous so you may not know about them. He could also be from a TV or radio station.

    I see little reason for the government to be interested in you, particularly at the risk of sending an operative in broad daylight into an area that is well-armed and values privacy. There’s a lot of like-minded folks in your locality and state including in the government so I doubt either of those levels of government would want to surveil you. The federal government generally won’t care about typical bloggers, even those with a decent readership like yourself, unless they are suspected of federal crimes like threatening the physical safety of a federal official. The risk of scandal over trivialities (from the government’s perspective) like ideological banter is not worth it. I don’t see how the government would view you as a threat. I doubt you are even a blip on the radar when the government (more specifically the FBI or ATF) is monitoring Middle Eastern foreign nationals and others who it perceives as actually threatening. Unless you make credible threats of destruction like ALF, ELF, or Army of God the government likely doesn’t care about you.

    • Harpo Marx says:

      Or possibly selling raw milk to people who are aware of both the benefits and risks associated with drinking raw milk. A farmer recently was arrested by the FDA for doing just that. Or possibly a guy out walking with his son in the woods, accosted, disarmed and arrested for being a scary person. Or a group of people mining in Alaska who are set upon by armed EPA and boarder patrol types.

      20 years ago I would agree with your statement. Today? Not so much.

  6. John Chambers says:

    Harpo -- Do any of your examples involve covert surveillance of the type David describes? In any event, your first and third examples involve potential crimes. You may disagree with the statutes but that doesn’t change the fact that they were crimes. I don’t see how the EPA did anything wrong with the mining company when they were suspected of environmental crime. Any time a company is suspected of crime the authorities will likely go in armed.

    The second example, which I assume is about Christopher Grisham, is nothing. We may not like it but police do have the authority to require you to temporarily disarm in situations like that. If the police order you to drop weapons you are legally obligated to do so regardless of weapon permits, carry laws, or your interpretation of the legality of police motive.

  7. Harpo Marx says:

    John, so what next? Armed OSHA raids for things like bad paperwork or missing light curtains on equipment? There is a significant difference between civil law (OSHA, EPA, etc) and criminal law. There is a significant problem when paper pushers (civil law) don uniforms, arm themselves and go on raids. They seem to want to play GI Joe or something along those lines. Slippery slope for all involved.

  8. John Chambers says:

    Harpo -- I agree, there is a significant difference between civil law and criminal law but the EPA was acting under criminal law, not civil law. The suspected violations were under section 404 of the Clean Water Act which provides criminal penalties:

    (A) Any person who willfully or negligently violates any condition or limitation in a permit issued by the Secretary under this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both. If the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall be by fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both.

    This was nothing like a restaurant inspection or the examples you provide which generally fall under administrative, not civil, law, until the violations reach a certain threshold when they might become criminal.

    You may disagree that environmental crimes should exist but the fact of the matter is that since this was a criminal matter the EPA followed procedure by having their armed officers, who have full law enforcement training and authority, perform the task. This was not a case of desk people playing Rambo.

    • Harpo Marx says:

      Yes, John, and the guy whips out his ticket book after gathering evidence and writes the ticket. Absolutely no reason to go in there armed to the teeth and behaving like they were in Iraq making a raid on a Shiite stronghold.

      John, I grew up before there was an EPA and I know under whose administration it was signed into law. Trust me, having an EPA made things much better than they were before. Having EPA militarized is a really bad idea. I’m thinking that militarizing the police was an incredibly bad idea. Ever read about raids on the wrong house by cops? Family pets gunned down and in some cases the people in the house were gunned down. OOOPS sorry about killing everyone in the house, but we got the wrong address.
      Sorry doesn’t cut it and you’re supporting what is wrong with our government today.

      Nice try though.

  9. Eric Dailey says:

    If this picture is from a different visit than the earlier post why is the guy wearing the same clothes?

    • David says:

      This is another picture of the man from the same visit. I did not have access to all of the pictures until I went back to the house. The date and time stamps confirm that this is all one visit.

  10. John Chambers says:

    Harpo since the EPA officers were investigating criminal activity it was SOP to go in armed. This was not a summary offense (AKA citation) like a parking ticket or even a misdemeanor. We’re dealing with Federal felonies involving prison sentences greater than one year. Suspects are far more prone to violence in that situation. The EPA officers probably would have been disciplined for not going armed. Can you imagine the scandal if the miners, in a state where firearms flow freely, shot an unarmed investigator who had not been allowed to protect himself?

    Do you really think the police should go into dangerous situations, where potential suspects can legally carry assault rifles, armed with just handguns and no body armor? It’s ludicrous.

    I don’t see what the big deal is about the armaments the police carry. As long as they don’t use the armaments illegally then no harm, no foul.

    I really can’t believe that in a state where citizens may open carry assault rifles there is such a stink when the police do the same. These smears of police “militarization” are quite odd when citizens are allowed to do exactly that.

  11. Harpo Marx says:

    John, suggest doing a google search on EPA armed raids. According to you these must be fairly common. Given that the state of Alaska and the feds in the House and Senate are investigating this outrage makes me believe that this is a rather unusual event. Nice try though.

    As to the police carrying weapons? Sure, they can carry weapons, but if they break down the door to the wrong house then everyone involved in that raid gets charged. Might cut down a little on the over the top raids the cops seem do be doing on an ever increasing rate. How easy it to verify an address? Easier than going to prison for being an out of control peace officer.

    I grin when I see GI Joe wanna-bes out there. You know, the ones who have a BMI that makes them ineligible for any military service, but yet, there they are dressed up like they are making a raid into a Shiite stronghold. Bet they couldn’t run 100 yds without passing out from exhaustion.
    Thought you used only enough force to get the job done and only rolled out the heavy artillery when it was absolutely needed (i.e. armed hostage situations), not when serving warrants.

    Perhaps, a return to the officer Friendly days might improve police -- civilian relationships.

    What is happening to Dave is wrong on all fronts if that guy is with any branch of the government.

    I once worked with a Mesquite, Tx reserve police officer who bragged about giving a hippy a roadside tuneup. Asked him what he accomplished by doing that and since he went silent, I filled in the blanks. He created hatred for all police when he did that. Everyone in the van that witnessed the tuneup, if they didn’t hate police before then they hated them after witnessing a cop give a roadside beating to a smart mouth.

  12. John Chambers says:

    Harpo I’m actually in agreement with everything past your first paragraph. I do think the raids of the type you describe need to be toned down and I do think wistfully of a friendlier police force. I would argue these behaviors are mostly an effect of the War On Drugs which I wish would end. The police often have to conduct lightning raids to prevent the disposal of contraband and stop suspects from grabbing their guns. I don’t think that’s what happened at the Chicken, AK mine. From what I’ve read the EPA police merely carried sidearms and there is no mention of guns drawn. In other words, not that different from a typical police officer save for the body armor. If they went in guns drawn I would have a problem with that. I suspect the real outrage from the Alaskan government and certain Congresspeople is just the fact that the EPA have law enforcement officers reporting to them.

    For now the inquiries (I wouldn’t go so far as to call them investigations) appear politically motivated by those ideologically opposed to environmental protection. I don’t put much stock in them.

    Although I agree with your statement about David I highly doubt that fellow is connected to the government. To the government David is not a fish in the pond, he’s plankton, not even visible. If however, surveillance did occur, it should prove to be a major scandal unless David is being investigated for criminal charges and the proper warrants are in place.

    • David says:

      Seriously? You are now intimately that I am being investigated for criminal charges? I have already stated that if the government is coming after me, they must be desperate. I don’t want to be a fish in any pond. Not even a big fish in a small pond.

      It has been almost three weeks and the only clue that I have received is that it is a man checking “broad ban” in my neighborhood. But no name or company would be given. If and when I find out the truth, I will post it.

      I feel the same way as when I stated that the IRS had targeted me in 2010. After a year of hell, at least I won by taking them to court.

      • Harpo Marx says:

        When I was in the military (eons ago when F4 Phantoms were still used on a regular basis) I noticed a peculiar trait amongst senior NCOs and officers. When a junior enlisted guy walked on punishment they would try to find anything to nail him on (uniform rules, haircut, attitude, etc). This seems to be the modus operandi for them, even if the junior enlisted was innocent during the first round. This may be retaliation for the IRS getting body slammed. They are literally looking for anything and everything.

        I don’t trust the government and doubt many over here do either.

  13. John Chambers says:

    David: I never intimated any such thing. I merely provided a scenario where you could be legally surveiled. I don’t think that you are under any investigation.

  14. John Chambers says:

    Harpo: When I was in the military I saw the same crap going on. I’ve also seen it to a lesser extent with law enforcement and citizens they don’t like. Those are much different power structures than the relationship between the IRS and taxpayers and the IRS has too much to lose behaving in that manner. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just extremely unlikely.

    > This may be retaliation for the IRS getting body slammed.

    You are rationalizing. You want a conspiracy theory to be true so badly to fit your world view you look for anything and everything to make it true. You have zero evidence and are simply projecting your mistrust of the government as well as taking comfort in the groupthink of other posters here.

    Here’s the “logic”:
    Unknown guy with antenna shows up.
    Two years earlier, tax court victory.
    Therefore, government conspiracy to retaliate.

    It just doesn’t work.

    • Harpo Marx says:

      Hmmm. John, glad you seem to know the inner thought processes I use. I’ve witnessed vengeance on the part of government stooges before. It isn’t something I would put past them and you call it conspiratorial for me to do that? I call it survival. I didn’t say it was fact either. It was an IT MIGHT BE which is significantly different than saying IT IS.

      You go out to your car in the morning and find a large hole in your windshield that wasn’t there last night when you parked your car. You see a large hole in your car seat with the edges charred and a hole in the floorboard of your car. It could be a meteorite. It could be a cannon ball fired from a muzzle loading cannon. It could be a pipe bomb. It could be a lot of things. Until you investigate you are only making guesses and the more you investigate the more you learn about what damaged your car. Did you hear a loud BOOOOOM last night? If the answer is no, then it most likely wasn’t due to either a pipe bomb or a muzzle loading cannon. That puts it into the realm of it being a meteorite, as rare as that might be. Even then you’ve got to continue the investigation.

      So unless you’ve got some additional facts all you’re doing is a big what if. Like you said, it just doesn’t work. You’ve grown tiresome.

      • Gary says:

        The man in this picture is a local guy who provides internet services; and David should know who this man and what he was doing on his property because he specifically asked this man to come to his house a couple of months ago to check for internet availability.

        If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what Dean has said (as I personally know this man), you will understand my confusion as to why David has purposely chosen to falsely portray and label this guy as a “government agent”. on the internet Blogs. David did not provide verifiable proof for his statement that this man is in fact a government agent in his blog. This strikes a real chord with me, as I too, have been victimized by false and unproven information. I confess that the only logical explanation for this situation that I arrive at is that David may have forgotten that he asked this man to come to his house. However, even is this is true (he forgot), then why label this (or any individual for that matter) as a “government agent” without “verifiable and undeniable proof” for this bold face statement. This poor innocent guy who was “invited” to be where he was photographed has been falsely labeled. I don’t think that you would appreciate that being done to you, I didn’t.

        Given those whom may have insight into and understand David, perhaps you can clarify and help me to understand, why he would openly post this information in his blog knowing that the information contained therein has not been verified as the “total truth” (and in fact, is a total lie).

        In my opinion, this scenario is very similar to what I constantly hear from those who harbor mistrust for the government — the government misinforms its citizens with unproven and false information. Well, so does this. Moreover, this unverifiable and unproven information (and probably 100% false information) only serves to grossly and purposely misinform all who read it. Moreover, this faulty data serves to inappropriately manipulate, control and inflame the emotionalism of those who read the information as they’re typically already bring a distrust about the government. If you will read some of the responses to this blog, you will see that my assumptions were confirmed long before I this communication with you.

        Does anybody in this world really care about the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth anymore?????????
        We live in a scary world! Am I paranoid to think that my picture (or yours for that matter) could be next with who know what false STORY attached for all to read????????????????????????????????

Comments are closed.