I've inferred that somehow I'm being investigated as part of the 2013
   Santa Monica College mass shooting which has taken a suspiciously long
   time to issue a report regarding (typically it appears to take a year
   or less). I've been subjected to police harassment before and after
   that point though. For legal reasons I can't explain further. Yes,
   exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
   Fortunately systems are incapable of treating people as individuals, so
   there must be others. Obviously the claims of "gangstalking" are nuts.
   But there is the Rancid Honeytrap. [1]http://i.imgur.com/19i7ik1.png
   Who for some reason is being trolled by Wikileaks? And Greenwald seems
   to be fine with people trolling
   him? [2]https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-friends-of-glenn/
   Perhaps there is now probable cause for a reasonable person to conclude
   that there's the potential of a pattern of government misconduct
   waiting to be uncovered.
   I made every reasonable effort to contact various advocacy / legal aid
   organizations when I felt I had enough evidence to merit some help and
   they have rejected me (I've sent large envelopes to them of multiple
   pages). I have made anonymous letters to various journalists hoping
   they would attempt to investigate a possible pattern of misconduct but
   I have seen no evidence that they have done it yet. I do not plan on
   acknowledging those anonymous letters as they were made a while ago, my
   memory isn't so great, and they could have been intercepted and
   modified in transit (especially since I didn't sign them).
   Now I'm going to shift to a rather benevolent interpretation of public
   events.
   Dianne Feinstein condemns Hoover, but the times were much more
   ambiguous in the Cold War, the commies were funding and supporting
   radicals, and there was a greater quantity of Progressive terrorism
   then than Islamic terrorism today (although the quality seems to be
   different since people are more afraid of Islamic terrorism). Director
   Comey condemns Hoover. Senator Wyden asked Clapper a question in
   public, under oath, and Clapper lied. Wyden is on the Senate's
   oversight committee over Clapper and Clapper still has his job. Lying
   to Congress is obviously an impeachable offense (unless Congress wants
   people to be employed by the taxpayers who lie to Congress).
   Clearly all these people are under duress, if their public statements
   are to taken as sincere expressions of opinion. Only legally allowed
   explanation I can give.
   An employee of the ACLU says: Over the past three years, it has become
   clear that the government often performs legal acrobatics in order to
   justify surveillance that was never authorized by Congress in the first
   place. Such acrobatics appear to extend to the NSA’s “Upstream
   surveillance,” which it operates under Section 702.
   ( [3]https://www.justsecurity.org/29161/questions-congress-section-702/
   )
   Perhaps Neema Singh Guliani is simply not representing the ACLU
   properly, afterall the ACLU sued the government over FISA on the
   grounds it would intercept privileged communications.
   ( [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_Intelligence_Su
   rveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008&oldid=701038090#ACLU_Laws
   uit ). The same law granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications
   companies, authorizing their complicity in warrantless wiretapping. But
   then again, the ACLU isn't simply a legal aid organization, Ben Wizner
   is acting as a secretary for Snowden, assisting him in setting up
   videoconferences. And there's no legal acrobatics involved in that
   conclusion.
   Maybe a journalist will contact me after I post this, to which I won't
   respond for one of two reasons: you're complicit and you're aware, or
   you have failed to engage in an investigative followup, the type you
   like to second guess the police about.
   I do think this is an opportunity for our members of Congress to start
   a joint committee to investigate. Naturally I won't testify unless I'm
   given immunity, but I'm also willing to waive all legal liability
   against any party willing to testify before Congress if I'm granted
   immunity. I only desire the truth.

References

   1. http://i.imgur.com/19i7ik1.png
   2. https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-friends-of-glenn/
   3. https://www.justsecurity.org/29161/questions-congress-section-702/
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008&oldid=701038090#ACLU_Lawsuit