Law enforcement is not unknown to falsely accuse the public of being engaged in "questionable" behavior, even though that activity is lawful. You may notice during a conversation with an InfraGard intelligence officer in law enforcement that they skip around, and are unable to focus on a single topic. They may insult you and imply that you are not willing to "care" about their "concern". In truth, they are not concerned about that issue, merely hoping to get you to react and respond to something.
InfraGard contractors may attempt to imply that they have a special relationship with law enforcement. InfraGard contractors have been observed discussing "security videos" that they have "proving" there is a problem; and that if the public refuses to fully discuss the "incriminating" evidence, that the private citizen will be arrested.
"If we have to, we'll get law enforcement." InfraGard contractors when challenged have shown they are not well coordinating with law enforcement.
Table C: Progress Indicators When Challenging InfraGard Abuses
- Officer frustration that you are not responding to their insults, intimidation- Calling InfraGard officers on their bluffs about "evidence"
- Challenging their inconsistencies
- Asking to see a lawyer
- Invoking your 5th Amendment right to silence
- Not discussing any personal information until your lawyer is there
- Asking for specific reasons why you are being stopped, detained, challenged, or questioned
- Asking the InfraGard contactor why they claim they are concerned about procedures, but they are not following those procedures
- Asking the InfraGard contractors to explain why they claim they are attempting to "protect" a resource, but the public record shows they are not fully meeting that standard
- Asking the InfraGard contractor why they use deception, lies, and false companies to gather information about people supporting unions, political candidates, or policies that contradict the company's board of directors
- Asking InfraGard personnel why they are afraid of unionization efforts
Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have been conducting an "extensive" investigation into a particular "concern". However, independent review of their records shows there had been no investigation.
Independent encounters with the InfraGard contractors show substantial deception, abuse, and misconduct. Officers are misleading the public. Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have a "special duty" to protect resources. However, this assertion fails to pan out. When the public has attempted to provide suggestions to address the "concern" the InfraGard officers raised, the InfraGard officers were not interested in solutions. This shows their stated "concerns" or "problems' they were attempting to "resolve" were not genuine.
InfraGard officers have a challenging job: Protecting the nation's resources. However, they make their job more difficult when they abuse the public, especially those who might be inclined to risk providing valuable information and support.
InfraGard officers have a challenging job: Protecting the nation's resources. However, they make their job more difficult when they abuse the public, especially those who might be inclined to risk providing valuable information and support.
The InfraGard contractors have denied public access to public accommodations. They use pretextual reasons. CItizens engaged in lawful conduct have a right to privacy. InfraGard officers have been falsely asserting that unless this right to privacy were given up, the public could not use the public accommodations.
InfraGard officers have been caught lying. Public services rely on public access. However, the InfraGard officers have falsely stated that the public accommodations were "private".
InfraGard officers do not have clear disciplinary procedures. When there are reports of abuse or misconduct, these are typically explained away as "Officer discretion". The public needs know that InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been abusing their authority. Oversight is needed.
InfraGard officers do not have clear disciplinary procedures. When there are reports of abuse or misconduct, these are typically explained away as "Officer discretion". The public needs know that InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been abusing their authority. Oversight is needed.
Appendix 1: Oversight Issues of InfraGard
Congress and State Officials need to review and independently audit with real no-notice audits the following:
- To what extent InfraGard contractors have relied on law enforcement to engage in pretextual stops to collect information they are otherwise not entitled
- Extent to which threats of arrest for using public accommodations have been used to gather intelligence
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
