Here is a suggested type of letter which can be written to your local legislators asking them to make some tangible, DO-able, not costly changes to laws and law enforcement:

    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,