Thursday, January 31, 2013

Online Slander campaign

The following examples are from a few sources, showing how a successful slander campaign against political targets can be done. is a commentary website which allows anonymous postings without standards.
In the following example, community politician Marti Brown, who is identified as a "progressive", is slandered in such a way that would alienate her from her friend and fellow "progressive" Myrna Hayes.

Myrna Hayes house condemned. Will be torn down.
Posted in the Vallejo Forum []:

Showing posts 1 - 5 of 5

Marti Brown
San Leandro, CA
Apr 6, 2011
I just heard that Vallejo code enforcement condemned Myrna Hayes house and it will be torn down.

Sams Missing Balls
Vallejo, CA
Apr 6, 2011
sammy's raging tantrum list. We actually have enough material to pass out during your campaign, but the more the better. Lots of pages to pass out.
See spammy on his raging "hate" campaign. Do you want him representing you???? Bwahahahahaha!

Bring it
San Leandro, CA
Apr 6, 2011
Yeah lets pass it out.Should we wear sheets or paper bags ovwr our heads when we do it?

Sam Kurshan for Council
Vallejo, CA
Apr 6, 2011
This is my message and I've approved it.

Irish Mike
Apr 7, 2011
where is your brain sam??? obviously nobody approved of that

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force

"Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force; You should know about them because they may already know about you"
2013-01-30 from "" []:
The national security state has an annual budget of around $1 trillion []. Of that huge pile of money, large amounts go to private companies the federal government awards contracts to. Some, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are household names, but many of the contractors fly just under the public's radar. What follows are three companies you should know about (because some of them can learn a lot about you with their spy technologies).

L3 Communications -
L3 is everywhere. Those night-vision goggles the JSOC team in Zero Dark Thirty uses? That's L3 [].
The new machines that are replacing the naked scanners at the airport? That's L3 [].
Torture at Abu Ghraib? A former subsidiary of L3 was recently ordered to pay $5.28 million to 71 Iraqis who had been held in the awful prison [].
Oh, and drones? L3 is on it. Reprieve, a UK-based human rights organization, earlier this month wrote on its Web site: “L-3 Communications is one of the main subcontractors involved with production of the US’s lethal Predator since the inception of the programme. Predators are used by the CIA to kill ‘suspected militants’ and terrorise entire populations in Pakistan and Yemen. Drone strikes have escalated under the Obama administration and 2013 has already seen six strikes in the two countries.”
Unsurprisingly, L3 Communications is well connected beyond the national security community. Its chief financial officer recently spoke at Goldman Sachs, at what the financial titan hilariously refers to as a “fireside chat.”
L3 also supplies local law enforcement with its night-vision products and makes a license-plate recognition (LPR) device, a machine with disturbing implications. LPR can be mounted on cop cruisers or statically positioned at busy intersections and can run potentially thousands of license plates through law enforcement databases in a matter of hours. In some parts of the country LPR readers can track your location for miles. As the Wall Street Journal noted, surveillance of even “mundane” activities of people not accused of any crime is now “the default rather than the exception.”
L3 Communications embodies the totality of the national security and surveillance state. There is only minimal distinction between its military products and police products. Its night-vision line is sold to both military and law enforcement. Its participation in the drone program is now, as far as we know, limited to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. But in the words of the New York Times editorial board [], “[i]t is not a question of whether drones will appear in the skies above the United States but how soon.” The NYT estimates the domestic drone market at $5 billion, likely a conservative estimate, and contractors will vie for that money in the public and private sphere. L3's venture into airports, the border of where domestic policy meets foreign policy in the name of national security, is therefore significant both symbolically and materially.
In many ways, that is the most important story of the post-9/11 United States: the complete evaporation of the separation of foreign and domestic polices. Whether we're talking about paramilitarized police, warrantless wiretapping, inhumane prison conditions, or drone surveillance, there exist few differences between a United States perpetually at war and a United States determined to police and imprison its people in unacceptable ways and at unacceptable rates.

Harris Corporation: Stingray “IMSI catcher” -
Harris Corp. is a huge provider of national security and communications technology to federal and local law enforcement agencies. Though many people have never heard of it, Harris is a major player in the beltway National Security community. President and CEO William M. Brown was recently appointed to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, and in 2009 the Secret Service offered Harris a contract to train its agents in the use of Harris' Stingray line. The Secret Service awarded the company additional contracts in 2012.
If you've heard of Harris at all, it's likely been because its controversial Stingray product has been getting attention as an information-gathering tool with major privacy implications. The Stingray allows law enforcement to cast a kilometers' wide digital net over an area to determine the location of a single cell phone signal – and in the process collect cell data on potentially hundreds of people who aren't suspected of any crimes. EFF claims the device is a modern version of British soldiers canvassing the pre-Revolutionary colonies, searching people's homes without probable cause – exactly what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent. EFF describes the process this way []:
“A Stingray works by masquerading as a cell phone tower—to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not— and tricks your phone into connecting to it. As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.”
According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [], the FBI has been using similar technology since 1995. But a recent federal case, United States v. Rigmaiden, has raised Fourth Amendment questions regarding whether law enforcement officials need to obtain a warrant before employing a Stingray. The judge in that case determined that the government hadn't provided enough information about how the devices work, and ordered that the information collected in Rigmaiden couldn't be used in court.
What's especially troubling about Stingrays is that the government either won't say, or doesn't understand, how the technology works. The WSJ reported [] that the US Attorney making the requests “seemed to have trouble explaining the technology.”
And it's not just the federal government that uses Stingrays. As Slate notes [], referencing FOIA documents recently obtained by EPIC, “the feds have procedures in place for loaning electronic surveillance devices (like the Stingray) to state police. This suggests the technology may have been used in cases across the United States, in line with a stellar investigation by LA Weekly last year [], which reported that state cops in California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona had obtained Stingrays.”
Harris has been tightlipped about the Rigmaiden case, but expect to be hearing a lot about Stingrays in the future.

BI2 Technologies -
BI2 makes a fine pitch. Its iris-scanning technology can be made to sound very appealing. Iris scans are relatively non-invasive, there's no touching involved so the likelihood of spreading disease is reduced, and as B12 states on its Web site, "there are no lasers, strong lights or any kind of harmful beams.” It also claims that iris scanning is "strictly opt-in," and that a “user" (who in most cases would be better described as an “arrestee”) “must consciously elect to participate” in the scanning. (When I was arrested by the NYPD while covering a protest, the scan was voluntary -- though the NYPD didn't tell me that, a protester did. But if I refused to submit to it I could have been punished with an extra night in jail.)
Reuters reported [] that BI2's iPhone-based iris scanner -- called MORIS -- is capable of taking an accurate scan from four feet away, “potentially without the person being aware of it.” MORIS has drawn harsh condemnation from the ACLU. The primary concern from privacy advocates is that law enforcement will deploy this technology in an overly broad way. ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told Reuters that he didn't want the police “using them routinely on the general public, collecting biometric information on innocent people.”
MORIS isn't just for irises; it also scans faces. In 2011, the Wall Street Journal [] reportedthat the sheriff's office in Pinellas County, Florida, “uses digital cameras to take pictures of people, download the pictures to laptops, then use facial-recognition technologies to search for matching faces.” New database technology like Trapwire, a data mining system that analyzes “suspicious behavior” in purported attempts to predict terrorist behavior, makes face scanning potentially more worrisome. Trapwire uses at least “CCTV, license-plate readers, and open-source databases” as input sources [], and although it doesn't employ facial-recognition software, the incentives to combine these types of technology is clear.
Beginning in 2014, BI2 will manage a national iris-scan database for the FBI, called Next-Generation Identification (NGI) []. Lockheed Martin is also involved in building the database []. Much of BI2's iris data comes from inmates in 47 states [], and despite BI2's claims that iris scanning can't be gamed, that is not the case. Experts showed last summer that the iris can be “reverse-engineered” to fool the scanners, which are generally thought to be more accurate than fingerprinting.
The usual suspects lamented in 2011 that iris scanning isn't used at airports or borders [], but security creep is difficult to combat, especially once “national security” is invoked. Just days ago it was reported that the FBI is teaming with the Department of Homeland Security to ramp up iris scanning at US borders []. AlterNet has previously reported that the Department of Defense scans the irises of people arriving at and departing from Afghanistan [].
The story of BI2 is important because the initial technology is superficially appealing. The company's first projects were called the Child Project, designed to help locate missing children; and Senior Safety Net, developed to identify missing seniors suffering from Alzheimer's. According to B12's Web site, sheriffs' departments in 47 states use the BI2 iris-scanning device and database, which makes it easy to mobilize support to facilitate the safe return of children and seniors.
While the desire to find missing children and seniors is perfectly legitimate, the collection of biometric data is a pandora's box. Once it's opened, it's proven difficult if not impossible to limit.

2013-02-19 "Meet 6 Politicians Getting Rich from America's Endless Wars" by John Knefel from "" []:
War is a racket, and perpetual war is a money-printing machine. Though the defense industry as a whole contributes relatively little to members of Congress compared to, say, the pharmaceutical lobby, it remains an incredibly powerful and influential lobby. Below are the six members of the House whose primary industry donor in the 2012 election cycle was the defense sector. (Numbers are from the Center for Responsive Politics [], unless otherwise noted.)

1. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA): $566,100 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
It's impossible to talk about defense industry beneficiaries without mentioning Buck McKeon. He became the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee in 2009, and then the chairperson after the GOP took the House in the 2010 election. Donations from the defense sector to his 2012 campaign dwarfed all other House campaigns, with McKeon bringing in a whopping $566,100.
That big pile of money certainly seems to have made McKeon a friend to the military. As part of the House, McKeon doesn't have the opportunity to vote on Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, but he still publicly opposed the appointment, due to Hagel's presumed willingness to back defense spending cuts. A statement on McKeon's website reads in part, “[Hagel's] refusal to shut the door on further defense cuts put him at stark odds with the current Defense Secretary and military leaders.” McKeon is also, predictably, against a round of planned automatic cuts to domestic spending and the military budget, known as the sequester, which he has said could “start costing lives.” []
Regarding the US' longest war, McKeon thinks it hasn't gone on long enough. He has called the planned troop drawdown next year, “needlessly fraught with risk,” and said that “our hard-fought gains are fragile and reversible” [].
If that language sounds familiar, it's because he said almost the same thing regarding troops leaving Iraq. "I remain concerned that this full withdrawal of US forces will make that road tougher than it needs to be,” he said in a statement posted on his website []. “These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq.”
McKeon is predictably hawkish on Iran [], consistently supports providing military aid to Israel [], and is in favor of expanding military powers as contained in the 2012 NDAA act [], which critics say allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military [].

2. CW “Bill” Young (R-FL): $229,760 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Bill Young is the longest-serving Republican member of Congress, having served since 1970, and a long-time beneficiary of defense sector contributions []. Since 1989, when CRP's data begins, Young has received $1,440,385 from defense PACs and individual contributors. And since at least 1998, defense sector contributions to Young's campaigns have been greater than from any other industry, often by staggering amounts. He is currently the chairperson of the  defense appropriations subcommittee, a powerful position he has held on and off since the mid-1990s.
In 2012 he wavered on his support for continuing the war in Afghanistan, telling the Tampa Bay Times [] that the longer we stay in-country, the more we're “killing kids who don't have to die.” Those comments, however, come after more than a decade of war, and after numerous refusals by Young to even consider a timetable for withdrawal.
Recently, Young came under attack from then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates about a Humvee project Young was protecting that Gates said was unnecessary []. Makers of the Humvee, AM General, had contributed $80K to Young's campaign, but he denied that the contractor's donations played any role in his decision to defend the program [].
Young was one of the targets of an independent ethics investigation in 2010 that involved six other members of the defense appropriations subcommittee []. The investigation – conducted by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which is not comprised of members of the House – found, according to the New York Times, “that private contractors who received millions in defense industry earmarks from the seven lawmakers generally believed that their political contributions to the members facilitated the financing their companies received.” All seven were cleared by the House ethics committee, which is to say, the colleagues of the targets.
The congressman has also faced down charges of nepotism after earmarking millions of federal dollars to a defense contractor that employed his son []. The porkbarreling doesn't stop with family members: the Center for Public Integrity reports Young “obtained about $475 million in earmarks over the past three years, mostly funneling money to defense contracting firms that are also among his top donors" [—-appropriations-subcommittee-defense].

3. Charles Albert “Dutch” Ruppersberger III (D-MD): $229,550 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
The third biggest recipient of defense sector contributions in the House over 2011- 2012 is Dutch Ruppersberger, a Maryland Democrat. Dutch took office in 2003 and became the first first-term congressperson appointed to the House Select Committee on Intelligence []. He became the ranking member – highest committee post for the minority party – in 2011, landing him a spot on the so-called “Gang of 8,” who are supposed to be kept apprised of the president's intelligence decisions. He has previously served on the Armed Services committee.
Dutch has been in the news lately for co-sponsoring a bill, along with House intelligence committee chair Mike Rogers (R-MI), called the Cyberintelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. CISPA gives private companies the ability to share information with government intelligence agencies, which could potentially use the data however they see fit – in the name of national security, of course. An identical version of the bill passed the House in 2012 [], but went nowhere after Internet privacy activists mounted a campaign against it and Obama threatened a veto. CISPA has returned, however, much to the dismay of activists who say it could be the end of what little privacy remains online.
“In seeking to promote cybersecurity information sharing, CISPA creates a sweeping exception to all privacy laws,” Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times [].
A tweet from Dutch's official Twitter handle reads, “#CISPA: Because U.S. companies need to protect your personal information from hackers” [].
One has to wonder if the next industry to do massive fundraising for Dutch might be the telecoms, which  overwhelmingly support CISPA [].

4. Morris “Mo” Brooks (R-AL): $202,020 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Second-term congressperson Mo Brooks is a minor figure compared to the first three on this list. He traffics in boilerplate GOP positions like opposing the debt ceiling increase [] and pushing an absurd bill to impeach the president if he and Congress don't pass a balanced budget []. Bruce Bartlett once called a balanced budget amendment the “dopiest constitutional amendment of all time.”
Brooks, like many on this list, sits on the House armed services committee. He enjoys photo ops with Raytheon, tied for his fifth largest contributor []. He also managed to keep $403 million in a defense budget for a missile project the military didn't want, in which Boeing, a major contributor to Brooks, was the lead contractor [].
Brooks has said he favors eliminating all foreign aid, save to Pakistan for the remainder of the war in Afghanistan, which he thinks should end [], and Israel.
As Israel bombarded Gaza with disproportionate force, Brooks' official Twitter handle said he, “stand[s] with our close ally #Israel [...] during this violent and horrific attack on innocent civilians” [].
In a similarly tin-eared tweet, his official handle responded to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (which Brooks is against) by saying, “Our founding fathers fought for individual liberty.” More shockingly, Brooks said of removing undocumented immigrants from the US, “I will do anything short of shooting them” [].

5. Adam Smith (D-WA): $201,000 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Smith is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services committee, and has served on that committee since he entered Congress in 1997. He is a centrist, “ New Democrat."
Like every other member of the House, save Barbara Lee, Smith voted in favor of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). He  voted against a bill calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2011, but now says he believes it's time for the war to end. In 2002, Smith joined 80 House Democrats and 215 House Republicans to vote in favor of going to war with Iraq. Smith voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, against the reauthorization in 2005, but reversed himself again and voted in favor of the reauthorization in 2011.
In 2011, Smith voted against banning the president from using ground forces in Libya – that is, Smith wanted to leave the option of using ground forces open to Obama.
He voted in favor of the 2012 NDAA, which, as mentioned earlier, critics say allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military. Smith wrote a letter urging for the bill's passage and arguing that the scope of NDAA is more limited than critics allege. Several months after the passage of the 2012 NDAA, Smith co-sponsored legislation that would ensure due process rights to any individual detained on US soil, and, according to a statement Smith released, “prohibit military commissions and indefinite detention.” That bill died after it was referred to committee, while the NDAA is currently facing a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

6. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX): $199,500 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations (lost in primary).
This member of the House has received more donations from defense contractors than from any other industry.
Reyes was defeated in a primary challenge by Beto O'Rourke, who now represents Texas' 16th district. Reyes was on both the House armed services and select intelligence committees, making him a powerful ally for defense contractors. So it should be no surprise that those very same contractors attempted to rescue him from O'Rourke's primary challenge at the last minute by flooding his campaign with contributions.
Reyes is a full-on drug warrior, even suggesting sending armed drones into Mexico to kill drug cartel leaders.
Despite being on the House intelligence committee, Reyes often appeared clueless about basic elements of foreign policy. He incorrectly referred to al Qaeda as “predominantly probably Shi'ite” (it is Sunni) and couldn't identify which of the two sects dominated Hezbollah. (The answer is Shi'ite.) []
Beto O'Rourke, for his part, has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana, and received virtually no funding from the defense sector.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

2013-01-17 "Pennsylvania: Police Accused of Retaliatory Arrests"

The Philadelphia police have shown a pattern of wrongfully arresting people who videotaped officers in public, according to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday. The complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union was drawn up on behalf of a Temple University photojournalism student, Chris Montgomery, 24, who was charged with disorderly conduct for using his cellphone to record the police during a large altercation. The phone was confiscated and the video erased, the lawsuit said. The complaint is the first of several that the Pennsylvania A.C.L.U. plans to file alleging retaliatory behavior by officers, said Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer for the organization. It seeks monetary damages and confirmation of the public’s right to videotape the police, she sai

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

2013-01-08 "Feds to mediate community meeting with Vallejo police representatives"

 by Irma Widjojo from "Vallejo Times-Herald" []:
[Northbay Copwatch asks: Why do I get a feeling the following is just a feel-good measure to mollify Vallejo's people, and find witnesses of police brutality to investigate and harass? Because that's what the Vallejo Police have done to witnesses. They kill, harass, tear-up voter registration cards, brutalize senior citizens and teenagers of all races...]
The U.S. Department of Justice on Saturday will lead the first in a series of meetings to address, in part, a controversial spate of Vallejo officer-involved shootings in 2012.
Saturday's community meeting, the first of many, will address specific issues for the Lofas-Lakeside neighborhood in North Vallejo, said organizers, who added that issues in many other neighborhoods will be addressed in future sessions.
The first meeting will be in the same neighborhood where the most controversial officer-involved shooting, that of Mario Romero, occurred last Sept. 2. On the program are a number of concerns raised since that incident about police-community relations.
The meeting will include a presentation by the Vallejo Police Department, a brief question and answer session, and an open dialogue with community members. All meetings will be facilitated by a mediator from the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Relations Service division. The mediation is provided at no cost to the city.
"They are not here as an investigative body; they are here to facilitate," coordinator Liat Meitzenheimer said of the Justice Department.
The meetings are meant to help rebuild the relationship between the community and the police department, she said.
"It became clear there's a gap in a lot of issues," Meitzenheimer said. "The more recent police-related shootings brought (the gap) to the forefront. ... The larger problem is the distrust in the community of the police department."
Police representatives plan to attend and address some concerns, said Vallejo Lt. Sid DeJesus.
"With the change of (police) administration, we realize the importance of restoring that relationship with the community," DeJesus said. "It was lacking for a long time, which is why we are here now."
Late last spring, Police Chief Robert Nichelini retired. He has since been replaced by Chief Joseph Kreins, who has promised a number of reforms to improve the relationship between local residents and police.
DeJesus, who will be one police representative Saturday, said he will discuss changes ranging from an information dissemination process to those involved in officer-involved shootings, as well as how citizen complaints are handled. The citizen complaint form is now available in the lobby of the Amador Street headquarters.
"We don't want to talk about what we can't do anymore. But, what we can do," DeJesus said.
Information from the community meetings will be compiled into a report for the City Council, Meitzenheimer said.
Although Saturday's meeting is open to the public, Meitzenheimer advised residents to attend meetings organized in their own neighborhoods.
All the meetings, which will cover most of the city, are planned to continue until the end of summer.
Future meeting dates and locations will be posted on the city's website,, she added.
For more information, contact Meitzenheimer at or Carol Russo of the Department of Justice at or (415) 744-6584.

If you go:
What: Community meeting addressing Lofas-Lakeside neighborhood
When: 10 a.m. to noon Saturday.
Where: Union Baptist Church, 128 Encerti Ave., Vallejo.
Contact: Liat Meitzenheimer at or Carol Russo, of the Department of Justice, at or (415) 744-6584.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Activist Survivor's Guide to the Weapons of Repression

"How to Escape from Zip Ties"
2009-09-26 from "ITS Tactical, Inc." []:
In our How To Escape and Evade in an Urban Environment article, we briefly discussed escaping from zip ties.
There are quite a few hasty methods of illegal restraint, and zip ties are a method that’s available to any would-be kidnapper.
A few of the other methods seen are duct tape, rope and phone cord, but with a little education you’ll see that all of these methods can easily be defeated.
There are two things you’ll need in any escape situation, and without these two things, nothing we’ll show you will work.
Those two things are time and opportunity. You’ll have to first have the time to be able to put one of these escape methods into action and the opportunity to do so.
Your captors are most likely not going to have the resources or the patience to keep eyes on you constantly, and when they don’t, it’s time to make your move.

How Zip Ties Work -
The best way to defeat any type of restraint is to first analyze how it works.
Zip ties consist of a sturdy Nylon tape that contains small teeth running lengthwise down one side, and a ratchet with small teeth housed in a small open case.
The ratchet is molded to allow downward pressure to be placed upon it as the tape is threaded through the open case, then springing back up to position as the valleys of the tape align with the teeth of the ratchet, locking the zip tie.
At this point further forward movement will continue to tighten the zip tie, and backwards movement will lock it.
The particular zip ties we used in all our demonstrations were the most heavy-duty zip ties we could find at Lowes or Home Depot, the Zip Ties shown in the photo with a 175 lb. rating.
We chose these because realistically if someone was determined to go out and buy zip ties to use to illegally restrain someone, they’d likely hit the local hardware store and find the toughest ones they could.

To defeat zip ties, you can either completely break the zip ties, shim them, use a friction saw or with a little forward thinking just be able to slip right out of them.

Breaking Zip Ties -

Breaking Zip Ties (Rear) -
Shimming Zip Ties -
Friction Sawing Zip Ties -
Slipping Out of Zip Ties -
Dual Zip Ties -

Hand Positions -
Now that we’ve gone over these four methods in detail in the videos, let’s talk briefly on how you’ll be bound, because it’s equally important as the method you choose to escape.
For an exercise, so that we’re all on the same page, put both of your hands straight out. Now touch your wrists together. This will be called “wrists together, horizontal.” This position is the easiest to escape from by slipping out.

Next rotate your wrists so your right hand turns clockwise, your left hand turns counterclockwise and your wrists touch. This will be called “wrists together, vertical.” This position is not preferred, but as shown on the breaking videos, can be defeated.

Now, from the “wrists together, vertical” position, rotate your hands so the backs of them touch together. This will be called “wrists together, inboard.” This is the hardest position out of the four, but can still be defeated by breaking.

The final way you could be bound is by crossing your hands at the wrists, making an X. This will be called “wrists together, crossed.” This position is a bit harder than the first for slipping out of, but it’s still possible.

Passive Victim -
The first thing you should always do in any restraint situation, is remain passive.
Let your captor know that there’s no fight in you, that you’re scared and helpless. This will psychologically lead your captor to believe that you have no plans to try to escape, and thus make what we’re about to tell you easier.
You want to make every effort to present your hands to your captor before they use force to restrain you. Essentially you’re presenting the wrist position of your choosing to them, hoping they’ll use it.

Notes -
Using the information we’ve provided to your advantage, you can put yourself in a better position to escape or determine which of the methods presented will work best in your circumstances.
We hope at the very least you watched the videos we’ve made, so you have the information stored somewhere in your mind, tucked away just in case you ever have to use it.
Let us know your thoughts and any questions you still have about escaping illegal restraints.

UPDATE 3/9/2010: We’ve just released this article explaining our position on the content of this article and why this information is important to get into the public, in the article we also talk about an important safety alert on a product called Jersey Cuffs. More Here [].