Intel Operations:

Intel Operation:

Example number Eight:

Scott Bobro is an emaciated hyper active insurance adjuster who imagines himself a stand up comedian. Unfortunately, his act suffers from the fact that he has no one to write his material for him. So instead of the clever witty entertainer he imagines, what we see is this wirery obnoxious insurance adjuster, who has a series of neurotic habits, such as the constant sniffing of his fingertips, to which he reverts in between his performance pieces, which in his case, since he is in fact an insurance adjuster and not the entertainer he imagines himself, are his phone calls with claimants, insureds, and attorneys.

It goes without saying that his act is no better received by the people on the other end of the phone than by his coworkers. The attorneys especially express their outrage to his supervisor on a regular basis. As she takes the call he stands at her desk, twisting and rocking, and smelling his fingers, while she “uhmm” and “ahohs.” (In the insurance industry, the claim supervisor is the name given to people who take complaint calls. Instead of ‘complaint call screeners’ they are called ‘supervisors,’ because obviously the public wants to complain to a “supervisor” rather than to a complaint call screener. And you can imagine that insurance companies are not inclined to be concerned about the complaints from attorneys. (This is, of course, a mistake, on the part of the companies, but then who is surprised to learn that insurance companies regularly make mistakes?))

Mr. Bobro’s act finds better success with that part of the public for whom English is a second language. In California this group is larger than in most states and in insurance claims the percentage is higher still. This is because people who are less proficient in English, typically the newly arrived, are therefore usually less experienced in driving a car, and therefore have more accidents. Then too, the claims dollars, for a group that has fewer opportunities to earn a legal living, are no doubt tempting. (No official statistics are kept because it is illegal to maintain records on national origin, etc.)

So the recent Chinese immigrants, or Mexican immigrants, or what have you, stammer on in broken English into the phone, trying desperately to explain, to Mr. Bobro, as he sniffs his fingers, that the light was green, or the night was foggy, or that they have to get back to the hospital because their child is in a coma, and all of this is grist for the neurotic Mr. Bobro, who sits at his phone speaking in loud theatrical asides to his co-workers, in what he imagines to be clever repartee, with the poor, the desperate, and befuddled. He is of course a horrible ass.

An ass on [deletion], or [deletion], or what ever he can come up with for the day; thus the emaciation.

To understand the incident at Farmers you need to know that in California a law requires the insurer to notify the insured in a timely manner if it appears the insured is 51% or more at fault for the accident. (As is so often the case the law is superfluous in that insurance companies were not previously known for the frivolous acceptance of liability before the law was passed and in those cases where liability was accepted the companies had little reluctance in explaining in no uncertain terms why liability was being accepted.) However, to comply with the law, a letter is sent letting the insured know that in all likelihood their liability will be 51% or greater for the auto accident.

In one such case I sent this letter to the insured and the file was later reassigned to Scott Bobro. Our entertainer was outraged. “How could you accept more than 51% liability?” he shouted. He looked around to make sure everyone in the office was listening, including the complaint screeners at the far end of the office, this was “unacceptable.” How long had I been handling claims he demanded of me. Did I know nothing of liability or how to conduct a proper investigation? This went on for several minutes.

Later the very next day, in speaking with the insured, he explained that the insured was “at least 50% liable for the accident.” He said he would try not to pay more than 50% but the insured was “at least” 50% at fault. In other words the incident, in which he had shouted in his stage voice for several minutes, in a particularly ugly scene, had been about a 1% difference. (Note also that the final resolution of a claim is often equivocal. If the claimant’s attorney demands 10k and the settlement is 5k the settlement is 50%. But note that these figures are not fixed in the same way that a bank teller’s figures are. Insurance adjusters are not bank tellers. For example the attorney may have really expected 4k and was surprised to get 5k in the above example. Therefore the claim could be said to have been over paid by 1k not really settled for 50% as first claimed.) This claim was settled, but Bobro had to request authority several times and so his “50%” was also adjusted several times.

In short he lied. But it is my contention that he lied, and created the incident at Farmers Insurance for a purpose, and at the behest of others.

As unpleasant as it was, the reason this incident appears as example number eight of Itel. Ops., is because provides proof of Mr. Bobro’s involvement with the people who stole my notebook from the Colonial Motel, the people who have used their radio programs to harasse me, who have used electronic eaves dropping equipment, stolen my letters, and who have also used their influence to have me terminated from one job after another, who have driven me into poverty, and bankruptcy, and out into the street, and finally, who are also the same people, I contend, who hounded Mr. Garrett off the Golden Gate Bridge to his death.

The Proofs:

The day after the incident Mr. Bobro received a call, (from his brother in law I believe, (who is a claims supervisor (superintendent) with State Farm)). After saying hello Mr. Bobro answered a series of questions from the caller as follows: “I blew it. . . . I mean I blew it, I lost control. . . . I just went too far . . . I don’t know, it was pretty ugly. . . . it just happened . . . I went off. Now he probably thinks I work for the J. D. L.” All of this refers, I contend, to the incident. It follows that the caller had heard about the incident less than 24 hours after it happened, and that he was concerned enough to call and find out about it for himself. It was the first thing he asked about when he called. After the J. D. L. comment the caller seemed to change the subject, in any case Mr. Bobro fell silent.

The reference to the J. D. L. is a coded reference to the A. D. L. which has been mentioned before in Intel. Ops. (see Examples 4-5-6) In the Dear Yvonne letters, is a letter I wrote to Yvonne mentioning the A. D. L. as possibly being involved in the Colonial Motel break in. Later when Pat Buchanan made mention of the A. D. L.’s activities in San Francisco I sent a second letter to Yvonne, referencing his comment. (However, these letters did not mention the reasons why the A. D. L. was implicated. (Mr. Weiner’s own admitted involvement with the A. D. L. and his personal involvement in the surveillance of my movements, (Examples 4-5-6), and the sophistication of the break in itself, (Example 2), are the main reasons I suppose the A. D. L. was involved.) Now, however, another explanation should be clear to the perceptive reader: Yvonne herself. I will explain latter.)

Therefore, the “J. D. L.” reference by Bobro indicates that he had knowledge of the Dear Yvonne letters, or at least one of the two that mentioned the A. D. L. (I called Yvonne and spoke with her about this very fact after I was terminated at Farmers, and that call will be another Example in Intel. Ops. (For now, note that Dean Sodos, a Farmers Supervisor, is quoted in Judgment Day.))

A few days later in the office, Mr. Bobro, apparently for my benefit, picked up his phone as I was passing by his desk, and said, pretending to have a conversation, “Yeah, so his mother died. Umha, umhu, and he got fired, ok thanks,” and hung up his phone.

From this I intuit the following:

Mr. Bobro has a tendency to act impetuously, as in the incident, and then here in this case where he tried to stage a call even though it was obvious he simply picked up the head set and was pretending to have a call.

In this case he was referencing, I contend, my stolen notebook, where I had a letter, (never sent), to my sister, in which I questioned my sister as to why my “colleagues” in Portland, Maine found out about our mother’s death before I did. However, our mother died in 1996. If Bobro had current knowledge of my situation certainly he would have mentioned my father’s death, 1999, just a few days before the break in at the Colonial Motel. The fact that he used the old information about my mother and not the relatively new information about my father, (all this was taking place in 2000), indicates that he had only partial information. Possibly he had only been briefed.

Further, I suppose, that he was now aware that his earlier statement about the J. D. L., a few days before, which had been made in a similar manner, but during a real phone call, had disclosed that he knew more about me than he was supposed to reveal. I can well imagine his brother in law asking him later if I had overheard him talking when he said “Now he probably thinks I work for the J. D. L.,” and on learning that I had overheard, I can well imagine the brother in law exasperated with his ass of a brother in law. Such a family, the Bobros of Westlake Joes, Daly City! It is probably just because of this impulsiveness that Scott Bobro had not been given all the information about the stolen notebook, or letters. Surly if he had known about my father’s death he would have used it. As I say he is a, how do you say it in Yiddish . . . ?

The reference to getting fired is, of course, from the notebook or letters, or to their efforts at Farm.

As Don Imus might say, “It is one of those, ‘He thinks we are out to get him? Fine we will show him!’. . . things . . .”

You better not mess around with us Jews!

How quick the transition from oppressed to oppressor?

(Note: Just because they claim to represent Jews does not mean that we have to accept Scot Bobro or Ron Ownen or Michael Weiner as representatives of Jews.

Michael Weiner claims he named his son Russ after Bertrand Russell. However, the only work my Russell he has ever mentioned is “The Moral Superiority of the Oppressed.” He says this work impressed him when he first read it at City College.

Especially impressive to a boy from a Russian immigrant family “raised on neglect, anger and hate,” as he says of himself in his autobiography. And who did he learn to hate? “Michael's just a smart Jewish kid from New York,’’ his friend Jack Sarfatti, (who knew him before he became a Hate Radio Star), says, “He's extremely funny much of the time. But he's angry. A lot of Jewish intellectuals are angry, so Michael has kind of channeled his anger into a high form of art.” Channeled?

He is himself aware of at least a dichotomy in his psyche. When asked by the San Jose Mercury News why he had made such a dramatic change in his life from ‘60s counter culture to Extremist Hate Radio he said, “I was once a child; I am now a man.” Some man? Then in c1960 City College he describes reading Russell’s argument that just because he was a Jew, son of an immigrant, a certified member of the oppressed, he was not morally superior to those he hated, had hated since he could first remember? The twelve year old Michael Weiner (the “child”) must have found this very difficult to accept, even as that other Michael Weiner, the young City College student was first realizing the ambiguities of adult life. What a revelation it must have been!

This is not an easy transition for anyone. It is not an easy transition for Jewish Russian immigrant sons “raised on neglect, anger and hate.” Schizophrenia makes the transition near impossible. (There is hope: deCode Genetics has recently identified the schizophrenia gene.)

To get a since just how difficult it is to navigate these ambiguities, dear reader, ask yourself how many times you have scanned these pages for the anti Semitism, or racism, or what ever it is that you fear? How difficult these judgments are even for the detached observer. When you read about Scot Bobro, how many ways did you consider if some other explanation exists for the events described? Why did it have to be Jewish? Why do we have to bring that up? Or did you think, ‘Maybe he was provoked?’ or some other explanation? And why does it have to be the A. D. L.? etc. etc.

Certainly I agree things would be easier for you with out these encumbrances. But this is the same difficulty we saw when we originally discussed the diagnosis. (see Notes on the Investigation of the web page: How Don and Mike Removed the Evil One.) If you can only help those who are troubled by things which do not trouble you, then I am afraid, dear reader, you will not be able to help very many people. For the problems that bother the mentally ill are most often the same problems that bother you and me.

Counselor: And you are not?

Thank you Yvonne.

Counselor: You’re welcome.

R. D. Lang has argued that mental “illness” is a problem only if the mentally ill are poor. (The duPonts for example are not a “problem” because they live on gated estates.) If we are to help the ill we must learn to do so even though by that very process we are forced to deal with issues that we ourselves find troubling. You have to be prepared for messiness. For example, it has often been said that there is no greater anti Semite than a Jew himself. So why are you surprised or troubled by Michael Weiner’s anti Semitic diatribes, against “Bagel Boxer,” or “up chuck Schumer,” or “Herman at the A. C. L. U.” the “City College Lawyer” all spoken in a mock Jewish New York accent? If you are going to deal with this subject you are just going to have to get over your squeamishness.

I will explain about Yvonne later, but for now you might find a frame of reference helpful to think about these things. Let us place Yvonne in the role of Nastasya Filippovna. And let us give Michael Weiner the role of Rogozhin, the murderer with the brain fever. I will play Prince Myshkin. Bobro can play Ferdyshchenko. Ron Owens can play Totsky. Think about this as if it were a Russian novel.)

Counselor: Prince Myshkin? Wasn’t he the one called the idiot?

Yes, dear, exactly the idiot. Thank you.

Counselor: You’re welcome.

Intel Operation:

Example Number 7:

When I had been at CENCAL for a week I was sitting in my cubicle during lunch. (We were permitted to sit at our desks during our lunch breaks and if we wanted we were allowed to visit the internet, and also we were allowed to print documents for our own personal use. It was explained to me that this was a ‘fringe benefit’ of working at CENCAL.) One day as I was sitting in my cubicle two of the owners of CENCAL walked past my cubicle down the aisle, and I heard one of them say, “This is where the new guy sits.” And the other one said, “Oh, yeah, I heard about him.” Heard about me? Ah, my fame precedes me!

Therefore it appears to me that when I was first hired by CENCAL they already knew who I was and had me under surveillance from the first. From this I infer that the collection of four different letters on four different days from the printer server was no accident. Certainly no one can believe that the publication of these letters to my enemies, Lee Rodgers and to Mrs. Jack Swanson, was an accident. After the first three letters Lee Rodgers and Mrs. Jack’s Swanson began commenting on my letters and others at K. G. O. also seemed to have read them.

Remember that my last letter to the Senate was dated May 20, 1992. I had been out of politics for a decade. (The only exception was a brief attempt to expose the I. R. S.’s misuse of its authority. Unfortunately there were so many other illegal things going on in that administration it was not possible to get attention to yet another example of the misuse of government power. (See IRS and the illegals from the North.))

In other words ten years later Lee Rodgers and Mrs. Jack Swanson were not finished with me. (No good deed should go unpunished, even after ten years.) What could they want? Is it just that she is, as she says of herself: vicious? Is it simply the pleasure the rich take from degrading, and humiliating, and destroying? But I have already been destroyed, bankrupt, forced to live on the streets. Now all they are doing is making the rubble bounce. Why? Sometimes there are no explanations, evil is its own first cause. They do evil because they can.

I started noticing that after each letter was printed Lee Rodgers or Mrs. Jack Swanson would have something to say about it. Finally it got so obvious that by the time I wrote the last letter it was clear that the letters were going straight to them. After the last one Lee Rodgers said, “Remember when Bob Dole ran for President? He kept saying ‘what ever?’” This was a “coded” reference to my repeated use of “what ever” in the last CENCAL letter, (now on view in the Moynihan Library.) I do not know who the owners of CENCAL are, (there are four partners), nor what their relationship is to K. S. F. O. and K. G. O. Certainly there has been a longstanding relationship between insurance companies and the mass media, which has been to their mutual benefit.

State Farm advertises with Mr. Weiner. “Like a good neighbor . . . you should get AIDS and die, Hate Farm is there . . . you pig.” GEICO also advertises with him. Consider for example the benefit that has accrued to CENCAL from the recent legislation on auto insurance in California, to cite just one example worth tens of millions to CENCAL.

Also consider the lack of concern on the part of the millionaire owners of CENCAL that their wrongful conduct will have any legal consequence. You will note that they have no fear that their wrongful conduct will be discovered, or if discovered proved in court, or if proved in court, should these improbable things happen, note that they have no fear of any legal judgment that could be entered against them by a California jury. For even if discovered, and proven in a court, they know what most of you do not know, even then, they would not have to pay, because they have insurance. Which really means that all of you, the subjects, have to pay. Being rich and powerful means never having to say you are sorry, and certainly never having to pay for your wrongful conduct. That is what insurance is for, isn’t it? (Look at the view. We can look at things here in the foreground or we can look at things in the distance. For example note that the insurers of the Wall Street firms that defrauded their clients will turn the settlements over to their insurers too.)

One last note: I am now not only unemployed, but now I become unemployable. For even though the management of CENCAL has violated my right to privacy, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on me, and intentionally interfered with my contractual relations; but because I am poor and they are rich, because they are powerful and I am not, therefore they can do as they please. In the insurance industry the owners of CENCAL have the contacts, have the power, to ruin a career to ruin a life. The rich and powerful can act wrongfully with impunity. They have nothing to fear from the press either. And the so called "reporters" at K.G.O., will ignore the wrongful conduct or even actively participated in the cover up. That is how one gets ahead at A. B. C. News – Disney. Hypocrisy is king at A. B. C. News!

But the power to destroy, now that is real power. My employment at CENCAL was terminated, not because they did not have work, but to serve as an example for any other employee, at any other company, including K.G.O., who might expose the wrong doing of the powerful, or even just write a few letters to the Senate, as I did 10 years ago.

Are there real reporters at A. B. C.? Let them look at what the powerful can do. They can reach out across companies, across whole industries, and have us thrown off the job and into the street on a whim. Look with what confidence they act in such bad faith, for they know they are beyond the reach of the law, yes, and beyond the reach of the press too.

Every now and then a rich man will run for public office with the claim he ‘can not be bought.’ As G. K. Chesterton said, such a man is a fool, for he fails to see that he has already been bought.

EXAMPLE NUMBER: Four - Five - Six :

Over the years Michael Weiner has had only a very few guests on his show, and only a few of these appeared regularly. Of these few only one guest appeared more than two times a year. This guest was the representative of the Northern California Anti Defamation League. During their conversations the A. D. L. man often mentioned and thanked Michael Weiner for his “support” and for the“help” that Mr. Weiner had given the A. D. L. over the years. Both Michael Weiner and the A. D. L. man made numerous reference to their past working relationship but never provided any description of the work. It apparently was not commercial in nature. When the A. D. L. man claimed that Northern California was the “center of extremist hate in America today,” Mr. Weiner did not disagree or question the statement.

Over the years Mr. Weiner has often mentioned in his broadcasts books that I was currently reading. I discovered that when I did not leave the books on the front seat of my car Mr. Weiner was less well informed about my reading habits. Mr. Weiner also seemed to have an interest in the same locations that I had recently visited, mentioning them during his bradcasts shortly after my visit. (Mrs. Jack Swanson years later c.2001 and 2002 would also work into her broadcasts recent places I had visited, the clothes I was wearing or purchases I had made.) The effect of these broadcasted “messages” is to suggest close surveillance. (For the affect this has on one’s psychology see Psy. Ops.) At least when the San Rafael Police place me under close surveillance, (which has just started up again today, 09-03-03), one at least can see the black and white units following. The private surveillance gives the impression of omnipotence.

In one broadcast Michael Weiner described how he had gone up to the window of the health club I was using and looked in the window at just the hour I was at the club. He described the people, etc., one of the few times he actually admitted that he himself was conducting the surveillance. I changed the hour I worked out at the club. (In a letter to Yvonne I described the above and then related that I was harassed at the club by a homosexual the very next time I went to the club. However, before this letter to Yvonne was sent, the local talk show host Ron Owens described how he deals with homosexuals who harass him in clubs. As I had not yet mentioned the incident to anyone, I take it that the whole scene was planned. See Psy. Ops.)

Example Number Three:

After the radio show of the 7^th, on the 8^th, I was parked on a side street a block away from the Colonial Motel. When the manager arrived in the morning I intended to ask if she knew anything about the break in and the theft of my notebook, which Michael Weiner, had been reading from and discussing during his show of the 7^th.

As it turned out an interview was not necessary. When the manager arrived she passed in front of my car perhaps 12 feet in front of me. As she drove past her jaw dropped and she turned her head in a stunned and troubled expression. The perfect image of living guilt. Our eyes made contact and she was obviously troubled, possibly ashamed?

Over the next few weeks I noticed that the San Rafael Police were following me. I installed a police band radio in my car and started monitoring the police radio. One morning as I drove down Lincoln Ave., just past the Colonial Motel, I heard the San Rafael Police radio dispatcher call on the police radio, “The Colonial Motel Suspect has past the Colonial Motel traveling down Lincoln and is believed to be in rout to Corte Madera.”

(The previous day I had traveled to Corte Madera to see a showing of the movie Titus. The manager’s husband and two other men had followed me into the theater and the manager’s husband harassed me by walking up and down the empty row of seats just behind me.)

The Police surveillance continued for another few weeks. Then a strange thing happened. At the end of the KGO radio news Gene Burns said, (apropos of nothing that Rosie Allen had said) : “When will we say enough is enough?”

Then something even stranger happened. Rosie Allen, (apparently not surprised my Gene’s strange out burst), said as if continuing a well understood subject: “Well, I don’t want to get shot.”

Don’t want to get . . . what? Shot! What could they be talking about?

This was not the first time that KGO’s on air talent commented on me or my situation. For example after I organized my demonstrations against KQED (c1991) KGO’s afternoon news reader started referring to KQED as “Fort Apache.” (With me in the role of the Indians.)

With respect to the stolen notebook KGO’s morning drive guys, Jim Dunbar and Ted Wygant, started making references to it the same week Mrs. Jack Swanson and Brian Wilson started talking about it. (The week of the 13^th.)

Clearly KGO reporters knew -------

Counselor: What did Jim and Ted say?

Yvonne, it does not matter what part of the stolen notebook they mentioned. The point is that their mentioning of the notebook proves that employees, news reporters no less, knew that ----

Counselor: But how can we judge this if we do not know what the reference was?

Ah, dear, . . . they started joking about witches. Anyway, clearly KGO reporters knew -------

Counselor: I don’t understand. It just sounds so weired. What do witches have to do with anything?

It was something I mentioned in the notebook. That’s all. Just something I mentioned. Clearly KGO ------

Counselor: But it just sounds so strange. Witches?

(Gentlemen, has this ever happened to you? First of all I want you to understand that in this case I am, unlike with most of you bastards, completely innocent. I am 100% innocent and she Yvonne is 100% at fault. She had a contract with me which she broke: broke quite spectacularly with KQED. And yet now I must explain a passage from my notebook, which was written in the reasonable expectation of privacy, which was written gentlemen in the deepest despair. And because in despair and anger I wrote some unkind remark about her, Her, Yvonne, now she will seize upon it and . . . you know. Gentlemen do you not see the unfairness. We are ruled over by these, . . . women . . . unjustly. Most unjustly, gentlemen. )

THE STOLEN NOTEBOOK:

And then he said . . . .

What?

And then he said . . . .

Well, go on, what?

And then he said, ‘I don’t think Yvonne loves me.’

They tilted their heads back and cackled as the sparks of the fire shot up into the heavenly firmament as their big black pot boiled over with some new poison.

Counselor: So you were calling me a witch? Is that what you are trying to say?

Don Imus: “It is going to be one of those: ‘And then he said’ ‘What?’ ‘And then he said’ ‘Well, go on what?’ things.”

Oh, Hello Don. Thank you for inviting me on your show.

My point is that the San Rafael Police referred to me as the “Colonial Motel Suspect” over their radio. Obviously they had to brief the officers about the name of the person to whom “The Colonial Motel Suspect” referred. Some may perceive that the police may not have known about the burglary and had the “Suspect” under surveillance for some other reason. However, one would have to explain why the City Attorney of San Rafael, when contacted by my attorney, Aaron M. Kamins, 415-479-0455, denied that they had referred to me as the Colonial Motel Suspect. Denied any record existed. No radio logs. No briefings. No reports. Nothing. In other words we know that the City Attorney is not telling the truth. Now we must ask why the City of San Rafael is not telling the truth?