A windstorm cut through Seattle yesterday, felling trees and leaving a trail of debris. But that didn’t stop the parking lot at the Lynnwood Recreation Center from filling up.
Swimming has been a mainstay form of exercise for me since my childhood when my parents enrolled me and my sister into youth swim team. With a cycling injury that’s stopped me from taking long walks and bike rides for nearly a year now, swimming and gardening have been my only forms of exercise.
I was swimming at a pool in Shoreline, but that pool is now closed until June for repairs. Averse to the crowded city pools of Seattle, I’ve settled on the city of Lynnwood, about ten miles north of Seattle, as the best alternative for a pool with lap swim hours expansive enough to afford me, at least on occasion, the solitude of a lane alone. But this doesn’t stop the tenant clearers who have been working for nearly two years now to harass me out of my legal home in an anti-renter neighborhood in northeast Seattle.
This post describes how real estate mobbers criminally violate the privacy of others in order to harass me in those private spaces in the public domain: locker rooms and bathrooms.
Real estate mobbing, as I have experienced it in this lakeside neighborhood in northeast Seattle, means constant monitoring—watching—and harassment, within and without my home. The monitoring is enabled by stalking.
Monitoring describes a subset of stalking activities, but I haven’t been able to find a specific definition of it in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). But I took a second look at the RCW and it looks like when watching is performed for the purpose of harassment, it is legally defined in the State of Washington as stalking.
Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 9A.46.110. Stalking. (2007)
(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and
(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and
(c) The stalker either:
(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or
(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.
RCW § 9A.46.110 pretty clearly describes the manner in which I have been followed within and without my home and in and out of the State of Washington for nearly two years by a bunch of scumbucket real estate speculators or the harassers they hire to help them to harass residents from the properties they want. On a finer point, we could say that whenever they’re not committing some other crime enabled by the stalking, according to the law, they are stalking me.
The point of the stalking is to give chase, and the point of the chase is to make the tenant run. Real estate mobbing, as I have experienced it, combines techniques of surveillance with the form of harassment most effective for the victim’s environment in a cops-and-robbers approach to chasing a legal tenant out of her home. For those unfamiliar with this blog, I’ll recap.
Based on the fact that my mobbing began after years of bullying orchestrated by members of the neighborhood watch in my northeast Seattle neighborhood, bullying that demonstrated collusion between the “watch,” developers working the neighborhood, real estate agents and some apparent small-time investors and house flippers who bought the houses around me, and based on the fact that the criminal harassment that is part of my being mobbed at home is pretty clearly delivered from the houses to the north and south of me, this appears to be an American form of real estate mobbing, a form of harassment used to “clear” tenants from properties that speculators want. The methods of the harassers are so practiced that I must conclude they are professional harassers or have worked with professional harassers to learn their technique.
This method of “clearing” tenants is, no doubt, the dirty little secret of unethical developers and speculators, preferred because in treating the legal tenant like a criminal and investigating the tenant background for anything that can be used against him, the criminal harassers not only play to and profit off of the nastiness of anti-renter neighborhoods, but by pretending to be working for “the law” or other authority figures they are able to harass and harangue tenants into believing they are in legal jeopardy and then to get them to quietly “move on,” and keep their mouths shut.
The stalking that enables the harassment—much of which is legally considered cybercrime—is unceasing, continuing even during an individual’s most private moments. The formal opening of a mobbing, at least the point where civil harassment makes an obvious leap into the criminal realm, may come with the victim “overhearing” statements that let her know she is being watched inside her house. In my case, it was the voice of a neighbor two years ago, probably projected onto the window pane of my bathroom window, saying, “I turned down the mic. She’s in the john.” A woman responded, “Did they say we could do that?” The pretense that I was “overhearing” things was soon dropped as the mobbers began to constantly remark on my activities. This is a way to ensure that you know you are being watched, and to harass. In a single stroke, mobbers remove privacy and quiet from your existence. This is probably a pretty effective method of tenant clearing.
It’s an election year and a storm is afoot. Let’s talk about how the criminal harassers who call themselves “mobbers”—this “bad-boy” wave of real estate speculators—stalk and harass in public locker rooms and bathrooms.
Beware, these are the Ides of March.
(To be continued…)