Unsafe at Home: Systemically Stalked While in a State-Operated Confidentiality Program for Victims of Stalking

Attention: The only reason I can speak on this now is because my identity has already been irreversibly compromised. If I were protected, this information would remain classified—I’m not careless. But my opponent already knows. They continue to stalk, track, and weaponize data against me as a method of control. So the public can be involved in knowing what's going on too.

About The Program

“Safe at Home” is Minnesota’s address confidentiality and protection program, administered by the Minnesota Secretary of State. Its purpose is to help survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or others who fear for their safety to maintain a confidential residential address. It does this by assigning participants a PO Box address, which becomes their legal address for many purposes. The program also forwards mail from that PO Box to the participant’s real (hidden) address.

Key Features & How It Works

Here are some details on how the program operates:

Eligibility: Must reside in Minnesota; must fear for personal safety (or the safety of a child/ward or another person with whom you reside). Not eligible if you are a registered predatory offender, or required to register in any state. As of July 1, 2024, people who intend to move to Minnesota within 60 days of applying also qualify. 

Application Process: You must work with a Safe at Home Application Assistant (often someone from a victim advocacy or legal service agency) who helps you with the application packet and safety planning. Bring photo ID, guardianship documentation if applying for someone else (e.g. ward) etc. Legal Address: The PO Box assigned by the program becomes your legal address for all public and private entities. No one can force you to disclose your real address. Mail Forwarding: First‑class mail sent to the Safe at Home PO Box is forwarded to your real address. The actual address remains guarded by the program. Service of Process: The Secretary of State is designated as the agent for service of process (legal documents, court papers). Only your name + designated Safe at Home address (including assigned Lot Number) is required for legal service.  Address Format: All participants share the same PO Box number (in Saint Paul) but each gets a unique Lot Number. Your name + Lot Number + that PO Box is what you use. Safety Planning: Part of the application process includes developing a personalized safety plan, considering school, work, technology, social media etc. Your plan can be revisited and updated. Strengths / What’s Helpful From what the program offers: It gives legal cover: you can use the Safe at Home address (PO Box + Lot No.) instead of your actual home address in many official and unofficial contexts. That helps reduce risk of someone tracking you through public records or documents. Mail forwarding + service of process handled through the program means fewer direct interactions or exposures tied to your real location. The involvement of trained Application Assistants means there is a formal process, and not just a self‑serve or ambiguous program. Safety planning is built in, so it’s not just an address—they require thinking through how your life, interactions, tech, etc. might expose you, and planning around that. Gaps, Risks, & What the Law Might Not Fully Address (from a Critical Perspective) Even though Safe at Home is strong in many respects, looking at it from someone who is already being systematically targeted (as you describe), some potential weak points or gaps emerge: Dependence on trust in institutions Even programs like this assume that all parties involved (law enforcement, private actors, agencies) will respect the confidentiality. In reality, leaks, misuse of information, falsification, or abuse of power can undermine the confidentiality. Limited protection vs. cyberstalking / digital exposure Having a confidential physical address helps a lot—but someone who is trying to discredit, harass, or track you might use digital trails, public records, social media, etc. The law or program may not fully anticipate or protect against all those methods. Verification / Oversight How well does the program enforce non‑disclosure? If someone tries to force the real address out legally (or through misuse of courts, subpoenas, unauthorized disclosures), does the law respond strongly? Also, is there any retrospective accountability when breaches happen? Accessibility Not everyone knows about the program, or has access to a Safe at Home Application Assistant. Some may feel unsafe even in filling out the paperwork, or fear reprisals if discovered. Language, disability, poverty, housing status may complicate the ability to participate fully or safely. Duration & Reapplication / Cancellation Risks If someone’s enrollment is cancelled, or they withdraw, or the program ends for them, is there protection for the period while enrolled or after? What if an aggressor claims rights or uses legal pressure? Real address still exists; property, medical, public benefits, etc. Even with Safe at Home, there are moments where one must interact with public systems (medical, licensing, schools) that may require disclosure of real address or leave traces. If those systems are corrupt, or fail to honor confidentiality, exposed risk remains. Proof burden / Denial issues If someone’s real address is revealed, or someone denies benefits or services, proving the violation of confidentiality or misuse might be difficult without documentation, legal support, etc. Law vs. Practice Laws can exist, but enforcement, regulatory follow‑up, compliance, pattern building matters. If regulatory bodies ignore breaches, or institutions comply poorly, effect is weak. From what you’ve shared, there are many cases of required actions being “ignored” or “buried.” Possible Ways It Could Fail In Situations Like Yours Given your history of systemic abuse, being blocked from treatment, being stalked (cyber and otherwise), these kinds of protections, while meaningful, may still not be sufficient. Some issues: If the very agencies you’re exposing or reporting to are the ones involved in ignoring, suppressing, or retaliating, they may not respect or follow confidentiality or safe address rules. If there are false claims or documents being created that misrepresent your status or character, those could override, confuse, or negate Safe at Home protections in some settings. You might still be exposed via medical providers, health insurance paperwork, etc., especially if they demand real addresses or have billing or audit systems that leak addresses. If your identity has been legally changed, or your name is different in some systems but not others, that mismatch can be leveraged by bad actors to force exposure. What Could Be Improved / What to Push For If one were trying to strengthen Safe at Home (or push a reform / oversight lens), these would be some demands or action points: Stronger penalties for institutions (government or private) that violate address confidentiality or fail to accept the Safe at Home address. Clear legal pathways for participants to seek redress (lawsuits, complaints) when breaches happen. Broader protections in digital realms: make sure that tech/data systems used by public/private actors are required to use Safe at Home addresses and not leak real ones. A fictitious residential address for government-issued identification, rather than a a PO BOX for banking (online employment) use, as other state successfully do. There is a heavy negative, economic impact that comes with enrollment if people want to earn money in the digital economy. Monitoring & transparency of how often breaches happen, how often legal documents misuse addresses, etc. A complete stop to excessive information gathering, communication, and usage in the state of Minnesota—especially by government agencies like the Department of Human Services (DHS). I knew things were bad—I'm in an address confidentiality program in the first place. But it wasn’t until I left the boundaries of the state that I realized just how abnormal Minnesota’s systems really are. In other states, government and business can operate on about 1% of the data Minnesota collects just to process employment, legal aid, or basic public services. And the outcomes in those places? Less systemic abuse, less long-term harm, and measurably higher rates of health, employment, and ownership. Leaving Minnesota made one thing crystal clear: excessive data collection and surveillance aren’t about efficiency—they're about control. They're the machinery of “systemic crime”—used to manage wealth, health, and population demographics in ways that preserve Minnesota’s eugenic power structure. That structure was reinforced after the U.S. lost the combat phase of the Civil War to Black Americans. What followed was a new phase: one that claimed to be non-violent but is, in truth, far more insidious. This is the phase we still live in today. All the fraud, all the racialized statistics pouring out of Minnesota—they’re driven by narrative alone. A carefully controlled flow of information and surveillance designed to reinforce racial and class hierarchies. DHS has its veins in nearly every institutional system in the state and beyond. This isn’t about public good. It’s about maintaining a legacy of domination through data. “You know language is a peculiar institution. It leads to the Heart of a people. The more a foreigner knows about the language of another country the more he is able to Move through all levels of that society. Therefore, if the foreigner is an enemy of the country, to the extent That he knows the body of the language, to that extent is the country vulnerable to attack or invasion of a Foreign culture.” – Willie Lynch Conclusion Minnesota’s Safe at Home is a legally grounded, significant tool intended for people in danger from intimate partner violence, stalking, or those fearing for their safety. It offers real protections: confidential address, legal address substitution, mail forwarding, legal service protections. However, as with any protective system, its efficacy depends on systemic respect for law, on institutions following rules, on consistent oversight, and adequate support. For someone in your position—where abuse, targeting, and systemic violations have been ongoing—you would probably see both its promise and its limitations: promise in legal codification, address confidentiality; limitation in that many of the harms you describe (medical fraud, denial of treatment, forced chronic illness, identity attacks) may still evade safeguards or be exacerbated by other systems. Minnesota Secretary of State, Safe At Home—Laws CHAPTER 5B. DATA PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE Table of Sections Section Headnote 5B.01 FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 5B.02 DEFINITIONS. 5B.03 ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM. 5B.04 CERTIFICATION CANCELLATION. 5B.05 USE OF DESIGNATED ADDRESS. 5B.06 VOTING BY PROGRAM PARTICIPANT; ABSENTEE BALLOT. 5B.07 DATA CLASSIFICATION. 5B.08 ADOPTION OF RULES. 5B.09 REPORT TO LEGISLATURE. 5B.10 DISPLAY AND RELEASE OF NAME PROHIBITED. 5B.11 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; PROTECTIVE ORDER. 5B.12 AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT FUNDS. 5B.13 CRIMINAL PENALTY. ___________________________