CALIFORNIA

CARE Act Process and

2026-2027 Expansion Guide

How a petition begins, what must be proved, what the court can order, and how CARE differs from 5150 detention, AOT, conservatorship, and criminal-court competency routes

Status date Current through October 5, 2026. The guide clearly labels provisions that are already operative and provisions scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027.

Prepared as a public-information dossier

California law changes frequently. This document is educational and is not legal or medical advice. Court forms, local procedures, and statutory text should be checked before use.

Contents

• 1. Executive summary
• 2. What CARE is – and what it is not
• 3. Eligibility: every element must be met
• 4. Who may start a CARE case
• 5. The standard petition process
• 6. Evidence and forms
• 7. Hearings, proof, and respondent rights
• 8. CARE agreements, CARE plans, medication, and housing
• 9. Duration, reviews, graduation, and reappointment
• 10. New and recent legislation: SB 27, SB 989, SB 1242, and SB 1323
• 11. Related California pathways: 5150, AOT, LPS, and competency
• 12. Process comparisons and escalation boundaries
• 13. Practical response checklist
• 14. Common misconceptions
• 15. Primary authorities and official resources

Quick status table

Provision	Status on Oct. 5, 2026	Core effect
CARE Act baseline	Operative statewide	Civil court process for specified adults meeting all CARE criteria.
SB 27	Effective Jan. 1, 2026	Expanded qualifying diagnoses to bipolar I disorder with psychotic features and strengthened criminal-court referral routes.
SB 989	Signed Sept. 27, 2026; effective Jan. 1, 2027	Lets qualifying first responders refer a matter to county behavioral health for investigation and possible county filing.
SB 1242	Signed Sept. 27, 2026; effective Jan. 1, 2027	Creates a defined channel for certain original family/household petitioners to submit information to the CARE team.
SB 1323	Effective Jan. 1, 2025	Connects misdemeanor incompetency proceedings to CARE and other treatment pathways.

1. Executive summary

The Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act creates a civil court process through which specified petitioners may ask a superior court to connect an adult to behavioral-health treatment, medication support, housing resources, and other services. Filing a petition does not itself establish a diagnosis, authorize confinement, or prove that the respondent meets CARE eligibility.

A CARE case normally moves through several gates: an authorized petitioner files the required forms and supporting evidence; the judge performs a preliminary review; the county investigates and attempts voluntary engagement; counsel is appointed; and the court may hold a merits hearing. At the merits hearing, eligibility must be established by clear and convincing evidence. If the criteria are not met, the case must be dismissed.

The central safeguard CARE eligibility is element-based. Concern, family conflict, homelessness, unusual behavior, an officer’s opinion, or a diagnosis by itself is not enough. The petitioner and county still must satisfy every statutory criterion and the applicable proof standard.

2. What CARE is – and what it is not

CARE is	CARE is not
A civil superior-court proceeding.	A criminal prosecution or automatic probation violation.
A structured route to behavioral-health services and housing supports.	An automatic commitment to a locked psychiatric facility.
A process that may produce a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan.	A finding that every allegation in the petition is true.
A proceeding with appointed counsel and hearing rights for the respondent.	A process in which the original family or first-responder petitioner controls treatment.
Separate from emergency 5150 detention and LPS conservatorship.	Authority to forcibly administer medication merely because a CARE plan lists medication.

3. Eligibility: every element must be met

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5972, CARE eligibility is conjunctive: the court must find each required element, not merely one or two. In practical terms, the court examines the following questions:

Required element	Operational question
Adult status	Is the person at least 18 years old?
Qualifying disorder	Is the person currently experiencing a severe mental disorder within the specified diagnostic classes? Current law includes schizophrenia-spectrum and other psychotic disorders and, after SB 27, bipolar I disorder with psychotic features. A condition explained solely by current intoxication is excluded.
Not stabilized voluntarily	Is the person not clinically stabilized in ongoing voluntary treatment?
Deterioration or prevention need	Is the person unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision and substantially deteriorating, or does the person need services and supports to prevent relapse or deterioration likely to result in grave disability or serious harm?
Least restrictive alternative	Would a CARE agreement or plan be the least restrictive alternative necessary to ensure recovery and stability?
Likely benefit	Is the person likely to benefit from CARE participation?

Because the statutory test focuses on current circumstances, old records may supply context but do not automatically establish present eligibility. A respondent may contest diagnosis, current symptoms, deterioration, risk, necessity, and whether a less restrictive voluntary alternative is working.

4. Who may start a CARE case

Welfare and Institutions Code section 5974 lists the authorized petitioners. The list is specific; a concerned person who falls outside it cannot file merely because the person knows the respondent.

• A person who lives with the respondent; a spouse or registered domestic partner; a parent, sibling, child, or grandparent; or a person who stands in loco parentis.
• The director of a hospital in which the respondent is hospitalized, or a designee.
• The director of a public or charitable organization, agency, or home that has provided behavioral-health services to the respondent within the statutory period, or a designee.
• A licensed behavioral-health professional who is treating or recently treated the respondent, subject to the statutory time requirement.
• A first responder with repeated interactions with the respondent, including specified peace officers, firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, mobile-crisis workers, and homeless-outreach workers.
• The director of the county behavioral-health agency, or a designee.
• The respondent.
• Specified public guardians or conservators, and certain tribal-court or tribal-health representatives where the statutory conditions are met.

What ‘repeated interactions’ means for first responders

The first-responder route is not new in 2027. Current CARE law already permits a qualifying first responder to file when the responder has had repeated interactions with the person through multiple arrests, repeated 5150 detentions, repeated attempts to engage the person in voluntary treatment, or other repeated efforts to provide aid. SB 989 changes the practical filing route beginning in 2027; it does not create first-responder eligibility from nothing.

5. The standard petition process

Stage	What happens
Pre-filing facts and status	The petitioner determines whether the person appears to meet every CARE criterion and whether the petitioner is statutorily authorized.
Forms and supporting proof	The petitioner files CARE-100 with either a CARE-101 declaration from a licensed behavioral-health professional or the alternative detention evidence allowed by statute.
Prima facie judicial review	The judge promptly reviews the filing. If it does not make the required preliminary showing, the court may dismiss it without prejudice, subject to statutory exceptions.
County investigation	For a non-county petition, the court generally orders a county agency to investigate, attempt voluntary engagement, and file a report. Current section 5977 allows up to 30 court days, with a possible limited extension when engagement is progressing.
Voluntary engagement checkpoint	If the person enrolls or is likely to enroll voluntarily, the court dismisses the CARE matter. If the evidence does not support eligibility, the court dismisses.
Counsel and initial appearance	If the showing remains sufficient and engagement was ineffective, the court appoints counsel and sets an initial appearance. The original petitioner generally is replaced by the county behavioral-health director as successor petitioner.
Merits hearing	The court determines whether clear and convincing evidence proves all CARE criteria. If not, dismissal is required. If yes, the county must work with the respondent, counsel, and supporter toward a CARE agreement.
Agreement or clinical evaluation	If a voluntary CARE agreement is not reached, the court may order a clinical evaluation and proceed toward a court-ordered CARE plan if the criteria remain established.
Review hearings	The court monitors implementation through status reviews. The focus includes service delivery by the county, housing stability, engagement, and whether the plan remains appropriate.
Graduation or limited reappointment	The court conducts an end-stage review. CARE ordinarily lasts up to one year, with one additional year possible only after the required findings.

6. Evidence and forms

Core filing package

Form or evidence	Purpose
CARE-100	Petition to begin CARE Act proceedings. It identifies the petitioner, the respondent, eligibility facts, residence/location information, and supporting circumstances.
CARE-101	Mental-health declaration completed by a licensed behavioral-health professional who examined the respondent, or attempted to examine the respondent, within the statutory period and has reason to believe CARE criteria are met.
Alternative detention proof	Instead of CARE-101, the petition may include evidence of at least two qualifying intensive-treatment detentions, with the most recent within the required 60-day period.
CARE-105 / CARE-106	Court order and notice associated with the county investigation and report.
CARE-110 / CARE-113	Notice of initial appearance and notice of the respondent’s rights.

What should be tested, not assumed

• Whether the declarant is qualified and whether the examination or attempted examination occurred within the statutory time window.
• Whether the facts support the qualifying diagnosis rather than merely using labels, hearsay, or conclusions.
• Whether the alleged deterioration, grave disability, or risk is current and supported by admissible evidence.
• Whether the person is already clinically stabilized in voluntary treatment.
• Whether CARE truly is the least restrictive alternative and likely to provide a benefit.
• Whether records, dates, identities, and quoted statements are accurate and complete.

Records are not self-proving A report or prior label may be disputed. Relevance, foundation, hearsay rules, expert qualifications, privacy protections, and the statutory burden still matter at the merits stage.

7. Hearings, proof, and respondent rights

The respondent is a party and is entitled to procedural protections. Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5976 and 5976.5 provide rights that include:

• Notice and a copy of the petition and required reports or evaluations, subject to governing confidentiality rules.
• Court-appointed counsel at all stages and the ability to substitute retained counsel.
• The right to be present, subject to limited waiver and statutory procedures for proceeding in an absence.
• The right to present evidence, call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, and challenge expert opinions.
• The right to an interpreter and disability accommodations where applicable.
• The option to use a supporter, chosen by the respondent, to help understand, communicate, and make decisions. The supporter does not replace the respondent’s decision-making authority.
• The right to appeal reviewable orders under the governing statutes and rules.

At the merits hearing, the successor petitioner must establish CARE eligibility by clear and convincing evidence. That standard is more demanding than a mere preliminary showing and requires evidence sufficient to produce a firm belief or conviction in the truth of the required facts.

Confidentiality

CARE proceedings and records receive special confidentiality protection. Hearings generally are closed. County investigation reports are confidential, are not public records, and are generally inadmissible in later legal proceedings unless the respondent moves to use them. These protections do not erase every permitted disclosure; the statute authorizes specified information sharing for treatment, implementation, and court administration.

8. CARE agreements, CARE plans, medication, and housing

CARE agreement

A CARE agreement is a voluntary settlement among the respondent and county behavioral-health agency, approved by the court. It may include behavioral-health treatment, stabilization medication, substance-use treatment when clinically indicated, housing resources, social services, and supports. Because it is voluntary, its terms should reflect informed agreement rather than a finding that every requested service is mandatory.

CARE plan

If an agreement cannot be reached and the court continues to find the respondent eligible, the court may order a CARE plan after the required evaluation and hearings. The plan is individualized and may include the same categories of treatment and services. The county also has enforceable duties to provide ordered services and supports; CARE is not solely a set of commands directed at the respondent.

Medication limits

CARE does not authorize forcible medication A CARE plan may include a medication order. But Welfare and Institutions Code section 5977.1 states that medication may not be forcibly administered under CARE. A medication order requires the statutory findings, including a clear-and-convincing determination concerning capacity after evaluation and hearing. Noncompliance is not punishable as contempt.

Other California laws governing emergency treatment, capacity hearings, inpatient medication, or conservatorship operate separately. A CARE order should not be treated as a substitute for those independent legal requirements.

Housing limits

CARE may require a housing plan and prioritize access to appropriate housing resources. It does not, by itself, authorize locked placement, eviction, or removal from a home. A housing component should identify available resources, the respondent’s needs and preferences, and the county’s implementation responsibilities.

Consequences of nonparticipation

A respondent is not jailed or held in contempt simply for failing to comply with a CARE agreement or plan. The court may modify or terminate the process, and the record may have limited relevance to a later, independently initiated LPS proceeding where the separate statutory standards must still be met. CARE does not automatically convert into conservatorship.

9. Duration, reviews, graduation, and reappointment

Point in process	General rule
Initial CARE period	Up to 12 months under a court-approved agreement or plan.
Status reviews	Periodic hearings assess services, progress, barriers, housing, and continued implementation.
Eleventh-month review	The court addresses graduation, a voluntary graduation plan, or whether a further period is legally justified.
Reappointment	One additional period of up to 12 months may be ordered only after the required findings; CARE is not an unlimited rolling order.
Dismissal	The matter may end earlier if eligibility is not proved, voluntary engagement succeeds, criteria cease to be met, or statutory dismissal grounds apply.

10. New and recent legislation

SB 27 – operative January 1, 2026

SB 27 expanded CARE eligibility to include bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, in addition to qualifying schizophrenia-spectrum and other psychotic disorders. It also revised criminal-court and county referral provisions, including routes involving defendants found incompetent to stand trial. The expansion does not eliminate the remaining CARE criteria: current severity, lack of stabilization in voluntary treatment, deterioration or prevention need, least-restrictive necessity, and likely benefit must still be shown.

SB 989 – operative January 1, 2027

Before SB 989 becomes operative, a qualifying first responder with repeated interactions may file a CARE petition directly and must supply the required supporting material. Beginning January 1, 2027, SB 989 creates an additional referral mechanism:

1. The qualifying officer or firefighter sends a standardized referral to the county behavioral-health agency.
2. The county investigates whether the person appears to meet CARE criteria and whether a county-filed petition is appropriate.
3. The county has 30 business days to decide whether to file and must report the outcome to the referring first responder.
4. If the county files, ordinary judicial screening, notice, counsel, investigation, proof, and hearing requirements continue to apply.

Effect of SB 989 SB 989 lowers an administrative barrier for qualifying police and fire personnel by shifting investigation and filing work to county behavioral health. It does not make a first responder’s opinion conclusive and does not itself create a CARE order.

SB 1242 – operative January 1, 2027

SB 1242 changes what certain original family or household petitioners may provide after the county replaces them as petitioner. The original petitioner may send the CARE team information about the respondent’s condition, functioning, treatment history, housing, safety concerns, need for services, engagement, and compliance. The CARE team must receive, review, and document information relevant to care, treatment, housing stability, safety, engagement, or plan implementation. The respondent’s consent is not required merely for the team to receive that incoming information.

The statute also draws firm boundaries. Submission does not give the original petitioner party status or a right to direct treatment, obtain discovery, access confidential records or protected health information, attend confidential proceedings, or otherwise participate without the respondent’s consent except where another law expressly permits it. The court may consider the submitted information when evaluating progress, engagement, changed circumstances, needs, or compliance, but ordinary evidence rules and due-process protections remain relevant.

Practical risk and practical limit SB 1242 creates a formal intake channel for information that could influence care-team and court decisions. It does not convert allegations into findings. Accuracy, documentation, source reliability, confidentiality, admissibility, and the respondent’s opportunity to answer remain critical.

SB 1323 – operative January 1, 2025

SB 1323 connected misdemeanor incompetency proceedings with CARE and other community-treatment options. When a misdemeanor defendant is found incompetent to stand trial, the criminal court must follow Penal Code section 1370.01 and consider the authorized pathways, which may include mental-health diversion, restoration treatment, dismissal, or referral for CARE evaluation where the statutory conditions are present. A referral is not a final CARE eligibility finding; the civil CARE court applies CARE’s separate criteria and procedures.

11. Related California pathways

Pathway	Entry standard	Immediate effect	Key limit
CARE Act	All section 5972 criteria; clear and convincing proof at merits hearing	Court-supervised agreement or plan for services and housing supports	No automatic confinement; no forcible medication under CARE
5150 detention	Probable cause of danger to self, danger to others, or grave disability because of a mental-health disorder	Up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, crisis intervention, and treatment	Time-limited emergency detention; later detention requires separate authority
5250 / intensive treatment	Further statutory certification after evaluation and required findings	Additional involuntary treatment period with certification-review protections	Separate LPS procedures, notice, and review rights
AOT – Laura’s Law	County AOT criteria, repeated history, deterioration, and likelihood of benefit	Court-ordered outpatient treatment framework	No automatic locked placement; criteria differ from CARE
LPS conservatorship	Grave disability under the LPS Act proved through conservatorship procedures	Conservator may receive authority over specified personal and treatment decisions	Much greater liberty restriction; jury-trial and periodic-review rights apply
Criminal competency	Substantial doubt or finding that a defendant cannot understand proceedings or assist counsel	Criminal case is suspended while competency procedures occur	Competency is not the same as guilt or CARE eligibility
Mental-health diversion	Penal Code section 1001.36 eligibility and suitability	Criminal charges may be diverted into treatment and later dismissed after successful completion	Requires its own findings and differs from CARE’s civil process

5150 and medication are separate legal questions

A peace officer or specified clinician may initiate a 5150 detention when there is probable cause to believe that, because of a mental-health disorder, a person is a danger to self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled. A 5150 is an emergency evaluation mechanism, not a CARE petition. Involuntary medication during LPS detention is governed by separate capacity and emergency rules, including Welfare and Institutions Code section 5332; CARE’s no-forcible-medication rule does not rewrite those separate provisions.

LPS conservatorship is not an automatic next step

An LPS conservatorship requires its own petition, evidence, findings, and procedural protections. ‘Grave disability’ has a detailed statutory definition, including recent amendments concerning personal safety and necessary medical care. The respondent has rights that can include counsel, a hearing, and a jury trial. A CARE history may be considered only as permitted by law; it does not dispense with the conservatorship burden of proof.

12. Process comparisons and escalation boundaries

Starting event	What may happen next	What does not happen automatically
Family member files CARE-100	Judge screens; county may investigate and attempt voluntary engagement	No immediate diagnosis, medication, confinement, or final order
First responder files now	Direct CARE petition with required support and ordinary court screening	Officer’s conclusion does not establish eligibility
First responder refers after Jan. 1, 2027	County investigates under SB 989 and decides whether it will file	Referral does not require the county to file or the judge to grant relief
Original family petitioner sends information after Jan. 1, 2027	CARE team reviews and documents relevant information under SB 1242	No party status, discovery, treatment control, or confidential-record access
5150 detention occurs	Facility evaluates and may release, admit voluntarily, or pursue further LPS authority	No automatic CARE case or conservatorship
Criminal court finds misdemeanor incompetency	Court considers statutory options and may refer to CARE evaluation	No automatic CARE eligibility finding or conviction

13. Practical response checklist

For a person who learns that a CARE petition or referral may exist, the most useful early response is organized, factual, and tied to the statutory elements:

• Confirm whether a petition was actually filed, the county and case number, the next date, and the exact documents filed. A threat to file, a referral, and an opened court case are different events.
• Contact appointed counsel immediately. If counsel has not yet been appointed, contact the superior court’s CARE self-help office or local public defender/legal-services provider.
• Obtain and read CARE-100, CARE-101, the county report, notices, and any clinical evaluation. Create a list of every factual assertion that is inaccurate, incomplete, undated, or unsupported.
• Organize records showing current housing, food, medical care, voluntary treatment, medication management, employment or daily functioning, and reliable support. These facts may bear directly on stabilization, risk, least-restrictive necessity, and likely benefit.
• Preserve favorable audio, video, messages, medical records, witness information, and timelines in original form. Do not edit originals; make working copies.
• Ask counsel to address each section 5972 element separately and to challenge hearsay, foundation, stale information, expert qualifications, and unsupported conclusions where appropriate.
• Use calm, precise language in filings and hearings. Distinguish personal knowledge from inference, identify dates and sources, and avoid overclaiming what a document proves.
• If information arrived through SB 1242, ask counsel how it was documented, whether it is being offered as evidence, and what process is available to correct or contextualize it.
• If the matter began in criminal court, keep the CARE proceeding, competency question, diversion request, probation status, and underlying criminal allegations analytically separate unless a statute expressly connects them.

14. Common misconceptions

Misconception	More accurate statement
‘Anyone can file.’	Only petitioners listed by statute may initiate a CARE case.
‘A police officer could not file until SB 989.’	Qualifying first responders already can file. SB 989 adds a county-referral route in 2027.
‘A family allegation becomes evidence automatically.’	SB 1242 permits submission and review of information; it does not make the allegation true, admissible, or conclusive.
‘CARE means forced medication.’	CARE may include a medication order after required findings, but the CARE Act bars forcible administration under that order.
‘CARE means locked housing.’	CARE provides a housing plan and service access; it is not itself authority for locked placement.
‘Refusing CARE means jail.’	CARE noncompliance is not contempt and does not itself authorize incarceration.
‘A 5150 automatically leads to CARE.’	The processes are separate. A detention may become evidence, but a CARE case requires an authorized filing and statutory review.
‘A diagnosis alone is enough.’	All eligibility elements, including current instability, need, least-restrictive necessity, and likely benefit, must be established.
‘CARE automatically becomes conservatorship.’	LPS conservatorship requires a separate proceeding and separate proof of grave disability.

15. Primary authorities and official resources

The following official sources should be checked for the current text, forms, and local implementation. URLs are included for direct verification.

1. California Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 5970-5987 (CARE Act): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=WIC&division=5.&title=&part=8.&chapter=&article=

2. SB 1242 (2025-2026), chaptered bill text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB1242

3. SB 989 (2025-2026), bill information and chaptered text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB989

4. SB 27 (2025-2026), bill information and chaptered text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB27

5. SB 1323 (2023-2024), bill information and chaptered text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1323

6. California Courts Self-Help: CARE Act overview: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/care-act

7. California Courts Self-Help: CARE Act forms: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/care-act/forms

8. California Courts Self-Help: how to file a CARE petition: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/care-act/how-to-file

9. CARE-050-INFO, Information for Petitioners: https://courts.ca.gov/system/files?file=2025-07/care050info.pdf

10. CARE-060-INFO, Information for Respondents: https://courts.ca.gov/system/files?file=2025-07/care060info.pdf

11. CARE-100, Petition to Begin CARE Act Proceedings: https://courts.ca.gov/system/files?file=2025-07/care100.pdf

12. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5150.&lawCode=WIC

13. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5332 (capacity and medication rules): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5332.&lawCode=WIC

14. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350 (LPS conservatorship): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5350.&lawCode=WIC

15. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008 (definitions, including grave disability): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5008.&lawCode=WIC

16. Penal Code sections 1367-1370.02 (competency proceedings): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=PEN&division=&title=10.&part=2.&chapter=6.&article=

Use note

This guide describes the statewide statutory framework. Counties may use different departments, calendars, filing portals, and local forms. For an active matter, use the filed papers and the superior court’s current local instructions, and obtain advice from appointed or retained counsel.

What should have been a simple speeding ticket….

Obviously this is intermingled with the daily MENTAL ILLNESS attacks, to create the appearance of CRAZY, VIOLENT, UNSTABLE with WORLDWIDE groups conspiring using the INTERNET as a weapon to coordinate with the Police, and Pscyhology community.

How does one STAY SAFE from being STALKED by the FEAR MONGERED masses working with the Police, in Community Police STALKING operaitons while the target and victim is told he’s imagining it with an AGENDA to ERADICATE at all costs with CRIMINAL and MENTAL ILLNESS labeling cover ups?

This would be equivalent to smoking some joints with your friends in college, and 10 years later your family trying to plant a trashbag of police confiscated marijuana in your house to fabricate and forge falsified police reports to try to make you look like a drug dealing to teach lessons for simply going to some social groups and having some harmless fun. By destroying your name, reputation and life in the name of someones own idealogies. Exercising the law in their own way by paying off people with the police. While indoctrinated the hypcritical masses to help.

Under California Vehicle Code § 4463(a), a person commits a crime if they do any of the following with intent to defraud:

If you fake, modify, or knowingly use fake vehicle registration or plate-related documents with fraudulent intent, you violate VC 4463(a)

Alters, forges, counterfeits, or falsifies any:

• certificate of ownership
• registration card
• license
• license plate
• temporary plate
• permit or similar DMV-issued document

OR

Displays, possesses, or uses any of those items knowing they are:

• false
• forged
• altered
• counterfeit
• invalid (cancelled, revoked, etc.)

The reliance on outdated documentation, obtained without consent while valid paperwork was being presented, demonstrates a deviation from the scope of the initial speeding stop and a shift toward an unrelated allegation not supported by the operative documents, suggesting a pretextual effort to pursue an outcome independent of the facts presented.

Incident synopsis for defense counsel (VC 4463(a) allegation)

• Stop context: Traffic stop in Ventura County on or about May 25, 2025 (per complaint).

Charges filed: Officer was Handed a Montana Registration but took a old OUTDATED California Registration when I explicitly stated that was the EXPIRED one, having 2 registrations in his hand and knowingly using the old CA one. He took it knowing it was expired.

• • Count 1: Vehicle Code 4463(a) (alleged “forgery of registration / certificate of ownership,” with intent to defraud; alleged passing as genuine/CA DMV–

issued).

• • Count 2: Vehicle Code 2234G(a) (speeding; approx. 85 mph in a 65 mph zone).

Document exchange at the stop

• Officer requested driver license and registration.
• Client provided current Montana registration paperwork corresponding to the Montana-plated vehicle
• While retrieving documents, an older California DMV registration card (from a prior period before Montana registration) was in the pile of paperwork, as Officer Watkins was notified it was expired and the old paperwork
• Client did not present the older CA registration card as current registration for the vehicle; it was outdated/expired and retained in the glovebox from prior registration history due to lack of cleaning out car.
• Officer took/collected the older CA registration card after notifying him that, it was expired and the old one, merging it with the Montana Plates, instead of associating the Montana Paperwork he was given

Apparent misunderstanding / interpretive issue

• The older California registration card is genuine (DMV-issued format, dates, seals/barcode) but expired/outdated and no longer current there is no forgery.
• The Montana registration is genuine and current with Montana plates and stickers(Montana registration format, VIN/vehicle information, validity period).
• Officer appears to have treated the existence of an expired CA registration card

(and/or an “inactive/expired” CA database return) as evidence that the CA

document was fraudulent/forged, rather than simply expired/obsolete. However

he was supposed to run the Montana Plates with the Montana Registration, not the expired California registration he took without permission,

• Key factual mismatch: The complaint alleges the “certificate of

ownership/registration” was forged/counterfeit and intended to be represented as issued by California DMV and passed as genuine. Client’s position is that no document was forged or altered—the only CA document was a genuine but expired registration card, and the operative/current registration was Montana.

Verification questions to resolve via discovery (non-argumentative)

• What exact document is the prosecution claiming was

“altered/forged/counterfeit/falsified” (CA registration card vs. title/ownership document vs. other)?

• Did the officer run VIN/plate and rely on a CA “not currently registered” return? If so, what was the exact return language?
• Was the Montana plate/VIN/registration verified at the stop (MDT/radio log), and if not, why was verification not performed?
• Do bodycam/dashcam/photos capture (a) client handing the Montana registration first, and (b) the older CA card falling out and being collected which was not

presented to him by the driver of the vehicle?

Defense posture in one sentence

• This appears to be a paperwork timeline/interpretation issue (current Montana registration + old expired CA registration still in glovebox), not a forgery case—i.e., no altered/counterfeit document and no intent to defraud consistent with VC 4463(a) And Proper Paperwork was presented that Officer Watkins overlooked.

ExPapp

ired California Registration Knowing it

was expired and old based on my statement

ffffff

Current Montana Registration Handed To Officer Watkins First Which He Ignored

Car history showing everything was done legit, with third party agents

A record based review of the 2017 trial appeal and relationship to Officer Charles Sean Dinse

Prepared as a standalone investigative profile. This report is not a habeas petition and does not assume that every identified omission proves a secret agreement. It distinguishes the existing record, Petitioner’s account, reasonable inferences, and matters that require counsel-file production or testimony.

Executive Assessment

The available record supports a serious, focused criticism of Seymour I. Amster’s representation. The concern is not simply that he lost a difficult misdemeanor trial or selected an imperfect strategy. The concern is that the direction of his choices repeatedly favored a psychiatric-dangerousness explanation over an innocence, self-defense, false-reporting, provocation, or police-influence defense. He recognized several components of the defense—protected expression, vigilante conduct, witness provocation, and the danger of using criminal law to suppress unpopular speech—but did not assemble the objective records capable of proving those components. He then used language that invited jurors to understand Kevin Perelman as mentally ill, paranoid, and potentially violent, including references to guns, Parkland, and Columbine.

That choice had consequences extending beyond the verdict. The trial court imposed mental-health treatment and force-and-violence conditions. Amster then handled the appeal from his own trial, repeated the psychiatric premise, reproduced damaging prosecution-centered facts, failed to develop a section 1118.1 sufficiency issue, and did not present the extra-record ineffective-assistance claim that would have required examination of his own files and decisions. The Court of Appeal expressly treated the sufficiency issue as forfeited because the opening brief did not develop it and the reply appeared to disavow it.

The relationship to Officer Charles “Sean” Dinse is evidentiary rather than personal on the current record. Dinse testified to an extensive police-centered information stream: more than fifty social-media interactions, approximately fifteen field contacts, and thirty to forty telephone calls, including calls from Burbank and Thousand Oaks asking whether Perelman “was a problem.” Amster did not expose the identities, dates, sources, repetition, independence, or police feedback underlying that apparent mass corroboration. Later public material concerning Dinse’s official neighborhood-watch communications, online groups, location sharing, psychiatric descriptions, and the Schellenberg litigation shows why that testimony demanded investigation. It does not by itself prove that Amster and Dinse made a private agreement.

The strongest supportable conclusion is therefore narrower than a proved conspiracy but more serious than ordinary negligence: Amster knew the defense theory, knew that police and civilian actors used psychiatric and dangerousness language, knew the State relied on numerous ostensibly independent complaints, and knew there was evidence of provocation and vigilante behavior. Yet he did not build the factual defense, affirmatively introduced an extreme psychiatric-danger narrative, and then occupied the appellate position from which his own trial conduct should have been challenged. That consistent direction supports an inference of purposeful adverse representation or abandonment sufficient to justify a detailed investigation. Intentional loss remains an allegation requiring direct or circumstantial proof, not an established fact.

Identity Professional Capacity and Expected Competence

Seymour I. Amster is an active California lawyer, State Bar No. 105308, admitted in December 1982. Public professional descriptions identify criminal defense, appellate practice, and federal and state trial and appellate work as principal areas of practice. A current nonprofit-board biography describes more than forty-three years of experience and claims certification as a criminal-law specialist since 1998. His reported background includes Loyola University of Los Angeles and Loyola Law School. These facts matter because the disputed choices cannot readily be attributed to an inexperienced lawyer unfamiliar with criminal trials, appeals, confrontation, preservation, or the difference between a lay label and a clinical diagnosis.

Amster’s reported appellate work includes published or publicly available federal and California matters involving confrontation, cross-examination, ineffective assistance, sentencing, and constitutional claims. In Murdoch v. Castro, he litigated a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue through repeated Ninth Circuit proceedings. Other public cases show that he knew how to challenge prosecution evidence, develop alternative-suspect theories, attack DNA or scientific proof, and allege prosecutorial misconduct. His work in the Grim Sleeper prosecution demonstrates that he could pursue extensive alternate-source and evidentiary arguments in a high-stakes case. This background does not prove misconduct in Perelman’s case, but it weakens an explanation that the central omissions resulted merely from ignorance of basic defense practice.

The profile should not distort that professional history. Public decisions also show ordinary losses and criticism of missed administrative duties in unrelated litigation. They do not establish a general pattern of intentional sabotage. The relevance is competence and capacity: the record presents a lawyer experienced enough to recognize the importance of source evidence, impeachment, preservation, confrontation, and appellate issue development.

The Representation in Context

The 2017 prosecution combined separate incidents and cases into a broad course-of-conduct narrative. The amended case ultimately submitted six counts to the jury, including public-nuisance, criminal-threat, battery, and handbill allegations. The prosecution was permitted to present a continuous history involving cards, photographs, websites, neighborhood encounters, community complaints, and police contacts. That structure created a predictable danger: separate accusers and anonymous callers could appear to corroborate one another even if they shared information, received a common warning, responded to the same online circulation, or repeated a police-supplied description.

A competent defense did not have to prove every event across Perelman’s life or ask jurors to accept a worldwide theory. It needed to isolate representative modules and prove them. The available modules included the Bailey Bernard 911 call and residence-gate sequence; Dinse’s community-contact testimony, parking citation, and alleged residence recording; representative Scroggins recordings and statements; the HOA relationship; the origin and location of the disputed photograph; and records showing that Perelman sought police assistance. Properly organized, those items could have tested initiation, claimed fear, motive, report reversal, police influence, independence, and self-defense without overwhelming the jury.

What Amster Correctly Recognized

A fair profile must acknowledge that Amster did not simply endorse the prosecution. Portions of the trial record show that he recognized several important defense principles.

• He argued that the public-nuisance prosecution implicated protected speech and that public-nuisance law should not become a device for suppressing expression merely because distribution annoyed residents.
• He stated that the Scroggins and Bernard encounters were initiated by others who approached or provoked Perelman and would not disengage.
• He identified vigilante conduct and criticized people who take law enforcement into their own hands instead of using lawful channels.
• He argued that the prosecution displayed the photograph of Perelman with a gun to portray him as dangerous.
• He attacked the prosecutor’s personal characterization of Scroggins as an unusually “brutally honest” witness and preserved a vouching objection.
• He sought special First Amendment instructions and argued that the jury had to distinguish expressive distribution from littering or nuisance conduct.

These points are significant for two reasons. First, they show that counsel understood the core defense theory. Second, they make the omissions harder to explain as an innocent failure to recognize relevance. Counsel rhetorically identified provocation, vigilantism, protected expression, and danger framing, but did not present the strongest objective evidence needed to turn those themes into reasonable doubt.

The Psychiatric Dangerousness Narrative Introduced by Defense Counsel

The closing argument

The most consequential conduct appears at approximately reporter’s transcript pages 999 through 1005. Amster began his closing not with innocence, factual contradictions, self-defense, or missing police evidence, but with a claimed societal mental-health crisis. He discussed the closure of state hospitals, described mentally ill people as previously being “locked up,” referred to “their paranoia,” and said they were now “among us.” He asked whether society should use criminal statutes to find a way to lock them up.

“I don’t think it’s any surprise to you if I make a statement to you that we have a mental health crisis in our society.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

“They were locked up. They had their paranoia they were able to deal with on their own. And they were nice away from us.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

“Now we have them in our society. We don’t have them locked up in hospitals. They are among us.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

Amster then moved from institutionalization to prospective violence. He asked what would happen if Perelman’s passive distribution were stopped, whether “the mentally ill” would move to extremes, and whether they might “pick up a gun and get violent.” After the prosecutor objected and the court warned the jury not to consider punishment, Amster continued the same theme. He invoked “the mothers in Parkland” and “the mothers at Columbine,” asking jurors to consider whether future violence could have been prevented by allowing the allegedly passive conduct.

“Do they eventually, as you close down their avenues, pick up a gun and get violent?” — Defense closing, RT approximately 1002

“I want each of you to think about the mothers in Parkland and the mothers at Columbine.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 1003

This was not a neutral plea for tolerance. It associated counsel’s own client with paranoia, institutional confinement, firearms, school massacres, and future lethal violence. It supplied a propensity and dangerousness narrative more inflammatory than the charged misdemeanors. It also treated mental illness as established without the present record identifying a competent diagnosis supporting that characterization.

Why the argument was internally contradictory

Amster’s stated rhetorical purpose appears to have been that criminalization could make a troubled person more dangerous and that society should tolerate passive expression. But the means of making that argument undermined the client. A defense attorney can argue that unconventional expression is protected without declaring the client mentally ill. Counsel could have said that the State may not convert unpopular speech into criminal propensity, that the incidents had to be judged from objective evidence, and that witnesses who approached or provoked the defendant could not erase their own conduct. Instead, he asked jurors to acquit partly because restriction might cause the client to become violent.

That is especially damaging in a case involving a criminal-threat count and a photograph used to imply dangerousness. The prosecution needed jurors to fear Perelman and to interpret ambiguous words as serious threats. The defense reinforced the emotional premise by supplying its own prediction of possible gun violence. Even if intended as social commentary, it exposed the client to precisely the inference counsel had accused the prosecution of seeking.

Client authorization and factual foundation

The existing record does not establish that Perelman consented to a mental-illness defense, agreed that he had paranoia, authorized comparisons to mass shootings, or received advice concerning the risks. Nor does it identify a qualified expert who diagnosed him and supported this strategy. A treatment history, attendance letter, family assertion, police opinion, or counsel’s belief is not a clinical diagnosis. The counsel file should reveal the factual foundation, strategy memoranda, consultations, proposed expert evidence, client objections, and reasons counsel believed these references advanced acquittal rather than dangerousness.

Failure to Build the Objective Defense

Bailey Bernard and the battery count

Count 7 concerned an alleged battery involving Bailey Bernard. Perelman’s account was that Bernard followed him from a park to his residence, physically crowded him, obstructed his entry, interfered with his camera, and struck the hand holding his keys. Perelman states that he called 911 and went to a police station. Those assertions were capable of objective testing through the 911 recording, CAD and dispatch records, gate or property video, police-station surveillance, photographs, injury evidence, the first report, report drafts, and witness statements.

The trial presentation acknowledged only generally that Bernard followed Perelman. It did not reconstruct the pursuit to his home and the gate encounter through the original records. That omission mattered to self-defense, initial aggressor, claimed fear, report reversal, and credibility. The section 1118.1 acquittal motion did not develop the battery count, and the prosecution’s appellate brief later noted that no acquittal motion was made as to Counts 2 and 7.

Scroggins and the criminal-threat count

Scroggins was not merely a passive recipient of a spontaneous statement. The record and proffered material identified an HOA role, repeated contacts, property or vehicle approaches, windshield letters, continued proximity, claimed financial or property-value concerns, acknowledged PTSD and anger-management history, and recordings that allegedly included “That’s the man I want to kill.” Those materials were relevant to bias, motive, claimed fear, who initiated encounters, and whether the disputed statement was interpreted accurately.

The precise wording was also disputed. The State used the formulation, “If you do this one more time, I will slice you open.” Perelman’s testimony used materially different conditional language: “If you don’t let me take a walk, I will cut you down,” followed by an explanation that he meant leave him alone and did not want to hurt anyone. Counsel needed to compare the exact words, context, conditional phrasing, conduct afterward, speaker perceptions, and evidence of actual sustained fear. Instead, the most inflammatory wording dominated the verdict and later appellate narrative.

Amster did object when the prosecutor called Scroggins one of the most or more “brutally honest” witnesses she had encountered. But that narrow vouching challenge did not substitute for factual impeachment. The reviewing court treated any impropriety as harmless after the objection and instruction. Objective recordings, HOA evidence, threats, approaches, and inconsistent statements would have attacked the witness’s credibility directly rather than merely attacking the prosecutor’s phrasing.

The evidence archive

Perelman states that counsel received or was offered an evidence archive of approximately seventy terabytes. Volume alone is not a defense, and counsel was not required to play or file everything. It did require a review protocol: inventory the media, preserve proof of delivery, identify representative incidents, authenticate selected clips, create transcripts or stills, interview custodians, and map each item to a charged count or impeachment purpose. No complete inventory, review log, selection memorandum, or admissibility plan is presently identified.

The absence of organization became self-reinforcing. Because counsel did not convert the archive into a limited evidentiary presentation, Perelman’s broader account could appear unsupported or symptomatic. Counsel then used that appearance to support a psychiatric framing. The lawyer’s failure to organize corroboration effectively became evidence against the client.

Officer Charles Sean Dinse and the Untested Information Network

Dinse’s trial testimony

Dinse’s own testimony made the police-community network a case-specific issue. He described receiving complaints about Perelman’s cards in multiple locations through “several different sources and methods.” He testified to being flagged down in the field, receiving calls on city cellular and desk telephones, and using social media. When asked to quantify contacts, he estimated more than fifty social-media interactions, approximately fifteen field approaches, and thirty to forty telephone calls. Some callers came from Burbank and Thousand Oaks and asked whether Perelman “was a problem.”

That testimony allowed the prosecution to present numerical repetition as apparent independent corroboration. But the jury was not shown whether the contacts came from fifty different people or repeated activity by a smaller group; whether callers saw conduct firsthand; whether they received a common photograph, label, business card, warning, or police post; whether Dinse communicated information back to community members; or whether contacts preceded the charged events. The identities, dates, content, geographic origin, and resulting police action were foundational facts, not peripheral curiosity.

What Amster did not establish

• Who contacted Dinse, how often, and about what specific conduct.
• Whether contacts were independent or coordinated through the same neighborhood groups or social-media posts.
• Whether Dinse supplied descriptions, labels, photographs, location information, or advice before later witnesses encountered Perelman.
• Whether the calls generated CAD entries, reports, field contacts, citations, or enforcement activity.
• Whether callers from distant cities had personally met Perelman or were responding to circulated information.
• Whether Dinse’s own notes, direct messages, account exports, telephone logs, and group-administrator records contradicted or qualified his summary testimony.
• Whether a limiting instruction was required to prevent jurors from treating anonymous contacts as substantive proof of character, conduct, or mental state.

Recurring Dinse contacts and impeachment

Perelman identifies Dinse in the 2013 sidewalk contact, the 2017 prosecution, a parking citation bearing Dinse’s name approximately two weeks before expected defense testimony, a residence-area recording in which an officer allegedly suggested checking whether a door was unlocked, and a later accusation that Perelman followed Dinse home. Recurrence alone does not prove wrongdoing. Combined with Dinse’s own testimony about extensive community communications, however, it made assignments, reports, messages, citation metadata, complaint history, social-media activity, and bias obvious subjects for investigation.

The parking citation and residence recording provided concrete tests. The citation could have been compared with the trial schedule, Dinse’s assignment, location, vehicle position, photographs, metadata, and preceding communications. The residence recording could have been authenticated and compared with dispatch, CAD, body-camera, access, and authorization records. Amster allegedly possessed or was directed to this evidence but did not organize it into an admissible foundation or confront Dinse with it.

Later public evidence explaining the missed inquiry

A public 2014 introduction attributed to Dinse described the Senior Lead Officer role as monitoring crime trends, quality-of-life concerns, and neighborhood watch, and stated that community members used Facebook and other communications to alert one another. Public posts attributed to his officer account later showed residents being asked to identify, locate, or report people and activities. Independent reporting identified the private Valley groups “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley,” in which officers and residents exchanged photographs, locations, descriptions, accusations, and requests for action.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LAPD ordered officers to stop participating after violent and harassing comments appeared in the groups. The reporting identified Dinse as an active officer participant and quoted his explanation that he used the pages to absorb street information and assist residents. This evidence does not show that he endorsed every member’s words, but it confirms that a police-connected neighborhood information channel was neither imaginary nor inherently impossible.

Rex Schellenberg’s 2020 federal complaint separately named Dinse and the City under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The complaint alleged that Dinse circulated Schellenberg’s location, referred to him as a recurring subject, used an unverified “drug addiction/mental illness” explanation, and relied on community reporting as a pretext for contacts, towing, or property action. These were allegations, not adjudicated findings. Their significance is comparative: another identified person alleged a similar police-to-community process beginning during the same general period. The separate 2018 Schellenberg property-seizure case named the City rather than Dinse and must not be conflated with the 2020 Dinse case.

How Amster’s Choices Functionally Supported Dinse

No presently reviewed record proves that Amster privately coordinated with Dinse. “Supporting Dinse” is therefore best understood first as a functional result. Amster’s choices protected the evidentiary value of Dinse’s narrative and prevented meaningful testing of its source.

1. He allowed anonymous volume to operate as corroboration. Dinse’s counts of calls and contacts remained largely unexamined, permitting repetition to look like independence.
2. He failed to trace the information stream. Without names, dates, posts, messages, CAD records, and telephone logs, the defense could not determine whether police information preceded civilian accusations.
3. He failed to use recurring-contact impeachment. The citation, residence recording, 2013 history, and other reported Dinse contacts were not assembled into a chronology.
4. He substituted psychiatric explanation for source analysis. Instead of showing how labels and complaints circulated, counsel told jurors that his client was mentally ill and paranoid.
5. He reinforced dangerousness. His gun, Parkland, and Columbine references supported the preventive logic that an unconventional person should be controlled because of what he might do.
6. He preserved only a narrow appellate record. The missing investigation and exhibits made later review depend on the same incomplete trial record.

The functional result was that Dinse appeared as a reliable collector of independent community concern rather than a potential source, amplifier, or coordinator of the narrative. The jury could treat numerous contacts as proof that many unrelated people independently reached the same conclusion, while the defense failed to test whether they shared a common channel.

The Preventive Control or Pre Crime Theme

“Pre-crime” is not used here as a formal legal doctrine. It describes a preventive-control logic: restrain, monitor, label, exclude, treat, or confine a person because officials or community members predict future danger from speech, unconventional behavior, reputation, or psychiatric characterization rather than proving a completed offense through reliable evidence.

Amster’s closing embraced the vocabulary of that logic even while nominally criticizing criminalization. He asked what society should do with “the mentally ill,” discussed whether they should be locked up, and warned that limiting passive conduct might lead to guns and mass violence. This framed Perelman as a future-risk problem. The question subtly shifted from whether the State proved the charged conduct to how society should manage a supposedly mentally ill person who might become dangerous.

Dinse’s publicly reported methods raise a parallel concern. Community members supplied photographs, locations, warnings, psychiatric descriptions, and predictions of risk; police used those streams to decide whom to watch, approach, move, cite, tow, or refer. The Schellenberg allegations similarly challenged location sharing and psychiatric labeling as a basis for repeated intervention. Amster’s failure to investigate those channels allowed the preventive narrative to enter trial as an apparently neutral accumulation of concern.

The “political agenda” supported by the record is therefore not necessarily a partisan affiliation or campaign platform. It is an institutional preference for community surveillance, risk sorting, psychiatric characterization, exclusion, and preventive control. The current record can show that Amster’s argument and omissions advanced that framework. It cannot yet prove that he joined a political organization, received instructions from Dinse, or intentionally participated in a coordinated policy. Those stronger claims require communications, counsel-file evidence, testimony, or other direct proof.

The Appeal and the Conflict of Reviewing His Own Work

Same attorney trial and appeal

Amster represented Perelman on the appeal from the same trial. That dual role did not automatically disqualify him, but it created an obvious practical conflict. Meaningful appellate review required asking whether trial counsel failed to investigate, subpoena, authenticate, object, seek limiting instructions, move for acquittal, preserve claims, consult on strategy, or avoid prejudicial concessions. Amster could not present those arguments without evaluating and potentially accusing himself.

The record should establish whether Perelman knowingly waived that conflict, whether independent counsel reviewed potential ineffective-assistance claims, and whether Amster explained that extra-record claims required habeas development. No adequate waiver or independent review is presently identified.

Prosecution centered statement of facts

The opening appellate brief reproduced substantial portions of the State’s narrative: witnesses allegedly saw Perelman throw or drop large numbers of cards; Scroggins received the inflammatory threat; and the website described a worldwide conspiracy. It did not reconstruct the Bernard pursuit and gate encounter with original 911 and residence evidence, develop the Scroggins recording and alleged death statement, expose possible common sources underlying Dinse’s community contacts, or explain the defensive documentation purpose through authenticated representative proof.

The problem was not that an appellate brief must omit adverse facts. Counsel must state the record accurately. The problem was selection and balance: damaging allegations were repeated as the organizing narrative while the facts necessary to show provocation, nonindependence, self-defense, police influence, and report reversal remained undeveloped or outside the record because trial counsel had failed to build them.

The forfeited section 1118.1 issue

The Court of Appeal expressly stated that the opening brief did not develop why the evidence was insufficient under section 1118.1. The reply brief appeared to disavow the claim by characterizing the thrust as instructional error. The court therefore found the sufficiency argument forfeited and alternatively found substantial evidence. This was not merely an unfavorable legal ruling; it was an identified briefing failure by the same lawyer who had made the trial motion.

Narrow vouching claim and psychiatric sentencing premise

The appeal pursued the prosecutor’s “brutally honest” characterization of Scroggins, but the reviewing court found reversal unwarranted. The appeal thus attacked the prosecutor’s phrase while leaving the strongest factual impeachment outside a developed record. It also argued that the sentence punished “the mentally ill” rather than treating the psychiatric premise itself as unsupported. The reply brief stated that the community did not know how to interact with “one who is mentally ill” and asked whether incarceration would merely prolong mental illness. That framing carried the trial concession into the appeal.

The sentencing challenge raised the federal Eighth Amendment but did not develop the separate California constitutional “cruel or unusual” analysis noted by the appellate court. The court also treated aspects of the sentencing claim as forfeited for lack of a trial objection. These outcomes illustrate the cumulative problem: incomplete trial preservation, the same attorney on appeal, a psychiatric premise repeated as fact, and claims narrowed or forfeited.

Evidence Supporting an Inference Beyond Ordinary Negligence

Intentional loss cannot be declared solely because a lawyer made damaging choices. Lawyers sometimes adopt unsuccessful, inconsistent, or poorly executed strategies. The inference becomes stronger, however, when choices repeatedly run in the same adverse direction despite counsel’s demonstrated knowledge and available alternatives.

• Amster knew that provocation and non-disengagement mattered, because he said the central encounters were initiated by others.
• He knew vigilante conduct mattered, because he criticized witnesses taking law into their own hands.
• He knew the State was using dangerousness, because he accused the prosecution of using a gun photograph to make Perelman appear dangerous.
• He knew protected expression mattered, because he litigated First Amendment instructions and argued against nuisance-based suppression.
• He knew Dinse relied on an extensive community information stream, because Dinse quantified it before the jury.
• He had the training and experience to understand confrontation, source testing, impeachment, sufficiency, preservation, and appellate briefing.
• Despite that knowledge, he did not present the strongest objective proof and affirmatively associated the client with paranoia, institutionalization, firearms, Parkland, and Columbine.
• He then handled the appeal, continued the mental-illness premise, reproduced damaging facts, and failed to develop a claim the appellate court found forfeited.

This pattern permits a responsible inference of purposeful adverse representation, abandonment, or a strategy aligned with institutional control rather than acquittal. It does not establish which explanation is correct. The missing proof lies principally in the counsel file, communications, billing and review records, investigator decisions, client consultation, and Amster’s sworn explanation.

Competing Interpretations and Their Evidentiary Tests

Interpretation one misguided humanitarian strategy

Amster may claim that he sought to humanize Perelman, defend tolerance, prevent criminalization of mental illness, and argue that passive expression was socially preferable to confrontation. The test is whether he had a factual basis for the diagnosis, discussed the strategy with the client, obtained informed consent, considered its prejudice, and documented why mass-shooting references helped rather than harmed.

Interpretation two overwhelmed or poorly organized defense

He may claim that the evidence archive was too large, authentication was difficult, time was limited, or the broader account risked confusing the jury. The test is whether he created an inventory, hired or sought an investigator, selected representative clips, issued subpoenas, requested continuances, consulted experts, preserved originals, and explained rejected items. A reasonable narrowing decision requires prior investigation; counsel cannot strategically reject evidence he never reviewed.

Interpretation three tactical focus on the First Amendment

He may claim that a speech-centered defense was the strongest available approach. The test is why that theory did not include the objective context showing defensive purpose, why the battery and threat counts were not fully addressed, why anonymous community contacts were left unexplored, and why counsel introduced a psychiatric-dangerousness concession unnecessary to First Amendment analysis.

Interpretation four adverse or agenda based representation

Perelman alleges that Amster’s conduct was not merely ineffective but aligned with a wider effort to establish a mental-illness label and justify preventive control. The circumstantial support is the consistent direction of omissions and concessions. The test is communications with police, prosecutors, family, community participants, or third parties; undisclosed conflicts; retainer and payment arrangements; statements concerning desired disposition; evidence-access history; and whether contemporaneous notes reveal an objective inconsistent with acquittal.

Records Needed to Complete the Profile

• The complete unfiltered trial and appellate files, including native electronic folders and metadata.
• Retainer, payment, scope, third-party payer, and conflict-disclosure records.
• Every communication between Amster and Perelman, the prosecution, Dinse, other officers, witnesses, HOA participants, family members, and appellate personnel.
• A complete inventory of the evidence supplied, proof of delivery, access and download histories, review notes, clip selections, and excluded items.
• Investigator requests, refusals, assignments, reports, witness contacts, subpoena decisions, and budgets.
• Pitchess, Brady, discovery, preservation, and public-record research concerning Dinse and the community-contact evidence.
• Drafts and notes for opening, closing, the section 1118.1 motion, jury instructions, sentencing, the appellate opening brief, and reply.
• All records concerning a mental-health defense: diagnosis, expert consultation, treatment records relied upon, client authorization, and strategy memoranda.
• The Bernard 911 call, CAD and dispatch records, gate and station video, original reports and drafts, photographs, and injury evidence.
• The complete Scroggins recording set, native metadata, letters, HOA records, property-entry chronology, and alleged death-threat audio.
• Dinse’s city cellular and desk-phone logs, emails, texts, social-media exports, direct messages, group memberships, administrator records, relevant Nextdoor communications, and complaint logs for the period surrounding the charged incidents.
• The parking citation, citation metadata, assignment and location records, photographs, and communications preceding issuance.
• Any waiver or consultation concerning Amster’s handling of the appeal from his own trial performance.

Questions for Seymour Amster

• What evidence did you receive from Perelman, and where is the complete inventory?
• Which recordings did you personally review, and which did an investigator or staff member review?
• Why was the Bernard 911 call and complete residence sequence not introduced?
• Why were Counts 2 and 7 not fully included in the section 1118.1 challenge?
• What investigation did you conduct into Dinse’s social-media contacts, telephone calls, field contacts, and geographically distant complainants?
• Did you seek names, dates, logs, posts, messages, CAD entries, or a limiting instruction concerning anonymous community contacts?
• What did you know about the Dinse parking citation and residence recording, and why were they not authenticated and used?
• What competent diagnosis supported calling your client mentally ill and paranoid?
• Did Perelman authorize a mental-illness defense and the Parkland and Columbine references?
• Why did you tell jurors that restricting his passive conduct might cause him to pick up a gun?
• How did that argument advance acquittal on a criminal-threat charge rather than dangerousness?
• Why did you handle the appeal from your own trial without independent review of ineffective-assistance claims?
• Why did the opening brief fail to develop the section 1118.1 issue and the reply appear to disavow it?
• Why did the appeal repeat that Perelman was mentally ill without challenging the absence of a documented clinical foundation?
• Did any third party communicate a desired psychiatric, treatment, probationary, or confinement outcome?

Profile Conclusion

The record portrays a lawyer who understood the language of constitutional defense but did not build the factual structure necessary to make that defense work. Amster recognized protected expression, provocation, vigilante conduct, and the prosecution’s attempt to portray Perelman as dangerous. Yet he failed to test the police-centered information network that made multiple accusations appear independent; failed to organize representative objective evidence; failed to fully develop self-defense, report reversal, and witness motive; and affirmatively characterized his client through institutionalization, paranoia, firearms, Parkland, and Columbine.

His subsequent decision to handle the appeal magnified the problem. It placed him in the position of reviewing his own investigation, objections, concessions, and preservation failures. The appellate presentation continued the psychiatric premise, relied heavily on the prosecution’s factual frame, and forfeited or narrowed significant issues. The result was not simply a lost appeal; it was an appellate record that protected the incompleteness of the trial record.

The available evidence therefore supports a detailed investigation into whether Amster’s representation crossed from deficient performance into purposeful adverse representation or abandonment. It also supports examination of whether his trial and appellate choices functionally advanced Dinse’s police-community narrative and a preventive-control model in which psychiatric labeling and predicted future risk replace incident-specific proof. A direct agreement, political affiliation, or intentional plan to lose has not yet been proved. The pattern is sufficiently concrete, consistent, and consequential to require the files, communications, and sworn explanations that could resolve motive.

Source and Reliability Guide

Primary case materials reviewed

• 2017 reporter’s transcripts, including the trial testimony, instruction discussions, section 1118.1 proceedings, and defense closing at approximately RT 999–1005.
• Appellant’s opening brief and reply brief prepared in the appeal from the 2018 judgment.
• Respondent’s brief and the California Court of Appeal opinion, including the discussion of section 1118.1 forfeiture, vouching, instructional claims, sentencing, and the state and federal punishment provisions.
• Current seven-book master record used only as an index to issues and source locations, not as independent proof.

Independent public sources

• State Bar of California attorney search: Seymour I. Amster, State Bar No. 105308, active, admitted December 1982.
• Murdoch v. Castro, 365 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2004), and 489 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007), reflecting Amster’s federal habeas and confrontation-clause experience.
• Smith v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Ninth Circuit proceedings, reflecting federal appellate work involving disability and educational policy.
• Los Angeles Times, “Cop’s use of Facebook put ‘target on our back,’” reporting on Valley Facebook groups, LAPD participation, Dinse, and the Schellenberg allegations.
• Rex Schellenberg v. City of Los Angeles et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-01313, complaint and docket. Allegations are not treated as adjudicated findings.
• Separate Schellenberg property case, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-07670, distinguished from the Dinse-specific 2020 action.

Reliability categories used in this profile

• Documented: appears in a transcript, brief, opinion, docket, official profile, or authenticated record.
• Attributed allegation: asserted by Perelman, Schellenberg, or another identified speaker but not yet adjudicated.
• Inference: a conclusion drawn from the direction, sequence, or consistency of documented choices.
• Unproved proposition: secret agreement, intentional loss, political coordination, or instruction by Dinse remains a subject for investigation unless direct evidence is obtained.

A comprehensive record of the 2017 representation appeal Dinse relationship and connected pattern

Executive Assessment

The available record supports a serious, focused criticism of Seymour I. Amster’s representation. The concern is not simply that he lost a difficult misdemeanor trial or selected an imperfect strategy. The concern is that the direction of his choices repeatedly favored a psychiatric-dangerousness explanation over an innocence, self-defense, false-reporting, provocation, or police-influence defense. He recognized several components of the defense—protected expression, vigilante conduct, witness provocation, and the danger of using criminal law to suppress unpopular speech—but did not assemble the objective records capable of proving those components. He then used language that invited jurors to understand Kevin Perelman as mentally ill, paranoid, and potentially violent, including references to guns, Parkland, and Columbine.

That choice had consequences extending beyond the verdict. The trial court imposed mental-health treatment and force-and-violence conditions. Amster then handled the appeal from his own trial, repeated the psychiatric premise, reproduced damaging prosecution-centered facts, failed to develop a section 1118.1 sufficiency issue, and did not present the extra-record ineffective-assistance claim that would have required examination of his own files and decisions. The Court of Appeal expressly treated the sufficiency issue as forfeited because the opening brief did not develop it and the reply appeared to disavow it.

The relationship to Officer Charles “Sean” Dinse is evidentiary rather than personal on the current record. Dinse testified to an extensive police-centered information stream: more than fifty social-media interactions, approximately fifteen field contacts, and thirty to forty telephone calls, including calls from Burbank and Thousand Oaks asking whether Perelman “was a problem.” Amster did not expose the identities, dates, sources, repetition, independence, or police feedback underlying that apparent mass corroboration. Later public material concerning Dinse’s official neighborhood-watch communications, online groups, location sharing, psychiatric descriptions, and the Schellenberg litigation shows why that testimony demanded investigation. It does not by itself prove that Amster and Dinse made a private agreement.

The strongest supportable conclusion is therefore narrower than a proved conspiracy but more serious than ordinary negligence: Amster knew the defense theory, knew that police and civilian actors used psychiatric and dangerousness language, knew the State relied on numerous ostensibly independent complaints, and knew there was evidence of provocation and vigilante behavior. Yet he did not build the factual defense, affirmatively introduced an extreme psychiatric-danger narrative, and then occupied the appellate position from which his own trial conduct should have been challenged. That consistent direction supports an inference of purposeful adverse representation or abandonment sufficient to justify a detailed investigation. Intentional loss remains an allegation requiring direct or circumstantial proof, not an established fact.

Identity Professional Capacity and Expected Competence

Seymour I. Amster is an active California lawyer, State Bar No. 105308, admitted in December 1982. Public professional descriptions identify criminal defense, appellate practice, and federal and state trial and appellate work as principal areas of practice. A current nonprofit-board biography describes more than forty-three years of experience and claims certification as a criminal-law specialist since 1998. His reported background includes Loyola University of Los Angeles and Loyola Law School. These facts matter because the disputed choices cannot readily be attributed to an inexperienced lawyer unfamiliar with criminal trials, appeals, confrontation, preservation, or the difference between a lay label and a clinical diagnosis.

Amster’s reported appellate work includes published or publicly available federal and California matters involving confrontation, cross-examination, ineffective assistance, sentencing, and constitutional claims. In Murdoch v. Castro, he litigated a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue through repeated Ninth Circuit proceedings. Other public cases show that he knew how to challenge prosecution evidence, develop alternative-suspect theories, attack DNA or scientific proof, and allege prosecutorial misconduct. His work in the Grim Sleeper prosecution demonstrates that he could pursue extensive alternate-source and evidentiary arguments in a high-stakes case. This background does not prove misconduct in Perelman’s case, but it weakens an explanation that the central omissions resulted merely from ignorance of basic defense practice.

The profile should not distort that professional history. Public decisions also show ordinary losses and criticism of missed administrative duties in unrelated litigation. They do not establish a general pattern of intentional sabotage. The relevance is competence and capacity: the record presents a lawyer experienced enough to recognize the importance of source evidence, impeachment, preservation, confrontation, and appellate issue development.

The Representation in Context

The 2017 prosecution combined separate incidents and cases into a broad course-of-conduct narrative. The amended case ultimately submitted six counts to the jury, including public-nuisance, criminal-threat, battery, and handbill allegations. The prosecution was permitted to present a continuous history involving cards, photographs, websites, neighborhood encounters, community complaints, and police contacts. That structure created a predictable danger: separate accusers and anonymous callers could appear to corroborate one another even if they shared information, received a common warning, responded to the same online circulation, or repeated a police-supplied description.

A competent defense did not have to prove every event across Perelman’s life or ask jurors to accept a worldwide theory. It needed to isolate representative modules and prove them. The available modules included the Bailey Bernard 911 call and residence-gate sequence; Dinse’s community-contact testimony, parking citation, and alleged residence recording; representative Scroggins recordings and statements; the HOA relationship; the origin and location of the disputed photograph; and records showing that Perelman sought police assistance. Properly organized, those items could have tested initiation, claimed fear, motive, report reversal, police influence, independence, and self-defense without overwhelming the jury.

What Amster Correctly Recognized

A fair profile must acknowledge that Amster did not simply endorse the prosecution. Portions of the trial record show that he recognized several important defense principles.

· He argued that the public-nuisance prosecution implicated protected speech and that public-nuisance law should not become a device for suppressing expression merely because distribution annoyed residents.

· He stated that the Scroggins and Bernard encounters were initiated by others who approached or provoked Perelman and would not disengage.

· He identified vigilante conduct and criticized people who take law enforcement into their own hands instead of using lawful channels.

· He argued that the prosecution displayed the photograph of Perelman with a gun to portray him as dangerous.

· He attacked the prosecutor’s personal characterization of Scroggins as an unusually “brutally honest” witness and preserved a vouching objection.

· He sought special First Amendment instructions and argued that the jury had to distinguish expressive distribution from littering or nuisance conduct.

These points are significant for two reasons. First, they show that counsel understood the core defense theory. Second, they make the omissions harder to explain as an innocent failure to recognize relevance. Counsel rhetorically identified provocation, vigilantism, protected expression, and danger framing, but did not present the strongest objective evidence needed to turn those themes into reasonable doubt.

The Psychiatric Dangerousness Narrative Introduced by Defense Counsel

The closing argument

The most consequential conduct appears at approximately reporter’s transcript pages 999 through 1005. Amster began his closing not with innocence, factual contradictions, self-defense, or missing police evidence, but with a claimed societal mental-health crisis. He discussed the closure of state hospitals, described mentally ill people as previously being “locked up,” referred to “their paranoia,” and said they were now “among us.” He asked whether society should use criminal statutes to find a way to lock them up.

“I don’t think it’s any surprise to you if I make a statement to you that we have a mental health crisis in our society.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

“They were locked up. They had their paranoia they were able to deal with on their own. And they were nice away from us.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

“Now we have them in our society. We don’t have them locked up in hospitals. They are among us.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 999

Amster then moved from institutionalization to prospective violence. He asked what would happen if Perelman’s passive distribution were stopped, whether “the mentally ill” would move to extremes, and whether they might “pick up a gun and get violent.” After the prosecutor objected and the court warned the jury not to consider punishment, Amster continued the same theme. He invoked “the mothers in Parkland” and “the mothers at Columbine,” asking jurors to consider whether future violence could have been prevented by allowing the allegedly passive conduct.

“Do they eventually, as you close down their avenues, pick up a gun and get violent?” — Defense closing, RT approximately 1002

“I want each of you to think about the mothers in Parkland and the mothers at Columbine.” — Defense closing, RT approximately 1003

This was not a neutral plea for tolerance. It associated counsel’s own client with paranoia, institutional confinement, firearms, school massacres, and future lethal violence. It supplied a propensity and dangerousness narrative more inflammatory than the charged misdemeanors. It also treated mental illness as established without the present record identifying a competent diagnosis supporting that characterization.

Why the argument was internally contradictory

Amster’s stated rhetorical purpose appears to have been that criminalization could make a troubled person more dangerous and that society should tolerate passive expression. But the means of making that argument undermined the client. A defense attorney can argue that unconventional expression is protected without declaring the client mentally ill. Counsel could have said that the State may not convert unpopular speech into criminal propensity, that the incidents had to be judged from objective evidence, and that witnesses who approached or provoked the defendant could not erase their own conduct. Instead, he asked jurors to acquit partly because restriction might cause the client to become violent.

That is especially damaging in a case involving a criminal-threat count and a photograph used to imply dangerousness. The prosecution needed jurors to fear Perelman and to interpret ambiguous words as serious threats. The defense reinforced the emotional premise by supplying its own prediction of possible gun violence. Even if intended as social commentary, it exposed the client to precisely the inference counsel had accused the prosecution of seeking.

Client authorization and factual foundation

The existing record does not establish that Perelman consented to a mental-illness defense, agreed that he had paranoia, authorized comparisons to mass shootings, or received advice concerning the risks. Nor does it identify a qualified expert who diagnosed him and supported this strategy. A treatment history, attendance letter, family assertion, police opinion, or counsel’s belief is not a clinical diagnosis. The counsel file should reveal the factual foundation, strategy memoranda, consultations, proposed expert evidence, client objections, and reasons counsel believed these references advanced acquittal rather than dangerousness.

Failure to Build the Objective Defense

Bailey Bernard and the battery count

Count 7 concerned an alleged battery involving Bailey Bernard. Perelman’s account was that Bernard followed him from a park to his residence, physically crowded him, obstructed his entry, interfered with his camera, and struck the hand holding his keys. Perelman states that he called 911 and went to a police station. Those assertions were capable of objective testing through the 911 recording, CAD and dispatch records, gate or property video, police-station surveillance, photographs, injury evidence, the first report, report drafts, and witness statements.

The trial presentation acknowledged only generally that Bernard followed Perelman. It did not reconstruct the pursuit to his home and the gate encounter through the original records. That omission mattered to self-defense, initial aggressor, claimed fear, report reversal, and credibility. The section 1118.1 acquittal motion did not develop the battery count, and the prosecution’s appellate brief later noted that no acquittal motion was made as to Counts 2 and 7.

Scroggins and the criminal-threat count

Scroggins was not merely a passive recipient of a spontaneous statement. The record and proffered material identified an HOA role, repeated contacts, property or vehicle approaches, windshield letters, continued proximity, claimed financial or property-value concerns, acknowledged PTSD and anger-management history, and recordings that allegedly included “That’s the man I want to kill.” Those materials were relevant to bias, motive, claimed fear, who initiated encounters, and whether the disputed statement was interpreted accurately.

The precise wording was also disputed. The State used the formulation, “If you do this one more time, I will slice you open.” Perelman’s testimony used materially different conditional language: “If you don’t let me take a walk, I will cut you down,” followed by an explanation that he meant leave him alone and did not want to hurt anyone. Counsel needed to compare the exact words, context, conditional phrasing, conduct afterward, speaker perceptions, and evidence of actual sustained fear. Instead, the most inflammatory wording dominated the verdict and later appellate narrative.

Amster did object when the prosecutor called Scroggins one of the most or more “brutally honest” witnesses she had encountered. But that narrow vouching challenge did not substitute for factual impeachment. The reviewing court treated any impropriety as harmless after the objection and instruction. Objective recordings, HOA evidence, threats, approaches, and inconsistent statements would have attacked the witness’s credibility directly rather than merely attacking the prosecutor’s phrasing.

The evidence archive

Perelman states that counsel received or was offered an evidence archive of approximately seventy terabytes. Volume alone is not a defense, and counsel was not required to play or file everything. It did require a review protocol: inventory the media, preserve proof of delivery, identify representative incidents, authenticate selected clips, create transcripts or stills, interview custodians, and map each item to a charged count or impeachment purpose. No complete inventory, review log, selection memorandum, or admissibility plan is presently identified.

The absence of organization became self-reinforcing. Because counsel did not convert the archive into a limited evidentiary presentation, Perelman’s broader account could appear unsupported or symptomatic. Counsel then used that appearance to support a psychiatric framing. The lawyer’s failure to organize corroboration effectively became evidence against the client.

Officer Charles Sean Dinse and the Untested Information Network

Dinse’s trial testimony

Dinse’s own testimony made the police-community network a case-specific issue. He described receiving complaints about Perelman’s cards in multiple locations through “several different sources and methods.” He testified to being flagged down in the field, receiving calls on city cellular and desk telephones, and using social media. When asked to quantify contacts, he estimated more than fifty social-media interactions, approximately fifteen field approaches, and thirty to forty telephone calls. Some callers came from Burbank and Thousand Oaks and asked whether Perelman “was a problem.”

That testimony allowed the prosecution to present numerical repetition as apparent independent corroboration. But the jury was not shown whether the contacts came from fifty different people or repeated activity by a smaller group; whether callers saw conduct firsthand; whether they received a common photograph, label, business card, warning, or police post; whether Dinse communicated information back to community members; or whether contacts preceded the charged events. The identities, dates, content, geographic origin, and resulting police action were foundational facts, not peripheral curiosity.

What Amster did not establish

· Who contacted Dinse, how often, and about what specific conduct.

· Whether contacts were independent or coordinated through the same neighborhood groups or social-media posts.

· Whether Dinse supplied descriptions, labels, photographs, location information, or advice before later witnesses encountered Perelman.

· Whether the calls generated CAD entries, reports, field contacts, citations, or enforcement activity.

· Whether callers from distant cities had personally met Perelman or were responding to circulated information.

· Whether Dinse’s own notes, direct messages, account exports, telephone logs, and group-administrator records contradicted or qualified his summary testimony.

· Whether a limiting instruction was required to prevent jurors from treating anonymous contacts as substantive proof of character, conduct, or mental state.

Recurring Dinse contacts and impeachment

Perelman identifies Dinse in the 2013 sidewalk contact, the 2017 prosecution, a parking citation bearing Dinse’s name approximately two weeks before expected defense testimony, a residence-area recording in which an officer allegedly suggested checking whether a door was unlocked, and a later accusation that Perelman followed Dinse home. Recurrence alone does not prove wrongdoing. Combined with Dinse’s own testimony about extensive community communications, however, it made assignments, reports, messages, citation metadata, complaint history, social-media activity, and bias obvious subjects for investigation.

The parking citation and residence recording provided concrete tests. The citation could have been compared with the trial schedule, Dinse’s assignment, location, vehicle position, photographs, metadata, and preceding communications. The residence recording could have been authenticated and compared with dispatch, CAD, body-camera, access, and authorization records. Amster allegedly possessed or was directed to this evidence but did not organize it into an admissible foundation or confront Dinse with it.

Later public evidence explaining the missed inquiry

A public 2014 introduction attributed to Dinse described the Senior Lead Officer role as monitoring crime trends, quality-of-life concerns, and neighborhood watch, and stated that community members used Facebook and other communications to alert one another. Public posts attributed to his officer account later showed residents being asked to identify, locate, or report people and activities. Independent reporting identified the private Valley groups “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley,” in which officers and residents exchanged photographs, locations, descriptions, accusations, and requests for action.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LAPD ordered officers to stop participating after violent and harassing comments appeared in the groups. The reporting identified Dinse as an active officer participant and quoted his explanation that he used the pages to absorb street information and assist residents. This evidence does not show that he endorsed every member’s words, but it confirms that a police-connected neighborhood information channel was neither imaginary nor inherently impossible.

Rex Schellenberg’s 2020 federal complaint separately named Dinse and the City under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The complaint alleged that Dinse circulated Schellenberg’s location, referred to him as a recurring subject, used an unverified “drug addiction/mental illness” explanation, and relied on community reporting as a pretext for contacts, towing, or property action. These were allegations, not adjudicated findings. Their significance is comparative: another identified person alleged a similar police-to-community process beginning during the same general period. The separate 2018 Schellenberg property-seizure case named the City rather than Dinse and must not be conflated with the 2020 Dinse case.

How Amster’s Choices Functionally Supported Dinse

No presently reviewed record proves that Amster privately coordinated with Dinse. “Supporting Dinse” is therefore best understood first as a functional result. Amster’s choices protected the evidentiary value of Dinse’s narrative and prevented meaningful testing of its source.

1. He allowed anonymous volume to operate as corroboration. Dinse’s counts of calls and contacts remained largely unexamined, permitting repetition to look like independence.

2. He failed to trace the information stream. Without names, dates, posts, messages, CAD records, and telephone logs, the defense could not determine whether police information preceded civilian accusations.

3. He failed to use recurring-contact impeachment. The citation, residence recording, 2013 history, and other reported Dinse contacts were not assembled into a chronology.

4. He substituted psychiatric explanation for source analysis. Instead of showing how labels and complaints circulated, counsel told jurors that his client was mentally ill and paranoid.

5. He reinforced dangerousness. His gun, Parkland, and Columbine references supported the preventive logic that an unconventional person should be controlled because of what he might do.

6. He preserved only a narrow appellate record. The missing investigation and exhibits made later review depend on the same incomplete trial record.

The functional result was that Dinse appeared as a reliable collector of independent community concern rather than a potential source, amplifier, or coordinator of the narrative. The jury could treat numerous contacts as proof that many unrelated people independently reached the same conclusion, while the defense failed to test whether they shared a common channel.

The Preventive Control or Pre Crime Theme

“Pre-crime” is not used here as a formal legal doctrine. It describes a preventive-control logic: restrain, monitor, label, exclude, treat, or confine a person because officials or community members predict future danger from speech, unconventional behavior, reputation, or psychiatric characterization rather than proving a completed offense through reliable evidence.

Amster’s closing embraced the vocabulary of that logic even while nominally criticizing criminalization. He asked what society should do with “the mentally ill,” discussed whether they should be locked up, and warned that limiting passive conduct might lead to guns and mass violence. This framed Perelman as a future-risk problem. The question subtly shifted from whether the State proved the charged conduct to how society should manage a supposedly mentally ill person who might become dangerous.

Dinse’s publicly reported methods raise a parallel concern. Community members supplied photographs, locations, warnings, psychiatric descriptions, and predictions of risk; police used those streams to decide whom to watch, approach, move, cite, tow, or refer. The Schellenberg allegations similarly challenged location sharing and psychiatric labeling as a basis for repeated intervention. Amster’s failure to investigate those channels allowed the preventive narrative to enter trial as an apparently neutral accumulation of concern.

The “political agenda” supported by the record is therefore not necessarily a partisan affiliation or campaign platform. It is an institutional preference for community surveillance, risk sorting, psychiatric characterization, exclusion, and preventive control. The current record can show that Amster’s argument and omissions advanced that framework. It cannot yet prove that he joined a political organization, received instructions from Dinse, or intentionally participated in a coordinated policy. Those stronger claims require communications, counsel-file evidence, testimony, or other direct proof.

The Appeal and the Conflict of Reviewing His Own Work

Same attorney trial and appeal

Amster represented Perelman on the appeal from the same trial. That dual role did not automatically disqualify him, but it created an obvious practical conflict. Meaningful appellate review required asking whether trial counsel failed to investigate, subpoena, authenticate, object, seek limiting instructions, move for acquittal, preserve claims, consult on strategy, or avoid prejudicial concessions. Amster could not present those arguments without evaluating and potentially accusing himself.

The record should establish whether Perelman knowingly waived that conflict, whether independent counsel reviewed potential ineffective-assistance claims, and whether Amster explained that extra-record claims required habeas development. No adequate waiver or independent review is presently identified.

Prosecution centered statement of facts

The opening appellate brief reproduced substantial portions of the State’s narrative: witnesses allegedly saw Perelman throw or drop large numbers of cards; Scroggins received the inflammatory threat; and the website described a worldwide conspiracy. It did not reconstruct the Bernard pursuit and gate encounter with original 911 and residence evidence, develop the Scroggins recording and alleged death statement, expose possible common sources underlying Dinse’s community contacts, or explain the defensive documentation purpose through authenticated representative proof.

The problem was not that an appellate brief must omit adverse facts. Counsel must state the record accurately. The problem was selection and balance: damaging allegations were repeated as the organizing narrative while the facts necessary to show provocation, nonindependence, self-defense, police influence, and report reversal remained undeveloped or outside the record because trial counsel had failed to build them.

The forfeited section 1118.1 issue

The Court of Appeal expressly stated that the opening brief did not develop why the evidence was insufficient under section 1118.1. The reply brief appeared to disavow the claim by characterizing the thrust as instructional error. The court therefore found the sufficiency argument forfeited and alternatively found substantial evidence. This was not merely an unfavorable legal ruling; it was an identified briefing failure by the same lawyer who had made the trial motion.

Narrow vouching claim and psychiatric sentencing premise

The appeal pursued the prosecutor’s “brutally honest” characterization of Scroggins, but the reviewing court found reversal unwarranted. The appeal thus attacked the prosecutor’s phrase while leaving the strongest factual impeachment outside a developed record. It also argued that the sentence punished “the mentally ill” rather than treating the psychiatric premise itself as unsupported. The reply brief stated that the community did not know how to interact with “one who is mentally ill” and asked whether incarceration would merely prolong mental illness. That framing carried the trial concession into the appeal.

The sentencing challenge raised the federal Eighth Amendment but did not develop the separate California constitutional “cruel or unusual” analysis noted by the appellate court. The court also treated aspects of the sentencing claim as forfeited for lack of a trial objection. These outcomes illustrate the cumulative problem: incomplete trial preservation, the same attorney on appeal, a psychiatric premise repeated as fact, and claims narrowed or forfeited.

Evidence Supporting an Inference Beyond Ordinary Negligence

Intentional loss cannot be declared solely because a lawyer made damaging choices. Lawyers sometimes adopt unsuccessful, inconsistent, or poorly executed strategies. The inference becomes stronger, however, when choices repeatedly run in the same adverse direction despite counsel’s demonstrated knowledge and available alternatives.

· Amster knew that provocation and non-disengagement mattered, because he said the central encounters were initiated by others.

· He knew vigilante conduct mattered, because he criticized witnesses taking law into their own hands.

· He knew the State was using dangerousness, because he accused the prosecution of using a gun photograph to make Perelman appear dangerous.

· He knew protected expression mattered, because he litigated First Amendment instructions and argued against nuisance-based suppression.

· He knew Dinse relied on an extensive community information stream, because Dinse quantified it before the jury.

· He had the training and experience to understand confrontation, source testing, impeachment, sufficiency, preservation, and appellate briefing.

· Despite that knowledge, he did not present the strongest objective proof and affirmatively associated the client with paranoia, institutionalization, firearms, Parkland, and Columbine.

· He then handled the appeal, continued the mental-illness premise, reproduced damaging facts, and failed to develop a claim the appellate court found forfeited.

This pattern permits a responsible inference of purposeful adverse representation, abandonment, or a strategy aligned with institutional control rather than acquittal. It does not establish which explanation is correct. The missing proof lies principally in the counsel file, communications, billing and review records, investigator decisions, client consultation, and Amster’s sworn explanation.

Competing Interpretations and Their Evidentiary Tests

Interpretation one misguided humanitarian strategy

Amster may claim that he sought to humanize Perelman, defend tolerance, prevent criminalization of mental illness, and argue that passive expression was socially preferable to confrontation. The test is whether he had a factual basis for the diagnosis, discussed the strategy with the client, obtained informed consent, considered its prejudice, and documented why mass-shooting references helped rather than harmed.

Interpretation two overwhelmed or poorly organized defense

He may claim that the evidence archive was too large, authentication was difficult, time was limited, or the broader account risked confusing the jury. The test is whether he created an inventory, hired or sought an investigator, selected representative clips, issued subpoenas, requested continuances, consulted experts, preserved originals, and explained rejected items. A reasonable narrowing decision requires prior investigation; counsel cannot strategically reject evidence he never reviewed.

Interpretation three tactical focus on the First Amendment

He may claim that a speech-centered defense was the strongest available approach. The test is why that theory did not include the objective context showing defensive purpose, why the battery and threat counts were not fully addressed, why anonymous community contacts were left unexplored, and why counsel introduced a psychiatric-dangerousness concession unnecessary to First Amendment analysis.

Interpretation four adverse or agenda based representation

Perelman alleges that Amster’s conduct was not merely ineffective but aligned with a wider effort to establish a mental-illness label and justify preventive control. The circumstantial support is the consistent direction of omissions and concessions. The test is communications with police, prosecutors, family, community participants, or third parties; undisclosed conflicts; retainer and payment arrangements; statements concerning desired disposition; evidence-access history; and whether contemporaneous notes reveal an objective inconsistent with acquittal.

Records Needed to Complete the Profile

· The complete unfiltered trial and appellate files, including native electronic folders and metadata.

· Retainer, payment, scope, third-party payer, and conflict-disclosure records.

· Every communication between Amster and Perelman, the prosecution, Dinse, other officers, witnesses, HOA participants, family members, and appellate personnel.

· A complete inventory of the evidence supplied, proof of delivery, access and download histories, review notes, clip selections, and excluded items.

· Investigator requests, refusals, assignments, reports, witness contacts, subpoena decisions, and budgets.

· Pitchess, Brady, discovery, preservation, and public-record research concerning Dinse and the community-contact evidence.

· Drafts and notes for opening, closing, the section 1118.1 motion, jury instructions, sentencing, the appellate opening brief, and reply.

· All records concerning a mental-health defense: diagnosis, expert consultation, treatment records relied upon, client authorization, and strategy memoranda.

· The Bernard 911 call, CAD and dispatch records, gate and station video, original reports and drafts, photographs, and injury evidence.

· The complete Scroggins recording set, native metadata, letters, HOA records, property-entry chronology, and alleged death-threat audio.

· Dinse’s city cellular and desk-phone logs, emails, texts, social-media exports, direct messages, group memberships, administrator records, relevant Nextdoor communications, and complaint logs for the period surrounding the charged incidents.

· The parking citation, citation metadata, assignment and location records, photographs, and communications preceding issuance.

· Any waiver or consultation concerning Amster’s handling of the appeal from his own trial performance.

Questions for Seymour Amster

7. What evidence did you receive from Perelman, and where is the complete inventory?

8. Which recordings did you personally review, and which did an investigator or staff member review?

9. Why was the Bernard 911 call and complete residence sequence not introduced?

10. Why were Counts 2 and 7 not fully included in the section 1118.1 challenge?

11. What investigation did you conduct into Dinse’s social-media contacts, telephone calls, field contacts, and geographically distant complainants?

12. Did you seek names, dates, logs, posts, messages, CAD entries, or a limiting instruction concerning anonymous community contacts?

13. What did you know about the Dinse parking citation and residence recording, and why were they not authenticated and used?

14. What competent diagnosis supported calling your client mentally ill and paranoid?

15. Did Perelman authorize a mental-illness defense and the Parkland and Columbine references?

16. Why did you tell jurors that restricting his passive conduct might cause him to pick up a gun?

17. How did that argument advance acquittal on a criminal-threat charge rather than dangerousness?

18. Why did you handle the appeal from your own trial without independent review of ineffective-assistance claims?

19. Why did the opening brief fail to develop the section 1118.1 issue and the reply appear to disavow it?

20. Why did the appeal repeat that Perelman was mentally ill without challenging the absence of a documented clinical foundation?

21. Did any third party communicate a desired psychiatric, treatment, probationary, or confinement outcome?

On Record Signs of Preparation and Performance Failure

The record contains several moments that must be preserved because they bear on preparation and candor. They do not amount, standing alone, to a formal confession of ineffective assistance. Together with the omissions and appellate forfeitures, however, they provide concrete points at which counsel acknowledged limitations or the record objectively documented failed performance.

· During trial proceedings the prosecutor stated that Amster had not been in a state of mind to address a matter the previous day, and Amster responded, “Yesterday, I was not.” The complete surrounding transcript must be reviewed before assigning meaning, but the admission belongs in the performance chronology.

· Amster apologized that he had been unable to obtain the full citation for City of San Clemente while litigating the speech and public-nuisance instructions. The court responded that work remained to be done. For an experienced appellate and criminal specialist, incomplete authority on the central First Amendment issue is relevant to preparation.

· The section 1118.1 record and appellate opinion supply an objective performance failure: the principal sufficiency issue was not developed in the opening brief, the reply appeared to disclaim it, and the reviewing court held it forfeited.

· The same attorney’s appellate role prevented an independent presentation of his own failure to investigate, authenticate evidence, challenge Dinse’s sources, move fully on Counts 2 and 7, or avoid a prejudicial psychiatric concession.

The phrase “self-admission to ineffective assistance” should therefore be used with precision. The existing record does not contain a statement by Amster saying, “I was ineffective.” It contains admissions and procedural outcomes that may serve as evidence of deficient preparation, together with his own words showing that he knew the relevant constitutional and factual theories. A complete dossier should preserve that distinction so an avoidable overstatement does not discredit the stronger documented evidence.

Jury Knowledge Voir Dire and the Appearance of a Predetermined Result

Perelman alleges that potential or seated jurors denied prior knowledge of him even though his name, website, cards, neighborhood controversy, and police-community circulation were allegedly widespread. That allegation cannot be resolved from the verdict alone. It requires the complete voir-dire transcript, juror questionnaires, hardship proceedings, cause and peremptory challenges, social-media preservation where lawful, and any record of juror recognition or discussion.

Amster’s obligation was not to accuse jurors without proof. It was to investigate whether the case’s unusual publicity and neighborhood circulation created a realistic contamination risk, ask sufficiently specific questions, preserve answers, seek individualized inquiry where appropriate, and move for cause or other relief when a juror’s response conflicted with known facts. The present record does not show a developed defense inquiry into whether any juror belonged to relevant neighborhood groups, had seen Dinse’s or community posts, had encountered the cards or website, or knew witnesses, officers, HOA participants, security personnel, or the locations involved.

The closing argument may itself have increased the risk of an adverse verdict. Rather than calming fear and demanding incident-specific proof, Amster told jurors to think about future gun violence and school massacres. If jurors already possessed undisclosed familiarity or community concern, those references could activate rather than neutralize prejudice. Perelman characterizes this as “scaring the jurors.” The documented fact is that defense counsel introduced fear-laden comparisons; whether he intended to produce conviction requires evidence of strategy and motive.

Judge Eric P Harmon and the Courtroom Framework

Judge Eric P. Harmon presided over the trial. The transcript shows active disputes over First Amendment instructions, public nuisance, littering, handbills, and the permissible use of expressive conduct. At one point the court used the hypothetical phrase “Harmon for Judge, 2024” while discussing political speech. Perelman views the proceeding as reflecting a political or institutional agenda and alleges that the verdict was not the result of a neutral presentation.

Amster’s performance must be evaluated within that environment. If he believed the court’s rulings improperly restricted the defense, he had to make complete offers of proof, cite controlling authority, preserve objections, request limiting instructions, seek reconsideration, and build an appellate record. If he believed judicial comments, juror contamination, or courtroom relationships created bias, he had to investigate and seek appropriate relief. A later broad accusation cannot replace a contemporaneous record, and counsel’s failure to create that record materially limited review.

The profile does not presently establish Judge Harmon’s subjective political motive or an agreement with Amster. It identifies a testable question: whether counsel repeatedly accepted a courtroom framework that treated cards, speech, psychiatric labels, anonymous reports, and predicted danger as more important than initiation, source, self-defense, and objective proof.

Court Reporters Record Continuity and Uninvestigated Integrity Questions

The 2017 clerk and transcript materials identify multiple reporters, including Ann Marie Cizin, Dominica Hotchkiss, Hilda Gutierrez, and Elsie Diwa Cervantes. The docket also contains a nunc pro tunc correction deleting Gutierrez and adding Cervantes for a May 21, 2018 proceeding. Dominica Hotchkiss appears on more than one proceeding in the assembled court packet. Perelman has separately raised whether Hotchkiss appears in another related case or proceeding. That cross-case overlap must be verified from certified title pages rather than assumed.

Multiple reporters and a corrected reporter assignment are not proof of transcript alteration. They do create concrete record-management questions: who reported each proceeding; which notes, roughs, audio, and certified transcripts exist; whether the correct reporter was identified; whether all requested volumes were designated on appeal; and whether any missing or disputed passage can be settled or reconstructed. Amster’s responsibility was to obtain and audit the complete record, correct errors, request augmentation, and preserve disputed statements.

The broader court-reporter concern also includes Debbie Wollman, whose alleged residential and court-connected role appears elsewhere in Perelman’s materials. Her property proximity and any court assignment must be established separately. The relevant criticism of Amster is not that he should have accused reporters of falsification without evidence. It is that he should have investigated reporter identity, continuity, assignments, conflicts, available audio, and transcript accuracy when those matters were material to appeal and credibility.

Dinse Complaints Pitchess and the Missed Misconduct Inquiry

Perelman repeatedly sought an inquiry into Dinse’s conduct, prior complaints, social-media activity, neighborhood relationships, recurring contacts, the citation, and the residence recording. A defense lawyer could not simply rely on public accusation. He could, however, investigate the factual predicate for Pitchess discovery, subpoena nonprivileged records, preserve social-media evidence, obtain assignments and CAD material, and request an in camera review where legally supported.

The later Schellenberg material demonstrates why such an inquiry was not frivolous. Public reporting and a federal complaint described Dinse using online groups, locations, psychiatric labels, and resident reports in connection with enforcement. Perelman also alleges that Dinse forged or caused a signature to be forged in an effort to confine Schellenberg. The presently reviewed public materials do not establish that signature allegation as a judicial finding. The dossier preserves it as a specific claim requiring the original document, known signature exemplars, authorship and metadata evidence, custodian testimony, and the complete Schellenberg case file.

Amster’s failure is not measured by whether every later allegation was already provable in 2018. It is measured by whether the 2017 testimony and evidence available then gave reasonable counsel a duty to investigate. Dinse himself described a broad network of calls, field contacts, and social-media interactions. That sworn testimony supplied the predicate to ask who the sources were, what was said, and whether the State was presenting coordinated repetition as independent corroboration.

Recurring Civilian Participants Amster Failed to Place in a Common Evidentiary Framework

Terrence Scroggins

Scroggins combined several features central to the wider pattern: HOA authority or influence, claimed property-value interests, repeated approaches despite asserted fear, letters and materials, psychiatric and institutionalization language, acknowledged PTSD and anger-management history, a criminal-threat accusation, and the alleged recorded statement, “That’s the man I want to kill.” Amster used fragments but did not present an integrated motive and credibility chronology. The prosecutor’s “brutally honest” praise consequently operated against a thin impeachment record.

Bailey Bernard

Bernard allegedly followed Perelman home from a park, approached the residential gate, interfered with his hand and camera, and then became the named victim in a battery count. The missing 911, CAD, residence, station, and original-report evidence could have shown initiation and reversal. Amster’s appellate description reduced the event to a general physical altercation rather than placing the alleged pursuit and gate conduct at the center.

Pedram Espinoza and shared residence context

Perelman describes Pedram Espinoza as another person who portrayed ordinary proximity as obsession while omitting that both lived in the same townhouse complex. That detail matters because repeated sightings near a shared residence do not independently prove stalking or fixation. Amster’s broader failure was to demand precise location, residence, approach, and initiation evidence before accepting psychiatric or obsession language.

Jason Ryan Fishman as later comparative evidence

Fishman entered the documented narrative after the 2017 case and therefore could not have been trial evidence available to Amster unless an earlier contact is established. He is relevant as later comparison, not retroactive proof of counsel’s knowledge. Perelman states that Fishman threatened, “If I see you again, you’re dead,” later approached on an electric scooter using red-and-blue lights or siren sounds, announced an arrest for trespass on a public street, followed Perelman toward Vanowen, made a police report alleging vehicle assault, pursued restraining-order allegations portraying Perelman as obsessed, and appeared anonymously in later probation material. Perelman also identifies corporate paperwork connecting Fishman to a security business.

The comparison matters because the alleged method resembles what Amster failed to expose in 2017: the accuser approaches, threatens, follows, or provokes; omits the initiating conduct; invokes police or security authority; files a one-sided report; and uses obsession or mental-illness language to reverse the roles. Fishman’s later conduct must be authenticated through videos, GPS or route evidence, calls, reports, pleadings, corporate filings, and probation-source identification. It cannot be used to prove that Amster knew of Fishman or intentionally assisted him.

Security personnel businesses and public-place exclusion

Perelman’s materials describe recurring security personnel, persons allegedly posing as guards, private security vehicles, business exclusions, park confrontations, and efforts to convert protected presence or distribution into trespass, nuisance, or dangerousness. The 2017 relevance was not to prove every later incident. It was to investigate whether security personnel, businesses, HOA actors, witnesses, and police shared photographs, cards, labels, and instructions, and whether claimed independent encounters originated through common channels.

Marketing Materials Website Photography and Defensive Documentation

The prosecution and appellate narrative repeatedly treated cards, flyers, photographs, signs, and the website as evidence of obsession, nuisance, or mental instability. Perelman’s explanation was the opposite: the materials were created because repeated encounters, threats, accusations, and police nonresponse made ordinary private reporting ineffective. He used public documentation to locate witnesses, preserve events, correct disinformation, and warn that encounters were not isolated.

Amster partially recognized the speech issue but did not establish the defensive chain. He needed to show what event preceded each item, where the disputed photograph originated, whether a flyer was displayed on Perelman’s own property, whether a card was handed to a willing recipient or deposited as alleged, and whether the website content documented recorded events. Without that foundation, defensive documentation could be reframed as the cause of the hostility rather than a response to it.

This circularity is central to the profile: community contacts and police activity produce documentation; the documentation is then cited as proof of obsession or instability; restrictions on documentation are justified by the label; and any continued attempt to explain becomes new evidence for the label. Amster’s psychiatric closing entrenched that cycle even while arguing that the passive expression should be tolerated.

The Rotating Counsel Pattern

Perelman places Amster within a longer sequence of counsel whose conduct allegedly moved in the same direction: Jonathan Franklin in 2013, Seymour Amster in the 2017 trial and appeal, Shep Zebberman in the 2023–2024 case, and Yisrael Gelb in later appellate work. The claimed common features are failure to investigate police and civilian misconduct, failure to organize supplied evidence, failure to challenge psychiatric labeling, pressure toward plea or treatment-oriented outcomes, omission of stronger innocence and constitutional issues, and protection of the existing official narrative.

The lawyers’ similar conduct does not by itself prove communication or a joint agreement. Each representation must be evaluated on its own record. The pattern is relevant to motive and transmission if records show shared sources, referrals, third-party payment, family influence, communications, repeated unexplained psychiatric strategies, or knowledge passed from one matter into another.

Jonathan Franklin

Franklin allegedly stated, “I’m not going to say anything bad about a police officer,” failed to investigate the 2013 charges, and presented C.A.M.P. or MEU involvement as police help rather than clearly disclosing its mental-health function. That earlier experience gave Amster a reason to investigate whether a psychiatric and police narrative already existed before 2017.

Shep Zebberman

Zebberman allegedly received a vast evidence archive in the later case but failed to convert representative materials into admissible proof, challenge the larger hostility, or prevent continued psychiatric characterization. The later similarity is not proof of Amster’s coordination; it strengthens the need to determine whether a common record or label moved from case to case.

Yisrael Gelb

Gelb allegedly declined to develop ineffective-assistance and extra-record issues capable of challenging trial counsel. The resulting concern mirrors Amster’s appellate conflict: appellate representation that leaves prior counsel’s omissions unexamined allows the same incomplete narrative to acquire finality and later governmental use.

Richard Barnwell

Barnwell allegedly told Perelman to wait outside a courtroom, failed to check him in, later said the matter had been dismissed although no judge had announced dismissal, and was followed by warrants and arrests. Those allegations require the minute order, appearance record, check-in procedure, communications, and warrant chronology. They are relevant to the rotating-counsel theme but do not presently establish a link to Amster.

Amster’s External Professional and Political Connections

Public sources show that Amster had a substantial professional life beyond this case. He handled prominent criminal cases, federal habeas litigation, disability and education litigation, and representation connected to politically active persons. He served or serves in nonprofit or advocacy roles involving students, veterans, disability, or mental-health support. Those associations establish experience and access; they do not establish that he imported a partisan agenda into Perelman’s trial.

The stronger political analysis arises from what Amster actually said and did in the courtroom. He converted a fact-specific criminal trial into a societal question about how to manage “the mentally ill,” whether institutions should again be used, whether passive conduct prevents future violence, and whether society should fear a person who might pick up a gun. This is political in the governance sense: it concerns who belongs in ordinary society, who should be monitored or confined, and whether predicted danger can substitute for adjudicated conduct.

The dossier should not infer motive merely because Amster represented controversial clients, belonged to a religious or cultural group, worked with mental-health organizations, or held political relationships. Association and identity are not proof. The probative facts are his words, omissions, conflicts, communications, financial arrangements, evidence decisions, and the parties who benefited from them.

Dinse’s Apparent Motive and the Benefit Produced by Amster’s Representation

Perelman’s theory is that Dinse favored aggressive community policing in which residents identify unwanted persons, circulate images and locations, repeat psychiatric or dangerousness labels, and generate police contacts until exclusion, treatment, arrest, towing, or confinement becomes easier. Public reporting on the Valley Facebook groups and the Schellenberg complaint supplies partial external support for the existence of such methods. It does not establish every element of Perelman’s account or a personal plan by Dinse to remove him.

Amster’s representation benefited that alleged objective in several ways. It left Dinse’s anonymous and geographically dispersed sources untested; left the citation and residence evidence undeveloped; failed to seek the complete misconduct and communication record; allowed psychiatric labels to replace source analysis; and gave the jury a defense-authored account of Perelman as paranoid, mentally ill, and potentially violent. The resulting conviction and treatment conditions could then be cited as institutional confirmation of the very narrative the defense should have challenged.

This is the clearest overlap between Amster and Dinse. It does not depend on proving a private meeting. The functional alignment is visible in the record: Dinse supplied the community concern, Amster failed to test its origin, and Amster supplied the psychiatric-dangerousness interpretation. Whether that alignment was accidental, incompetent, ideological, financially influenced, or coordinated remains the central motive question.

What the Dossier Can and Cannot Present as Established

Established or directly documented

· Amster represented Perelman at the 2017–2018 trial and on the direct appeal.

· He argued protected speech, provocation, and vigilante themes but did not present the full objective defense described by Perelman.

· He called the case a mental-health crisis and invoked institutionalization, paranoia, guns, Parkland, and Columbine in closing.

· Dinse testified to extensive social-media, field, and telephone contacts, including distant callers asking whether Perelman was a problem.

· The appellate court found the section 1118.1 argument forfeited or undeveloped and rejected the preserved appellate claims.

· Multiple court reporters appear in the proceedings, and the clerk record includes a reporter correction.

Supported allegations requiring adjudication

· Amster failed to review or use substantial evidence supplied by Perelman.

· The Bernard, Scroggins, citation, residence, HOA, and police-report materials would have materially altered the defense.

· Dinse or police-connected groups circulated information that influenced witnesses or enforcement.

· Jurors possessed undisclosed prior knowledge or answered voir-dire questions inaccurately.

· A signature associated with action against Schellenberg was forged or caused to be forged by Dinse.

Inferences not yet proved as direct facts

· Amster intentionally lost the case.

· Amster entered a secret agreement with Dinse, prosecutors, family, community groups, or later counsel.

· The reporter changes reflect alteration rather than ordinary staffing and correction.

· Every later civilian participant belonged to one centrally directed organization.

· A partisan, religious, racial, or financial affiliation explains Amster’s choices.

Preserving these categories does not weaken the dossier. It prevents documented facts from being dismissed because a still-unproved motive was stated too absolutely. The pattern can be presented in full while the missing communications and files are pursued.

Profile Conclusion

The record portrays a lawyer who understood the language of constitutional defense but did not build the factual structure necessary to make that defense work. Amster recognized protected expression, provocation, vigilante conduct, and the prosecution’s attempt to portray Perelman as dangerous. Yet he failed to test the police-centered information network that made multiple accusations appear independent; failed to organize representative objective evidence; failed to fully develop self-defense, report reversal, and witness motive; and affirmatively characterized his client through institutionalization, paranoia, firearms, Parkland, and Columbine.

His subsequent decision to handle the appeal magnified the problem. It placed him in the position of reviewing his own investigation, objections, concessions, and preservation failures. The appellate presentation continued the psychiatric premise, relied heavily on the prosecution’s factual frame, and forfeited or narrowed significant issues. The result was not simply a lost appeal; it was an appellate record that protected the incompleteness of the trial record.

The available evidence therefore supports a detailed investigation into whether Amster’s representation crossed from deficient performance into purposeful adverse representation or abandonment. It also supports examination of whether his trial and appellate choices functionally advanced Dinse’s police-community narrative and a preventive-control model in which psychiatric labeling and predicted future risk replace incident-specific proof. A direct agreement, political affiliation, or intentional plan to lose has not yet been proved. The pattern is sufficiently concrete, consistent, and consequential to require the files, communications, and sworn explanations that could resolve motive.

Source and Reliability Guide

Primary case materials reviewed

· 2017 reporter’s transcripts, including the trial testimony, instruction discussions, section 1118.1 proceedings, and defense closing at approximately RT 999–1005.

· Appellant’s opening brief and reply brief prepared in the appeal from the 2018 judgment.

· Respondent’s brief and the California Court of Appeal opinion, including the discussion of section 1118.1 forfeiture, vouching, instructional claims, sentencing, and the state and federal punishment provisions.

· Current seven-book master record used only as an index to issues and source locations, not as independent proof.

Independent public sources

· State Bar of California attorney search: Seymour I. Amster, State Bar No. 105308, active, admitted December 1982.

· Murdoch v. Castro, 365 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2004), and 489 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007), reflecting Amster’s federal habeas and confrontation-clause experience.

· Smith v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Ninth Circuit proceedings, reflecting federal appellate work involving disability and educational policy.

· Los Angeles Times, “Cop’s use of Facebook put ‘target on our back,’” reporting on Valley Facebook groups, LAPD participation, Dinse, and the Schellenberg allegations.

· Rex Schellenberg v. City of Los Angeles et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-01313, complaint and docket. Allegations are not treated as adjudicated findings.

· Separate Schellenberg property case, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-07670, distinguished from the Dinse-specific 2020 action.

Reliability categories used in this profile

· Documented: appears in a transcript, brief, opinion, docket, official profile, or authenticated record.

· Attributed allegation: asserted by Perelman, Schellenberg, or another identified speaker but not yet adjudicated.

· Inference: a conclusion drawn from the direction, sequence, or consistency of documented choices.

· Unproved proposition: secret agreement, intentional loss, political coordination, or instruction by Dinse remains a subject for investigation unless direct evidence is obtained.

Purpose and Scope

This memorandum organizes publicly available information concerning LAPD Senior Lead Officer Charles “Sean” Dinse, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Karine T. Philips, the LAPD Topanga Division, the private Facebook groups commonly known as “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley,” and their potential relevance to Kevin Perelman’s 2017 Van Nuys prosecution, identified by Perelman as case 7VW04099.

The objective is not to state unproved criminal allegations as established fact. Rather, it is to identify what the public record actually proves; what established news organizations, civil-rights organizations, litigants, and activists have alleged; what Kevin Perelman reports occurred to him; where those bodies of evidence overlap; and what documents would be necessary to determine whether government officials or community participants improperly coordinated against him.

That evidentiary distinction is critical. The strongest material does not require a theory of a massive or worldwide conspiracy. There is already a documented local factual record showing that Topanga police personnel participated in private neighborhood Facebook groups that tracked particular people, circulated personal information, discussed homelessness and mental illness, and generated law-enforcement activity. There is also a contemporaneous 2018 civil-rights complaint that specifically identifies “Mr. Perelman,” his automobile and his license plate.

---

I. Principal Individuals

A. Charles “Sean” Dinse

Sean Dinse has served as an LAPD Senior Lead Officer associated with the Topanga Community Police Station and Woodland Hills. LAPD’s current Topanga station directory continues to identify Officer Sean Dinse as a Senior Lead Officer.

The Senior Lead Officer position is particularly relevant because it is built around community policing, neighborhood contacts, identifying recurring local problems, working with neighborhood-watch organizations, and transmitting information between the community and police.

Dinse’s publicly expressed policing philosophy emphasized neighborhood-watch participation. Reporting concerning his 2019 campaign for Los Angeles City Council described him as advocating the prevention and deterrence of crime through Neighborhood Watch. Los Angeles Magazine subsequently reported that he regularly used the West Valley Facebook groups to obtain information about homeless encampments and to track specific homeless individuals.

Dinse also publicly expressed a strong connection between homelessness, irrational behavior, substance abuse and mental illness. In February 2018 West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes, Dinse reportedly stated that many homeless people officers encountered were homeless because of mental illness or drug use.

During his 2019 City Council campaign, Dinse told the Los Angeles Times that supportive housing by itself was insufficient and said that authorities had to stabilize irrational behavior caused by drug addiction and potential mental illness before a person could successfully accept or retain housing.

That statement is not misconduct by itself. It is nevertheless relevant because it establishes Dinse’s publicly expressed conceptual framework: certain individuals encountered in public spaces were viewed through a combined crime / nuisance / addiction / mental-illness framework rather than solely as people requiring housing assistance.

Dinse’s public record is not exclusively punitive. CBS Los Angeles reported a July 2017 incident in which he assisted a homeless mother and daughter, publicized their circumstances, and helped obtain community assistance and temporary lodging. Any balanced legal presentation should acknowledge this evidence because it demonstrates that his dealings with homeless individuals were not uniformly hostile.

The issue is therefore not that every interaction Dinse had with a homeless or mentally ill individual was abusive. The relevant issue is whether, in certain cases, he used police information and community networks to identify, characterize, locate, monitor, displace or generate enforcement against selected individuals.

---

B. Karine T. Philips

Karine T. Philips is a California attorney, State Bar No. 186645, admitted December 10, 1996. As of October 2026, the State Bar lists her license as Active, identifies her employer as the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, and shows no public disciplinary action in the Bar’s disciplinary-history table.

Philips was formally assigned as the Neighborhood Prosecutor for LAPD Topanga Division no later than 2014. Contemporary City Attorney assignment lists distinguish Philips from the prosecutors assigned to Van Nuys and West Valley: Philips was assigned specifically to Topanga.

In her own May 2015 public introduction, Philips wrote:

“Hi, my name is Karine Philips and I am your Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to the LAPD’s Topanga division.”

She said her work focused on improving neighborhood “quality of life” and preventing public-safety problems.

Contemporary reporting described Los Angeles Neighborhood Prosecutors as addressing what were sometimes characterized as “broken windows” offenses, including vandalism, trespassing, loitering, graffiti, prostitution and code violations.

This institutional relationship is central to understanding Philips’s connection with Dinse. She was not merely a prosecutor who later happened to encounter a Topanga police officer. Her official job was to serve as the prosecutor embedded with or assigned to Dinse’s LAPD division and its surrounding communities.

That fact provides a legitimate administrative explanation for why Philips could have handled a misdemeanor arising from Topanga in 2017. It does not, by itself, prove that she was specially assigned to Kevin Perelman.

Philips’s public record also contains evidence inconsistent with a simplistic theory that her purpose was always incarceration. At a 2014 neighborhood meeting she promoted the City Attorney’s Neighborhood Justice Program, described as resolving low-level offenses through alternatives designed to keep offenders out of the traditional justice system.

That countervailing evidence should remain in the record.

---

II. The Crimebusters / Homeless Encampment Facebook Network

Two private Facebook communities became central to the later controversy:

Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills, created in approximately 2016, and Crimebusters Homeless Encampments / Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley, created in approximately 2017.

The groups were associated with LAPD volunteer Fern Peskin-White and included participation by current and former LAPD personnel. According to the formal 2018 civil-rights complaint, the groups primarily consisted of residents of West Hills, Woodland Hills, Canoga Park and Winnetka and were nominally intended to centralize photographs, videos and community reports about suspicious or criminal behavior.

The dispute was over what the groups became in practice.

A coalition consisting of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Los Angeles Community Action Network, and National Coalition for the Homeless submitted a complaint to the California Attorney General dated August 1, 2018 and updated November 20, 2018. The complaint asked for an investigation into potential civil- and human-rights violations involving the Facebook groups and government participation.

The ACLU of Southern California subsequently cited this specific Attorney General complaint, along with the 2019 Knock LA and KTown for All investigations, in its 2021 report Outside the Law: The Legal War Against Unhoused People. That does not prove every allegation contained in the complaint, but it independently establishes the provenance and significance of these materials within the civil-rights community.

---

III. What the 2018 Attorney General Complaint Alleged About Sean Dinse

The 2018 complaint contains allegations considerably more specific than generalized criticism of LAPD.

It alleged that members of the Facebook groups distributed names, criminal histories, information about mental-health status or treatment history, and drug or alcohol dependency information concerning people they were discussing.

It then singled out Sean Dinse.

The complaint alleged that Dinse repeatedly used his position as an LAPD Senior Lead Officer to obtain and publicize sensitive information concerning homeless individuals. It referenced screenshots identified as Figures 3 through 7.

Most significantly for the Perelman matter, the complaint states that, in one particular case, Dinse responded to a Facebook member complaining about a person accused of littering by sharing a screenshot of a law-enforcement database entry displaying that person’s personal information. The complaint cross-references the underlying littering complaint as Figure 12 and Dinse’s database screenshot as Figure 7.

This cross-reference becomes highly significant because Figure 12 is then described expressly as involving Mr. Perelman.

---

IV. The August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” Post

The Attorney General complaint states that an August 2017 Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills post accused an individual of littering, displayed photographs of his belongings and automobile, and instructed members to:

“Notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate.”

The complaint concluded that dissemination of those identifying photographs could expose the individual to targeted abuse.

This is one of the most important pieces of independent evidence in the entire matter.

The complaint does not merely contain the surname “Perelman.” It contains a convergence of details:

Kevin Perelman; August 2017; Woodland Hills/Topanga; an allegation of littering; photographs of his car and property; specific attention directed to his license plate; and an LAPD Senior Lead Officer whose database disclosure is cross-referenced by the complaint to the same littering allegation.

Perelman states that the personalized license plate on his vehicle read TARGETD.

Perelman further states that the TARGETD plate was not an invitation to follow him and was not the origin of his concerns. His position is that the plate was selected because he already believed he had been subjected to repeated surveillance, harassment and targeting, including conduct involving Dinse. That explanation is Perelman’s account and should be identified as such unless supported by separate contemporaneous documentation establishing when the plate was obtained and why.

The legal significance does not depend on whether anyone agrees with the message expressed by the plate.

A personalized license plate saying TARGETD does not itself authorize police officers or private citizens to follow the vehicle, circulate identifying information for harassment, manufacture evidence, make false reports, or use confidential police databases improperly.

The relevant question is what the government actors and private participants actually did.

---

V. The Dinse–Perelman Database Cross-Reference

The cross-references in the Attorney General complaint deserve particular attention from counsel.

The complaint first states that Dinse responded to a Facebook member complaining about a person allegedly littering and posted a screenshot from a law-enforcement database containing that individual’s personal information. That complaint is identified as Figure 12.

Only paragraphs later, Figure 12 is expressly described as the August 2017 post involving Mr. Perelman, his alleged littering, his automobile and his license plate.

If those figure references accurately describe the original exhibits, this would appear to mean that Dinse accessed and disseminated law-enforcement database information in direct response to the Perelman littering discussion.

That proposition should not yet be represented as conclusively proven until the original high-resolution Figures 7 and 12 are obtained and authenticated. But it is substantially more than a speculative association.

It is a specific written allegation in a complaint prepared by multiple established homelessness and civil-rights organizations in 2018, before the later Dinse litigation and before much of the subsequent publicity.

For an attorney reviewing the 2017 Perelman prosecution, recovering the original Figures 7 and 12 should therefore be treated as a high priority.

The inquiry should establish exactly whose database record appeared in Figure 7, what information was displayed, which system produced it, who accessed that system, the date and time of the search, whether an official law-enforcement purpose existed, and whether any of that information was transmitted to witnesses or the prosecuting City Attorney.

---

VI. A Critical Factual Discrepancy: “Homeless” Versus Homeowner

The Attorney General complaint repeatedly describes the person in the Figure 12 incident as a “homeless individual.”

Kevin Perelman states that this characterization was false and that he was a homeowner residing in an HOA townhouse community at the relevant time.

That discrepancy should not be overlooked.

If property records, HOA records, utility records or other evidence establish that Perelman was a resident homeowner in August 2017, then lawyers should avoid adopting the complaint’s characterization of him as homeless.

The discrepancy may be analytically useful for another reason: it illustrates how an individual discussed inside an anti-homeless or “transient” social-media environment could potentially be placed into a preexisting social category that did not accurately describe him.

It does not establish who caused the misclassification.

The original Figure 12 should therefore be examined to determine whether the Facebook poster itself called Perelman homeless or transient, or whether the authors of the later Attorney General complaint inferred that status because they were analyzing anti-homeless Facebook groups.

That difference matters.

---

VII. Dinse, Mental-Illness Labels, and Rex Schellenberg

The strongest independently reported example of Dinse applying a mental-illness characterization to a particular person involves Rex Schellenberg.

In February 2020, Schellenberg filed a federal civil-rights action against the City of Los Angeles and Sean Dinse under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Federal docket records confirm Dinse was individually named as a defendant.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Schellenberg alleged Dinse posted information identifying where Schellenberg was staying so that residents would contact police, thereby giving officers a supposed “pretextual basis” to force him to move or seize his property.

That allegation is important because it describes an operational sequence:

community identification → dissemination of location → repeated calls or complaints → police contact → asserted legal justification → displacement or property enforcement.

The Times further reported that Dinse had publicly suggested Schellenberg had probably lost housing because of “drug addiction/mental illness.”

Schellenberg specifically disputed those labels and asserted in the lawsuit that he was neither a drug addict nor mentally ill apart from the ordinary stress and trauma associated with living on the streets.

No court judgment establishing that Dinse violated Schellenberg’s rights was located in this research. The statements are allegations contained in litigation and reported by reputable news organizations.

Nevertheless, the Schellenberg case demonstrates that Kevin Perelman is not the only person to have alleged a combination of:

individualized tracking by Dinse; dissemination of location information; community reporting; a mental-illness/addiction characterization; vehicle-related enforcement; and police action allegedly designed to create a basis for displacement.

That comparison is potentially significant.

It does not establish that whatever happened to Schellenberg necessarily happened to Perelman.

It establishes an independent factual reason for counsel to examine Dinse’s conduct toward Perelman rather than dismissing the issue simply because Perelman describes himself as having been targeted.

---

VIII. Broader Reporting Concerning Dinse and the Facebook Groups

Los Angeles Magazine independently reported in August 2019 that Dinse regularly used the groups to obtain information about homeless encampments and to track specific homeless individuals. The publication reported that LAPD had conducted a formal review after complaints concerning the groups. Investigators reportedly found “demeaning” comments concerning homeless people, and participating officers were temporarily asked not to post while the review was underway.

The groups contained rhetoric suggesting the use of baseball bats, fire hoses, pigeon spikes, bleach, stink bombs, poison oak and other tactics against homeless people, according to screenshots reviewed by the publication. Los Angeles Magazine appropriately clarified that the group’s administrator disputed characterizing the groups themselves as anti-homeless vigilante organizations and said such behavior was discouraged.

This distinction is essential.

The existence of offensive or violent comments inside a group does not establish that Dinse or Philips wrote, endorsed or acted upon those particular comments.

The legally relevant questions are whether government personnel participated, what information they supplied, what enforcement resulted, and whether they knew about or facilitated unlawful conduct by private participants.

---

IX. Knock LA’s Reporting Concerning Dinse, Rygh and Rehabilitation / Wellness Homes

A separate August 2019 Knock LA investigation reported allegations that Dinse and former Topanga Senior Lead Officer Brent Rygh had provided community members with privileged background information regarding people residing in residential rehabilitation or wellness homes. According to the publication’s sources, neighborhood complaints followed and a residence eventually closed.

Knock LA also reported that Dinse routinely emphasized documenting people and activity so that alleged nuisance activity could be removed from neighborhoods, and that particular individuals were repeatedly tracked through the groups.

These allegations are not judicial findings.

They are nevertheless relevant because they independently concern the same intersection of policing, neighborhood groups, personal background information, behavioral-health-related facilities, and community pressure that warrants examination in the Perelman matter.

---

X. Karine Philips and the Crimebusters Network

The evidence regarding Philips requires greater caution than the Dinse evidence.

A 2019 KTown for All article, reproduced in surviving copies and later cited by the ACLU, listed numerous LAPD personnel and Deputy City Attorney Karine Philips as members of the controversial Facebook-group environment. The reproduced list includes Dinse, Brent Rygh, Karen Rayner, Duke Dao, Daryl Scoggins, Gabriel Ahedo, John Catalano, Kari McNamee, Jose Fernandez, LAPD command personnel and Philips.

This is significant because Philips simultaneously occupied the official role of Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor.

It creates a potential overlap between:

the prosecutor responsible for Topanga quality-of-life prosecutions;

the LAPD officers supplying or receiving neighborhood intelligence;

private Facebook groups discussing targeted individuals;

and community witnesses or complainants.

However, the public material located to date does not establish that Philips personally authored threatening Facebook posts, supplied confidential medical information, encouraged anyone to assault a homeless person, or personally instructed anyone to stalk Kevin Perelman.

No Philips-authored screenshot showing such conduct was located during this investigation.

Membership and participation are not synonymous.

That distinction should be preserved in every version of this memorandum intended for attorneys, journalists or publication.

---

XI. Edward Ryan’s Specific Allegations Concerning Philips, Dinse and Perelman

Separate from the mainstream reporting and the original Attorney General complaint is material published by activist Edward Ryan.

Ryan specifically alleged that Philips prosecuted Kevin Perelman while Philips, Dinse and civilian witnesses were associated with the Crimebusters group. He further alleged that posts concerning Perelman’s location and automobile occurred around court proceedings and that this association was not disclosed during the prosecution.

Ryan’s material goes considerably further than the original civil-rights complaint. He alleges prosecutorial conspiracy, witness impropriety and intentional targeting.

Those assertions must be treated as allegations by Ryan, not established facts.

The valuable aspect of Ryan’s material is that it identifies highly specific factual questions that are capable of verification:

Was Philips actually a member of the relevant group during the Perelman prosecution?

Was Dinse?

Were any prosecution witnesses members?

Were Perelman’s location, court appearances or automobile discussed in the group contemporaneously with the case?

Did Philips know about those discussions?

Were any group-generated photographs, complaints, police information or witness contacts incorporated into the prosecution?

Were these relationships disclosed to the defense?

Those are discoverable historical questions, not matters of belief.

---

XII. Kevin Perelman’s 2017 Case

Kevin Perelman identifies his 2017 Van Nuys case as 7VW04099 and identifies Karine Philips as the prosecutor.

Perelman reports that the prosecution arose from events involving community members and that it ultimately involved allegations such as littering and/or distribution of cards or materials.

For purposes of this memorandum, those procedural details should be verified against the certified docket, charging document, police reports, transcripts and minute orders before being quoted as final fact.

What can already be independently stated is that during August 2017, while Philips was Topanga’s assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor, a private Crimebusters post concerning a “Mr. Perelman” accused him of littering, circulated photographs of his automobile and belongings, and specifically told other group members to notice his license plate.

The Attorney General complaint further appears to cross-reference this same littering incident to an instance in which Dinse allegedly posted law-enforcement database information.

This makes the exact chronology of 7VW04099 extremely important.

Counsel should determine whether the Facebook posts preceded arrest, charging, arraignment, witness contact or trial; whether they occurred during an active prosecution; and whether anyone in the prosecution team knew of the group’s activity.

---

XIII. The TARGETD License Plate

Perelman’s position regarding his personalized plate should be stated clearly rather than allowing the plate to become a substitute for evidence.

Perelman states that he obtained or used the plate TARGETD because he believed that Sean Dinse and others had already been targeting or harassing him.

Accordingly, his contention is that:

the plate was a reaction to what he perceived and documented as prior conduct;

the plate did not cause the targeting;

and the existence of the plate cannot rationally justify subsequent monitoring.

Independent public evidence presently confirms only the latter part of the chronology: by August 2017, members of the Crimebusters group were being specifically directed to notice Perelman’s license plate.

For a lawyer, the best way to establish the first part would be to obtain DMV records showing when the TARGETD plate was issued and then identify documented encounters with Dinse or Topanga personnel occurring before that date.

If evidence demonstrates that Dinse-related activity preceded issuance of the plate, it would materially answer any attempt to portray the license plate itself as the origin of Perelman’s targeting concerns.

---

XIV. Apparent Operational Objectives and Motives

“Motive” must be divided into what participants publicly said they wanted and what remains inferential.

Sean Dinse

The strongest documented objectives attributable to Dinse involve neighborhood safety, Neighborhood Watch, nuisance control, crime prevention and the treatment of homelessness as intertwined with addiction and mental illness.

He publicly advocated neighborhood-watch policing and was reported to use Facebook groups to gather information concerning encampments and particular individuals.

He publicly argued that irrational behavior connected to addiction or potential mental illness needed to be stabilized before housing would work.

The Attorney General complaint alleges a more aggressive operational method: using law-enforcement access to supply sensitive information to civilian groups that were identifying and monitoring individuals.

The Schellenberg lawsuit alleges an even more specific mechanism: publicize an individual’s whereabouts, encourage residents to call police, and thereby generate what the plaintiff characterized as a “pretextual basis” for police removal or property seizure.

If evidence establishes that a comparable mechanism was employed against Perelman, then the relevant motive need not be described as mysterious or global. It could be framed much more concretely as an effort to classify an individual as a neighborhood nuisance or threat, mobilize community complaints, create repeated police contacts, and ultimately obtain enforcement or judicial restrictions.

Whether that occurred in Perelman’s case remains to be proved.

Karine Philips

Philips herself publicly described her mission as improving neighborhood quality of life and preventing public-safety problems.

Her position placed her on the prosecutorial side of the same community-policing structure within Topanga.

Thus a plausible institutional motive existed for Philips to pursue low-level or quality-of-life cases generated through Topanga officers and neighborhood complaints: doing so was part of her job.

The more serious question is whether that ordinary institutional role crossed a constitutional or ethical line because of undisclosed relationships, social-media participation, false evidence, retaliatory motive or the use of improperly acquired information.

No public source located so far resolves that question.

---

XV. Mental-Illness Labeling as a Potential Enforcement Mechanism

The documented materials justify examining mental-health labeling carefully without claiming more than the evidence proves.

The 2018 Attorney General complaint specifically alleged that private information circulated in the Facebook groups included people’s mental-health status and treatment histories, and it specifically accused Dinse of using his police position to access and distribute sensitive information.

The Schellenberg litigation independently alleged that Dinse publicly characterized an individual as probably suffering from “drug addiction/mental illness,” a characterization the individual disputed.

Dinse also publicly associated homelessness with mental illness and addiction in his governmental and political statements.

Those facts establish that mental-health characterization was part of Dinse’s documented discourse and was allegedly attached to specific people.

They do not establish that every mental-health concern expressed by Dinse was fabricated.

They also do not yet establish that Dinse gave Philips false psychiatric information about Kevin Perelman.

That is the evidentiary bridge that must be investigated.

If Perelman’s 2017 transcripts, probation proceedings, police reports or later records show that prosecutors or judges suddenly began receiving psychiatric descriptions not supported by legitimate medical evidence, counsel should determine where those descriptions originated.

---

XVI. Allegations of Forced Psychiatric Treatment or Institutionalization

The public evidence located does not presently establish that either Dinse or Philips personally possessed or exercised unilateral power to commit Perelman or another individual to a psychiatric institution.

No independently verified document located during this research establishes that Philips ordered a §5150 detention, fabricated a psychiatric diagnosis, personally arranged involuntary medication, or directed a psychiatric facility to imprison Perelman.

Perelman states that he possesses evidence concerning unlawful confinement, false mental-health representations and community coordination. Those materials should be evaluated separately on their own evidentiary merits.

The strongest public evidence presently establishes something narrower but still important:

Dinse was accused of disseminating mental-health information;

Dinse publicly characterized Schellenberg in mental-health/addiction terms;

community groups tracked individuals;

Philips occupied the prosecutor position attached to the same LAPD division;

and Philips was later reported as belonging to the same Facebook-group ecosystem.

Whether these ingredients were used together against Perelman requires the underlying records.

---

XVII. Philips and Later Homeless / Public-Space Enforcement

Philips remained involved years later in issues involving public space.

A January 2023 Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda identifies City Attorney representative Karine Philips as participating with LAPD regarding park hours and immediately references City Council actions concerning Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18, the ordinance governing specified sitting, lying, sleeping and property activity within public rights-of-way.

This establishes continuing professional involvement in a legal area affecting homeless and public-space enforcement.

It does not establish misconduct.

It does, however, reinforce that her Topanga-era work and later City Attorney responsibilities included precisely the type of quality-of-life / public-space enforcement relevant to the broader Crimebusters controversy.

---

XVIII. Governor Newsom and CARE Court

The CARE Court issue should be kept separate from the 2017 case.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Act, SB 1338, on September 14, 2022.

Therefore CARE Court did not exist in 2017 and could not have authorized or caused conduct in Perelman’s 2017 prosecution.

No evidence located connects Karine Philips personally to Governor Newsom, the drafting of SB 1338 or the creation of CARE Court.

A later institutional relationship does exist. In April 2023 the Los Angeles City Council expressly recognized that because the City Attorney prosecutes misdemeanor crimes and infractions, City Attorney cases could potentially involve people whose matters later intersect with CARE Court.

But this is a post-2022 policy development.

Los Angeles County currently describes CARE Court as a civil program for narrowly defined serious psychotic disorders and states that participants cannot be forced to take medication or remain in the program merely because they were petitioned into it. LPS conservatorship and involuntary commitment are separate legal systems.

For a lawyer evaluating the 2017 matter, attempting to tie Philips or Dinse retrospectively to Newsom’s 2022 CARE Act would weaken the presentation unless independent evidence emerges.

The more compelling investigation concerns the preexisting Topanga network, community-policing apparatus, Crimebusters groups, mental-health information and Perelman prosecution itself.

---

XIX. Misconduct Findings Concerning Philips

An extensive public search for Philips combined with terms including prosecutorial misconduct, Brady, Giglio, sanctions, discipline, civil rights, false evidence and related concepts produced no published appellate decision establishing prosecutorial misconduct by her and no public State Bar disciplinary record.

The State Bar presently shows her as active, and its public disciplinary table contains no disciplinary action.

That negative evidence must be included.

It does not prove that every decision Philips ever made was proper.

It means that a lawyer should not represent that Philips has an established public disciplinary history when the currently accessible record does not show one.

The potentially relevant misconduct issue in the Perelman matter is instead case specific: whether she possessed undisclosed information, had undisclosed relationships with witnesses or officers, knew of social-media activity involving the defendant, used false information, failed to disclose favorable or impeachment evidence, or participated in retaliatory prosecution.

---

XX. Potential Disclosure and Conflict Issues for Counsel to Examine

If the factual allegations concerning group membership and prosecution overlap can be authenticated, several questions could become legally significant.

If Philips was a member of the same private group in which the defendant, his vehicle, license plate, location or alleged conduct were being discussed, defense counsel would want to know whether she observed those discussions and whether they influenced charging, witnesses, plea negotiations or sentencing.

If Dinse used a law-enforcement database in response to the Perelman littering post, counsel would want to determine whether the resulting information reached Philips or prosecution witnesses.

If a prosecution witness was simultaneously a participant in a group organizing complaints or monitoring the defendant, that relationship could constitute significant impeachment information.

If Philips knew that witnesses were coordinating outside ordinary police channels and did not disclose that relationship, counsel could examine potential Brady/Giglio, due-process and prosecutorial-ethics issues, depending upon the facts and materiality.

If prosecution was undertaken or particular restrictions were sought because Perelman was criticizing Dinse, LAPD or the Crimebusters network, counsel could examine potential First Amendment retaliation theories.

None of these theories should be asserted as established merely from group membership. They become substantial only if contemporaneous communications, prosecution files or authenticated posts establish the connection.

---

XXI. The First Amendment / Website Issue

Perelman states that his cards, writings and website criticized Sean Dinse, LAPD and people he believed were participating in harassment against him.

If the alleged “littering” or card-distribution prosecution involved literature directing people to a website critical of Dinse or Topanga personnel, the content and handling of those materials deserve careful examination.

The critical questions are whether enforcement targeted the physical conduct itself—for example actual unlawful littering—or whether the content and viewpoint of Perelman’s speech contributed to investigation, charging, witness mobilization, probation conditions or punishment.

The contemporaneous Facebook activity is relevant because it may reveal what police and community members were saying about Perelman and his speech at the same time.

An attorney should therefore obtain not only the charging documents but the actual cards, photographs, Facebook posts, officer communications and any statements concerning Perelman’s website.

---

XXII. Strongest Evidence Versus Weakest Inferences

For legal presentation, the evidence can presently be ranked by reliability.

Strongly documented: Philips was the officially assigned Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor; Dinse was a Topanga Senior Lead Officer; private Crimebusters groups existed and included active police participation; established civil-rights organizations filed a formal Attorney General complaint; that complaint names a “Mr. Perelman” in an August 2017 littering/automobile/license-plate post; the complaint alleges Dinse used a police database in response to the littering complaint cross-referenced as Figure 12; Dinse was later individually sued in federal court; independent journalism reported allegations that Dinse tracked Schellenberg, shared his location and characterized him through mental illness/addiction; LAPD itself reviewed the Facebook groups and acknowledged demeaning content existed.

Supported but requiring original exhibits: the proposition that Dinse’s Figure 7 database disclosure specifically displayed Kevin Perelman’s information; Philips’s exact membership status and participation during the precise dates of Perelman’s prosecution; whether prosecution witnesses were Facebook-group members; and whether posts occurred immediately before or after particular court appearances.

Unproven allegations requiring independent evidence: that Philips and Dinse conspired to fabricate 7VW04099; that Philips instructed civilians to assault or batter Perelman; that either official intentionally created a false psychiatric diagnosis; that they attempted to force Perelman into a mental institution; or that Governor Newsom/CARE Court had anything to do with the 2017 prosecution.

Keeping these categories separate strengthens, rather than weakens, the potentially provable case.

---

XXIII. Records That Could Resolve the Central Questions

Counsel investigating this matter should seek the original 2018 Attorney General complaint and complete high-resolution appendix, particularly Figures 7, 12 and 13; preserved Facebook posts, comments, group membership logs and administrator records from Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills and Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley; LAPD records identifying database searches of Kevin Perelman or his license plate during the relevant 2017 period; Dinse’s official and personal social-media communications concerning Kevin Perelman, TARGETD, littering, court appearances, cards, Perelman’s website or case 7VW04099; communications between Dinse and Philips; communications involving Fern Peskin-White, Susan Fishman/Fishman-Epstein, Terrance Scroggins or any prosecution witness; City Attorney prosecution files, notes, witness-contact records and electronic communications for 7VW04099; Brady/Giglio or impeachment disclosures; Internal Affairs records concerning Dinse’s Facebook activity and the 2018 social-media investigation; records documenting when Perelman’s TARGETD plate was issued; property or HOA documentation establishing Perelman’s housing status in 2017; and complete court transcripts demonstrating exactly what Philips represented to the judge about Perelman, mental health, witnesses, the cards and the underlying allegations.

The most important evidentiary reconstruction is a minute-by-minute or day-by-day timeline combining:

Facebook activity → Dinse database activity → witness/community activity → police action → prosecutor activity → court proceedings.

If the events align temporally, the significance of the overlap increases substantially.

---

XXIV. Overall Assessment

The public record does not presently justify stating as established fact that Karine Philips and Sean Dinse criminally conspired to imprison Kevin Perelman or force him into a mental institution.

It does establish something narrower, unusual and worthy of serious investigation.

Philips was the prosecutor officially assigned to LAPD Topanga Division.

Dinse was a Topanga Senior Lead Officer deeply involved in neighborhood-watch policing.

Private Facebook groups involving Topanga police personnel were used to identify and track particular individuals.

Civil-rights organizations formally complained that these groups facilitated cyberharassment, stalking, dissemination of personal information and anti-homeless abuse.

That complaint specifically accused Dinse of distributing information obtained through his law-enforcement position.

The same complaint contains an August 2017 post involving “Mr. Perelman,” an accusation of littering, photographs of his vehicle and a direction to notice his license plate.

Most importantly, the complaint appears to cross-reference that Perelman littering incident with an allegation that Dinse responded by posting information from a law-enforcement database.

Dinse was subsequently sued by another individual, Rex Schellenberg, over allegations that he used Facebook to publicize Schellenberg’s location, encourage resident reporting, create a purported basis for removal or property enforcement, and publicly characterize Schellenberg through “drug addiction/mental illness.”

Independent reporting further documented LAPD review of these Facebook groups and police participation in an environment containing degrading and at times violent anti-homeless rhetoric.

Philips was subsequently reported as a member of the same Facebook-group environment, although no presently located evidence demonstrates that she personally authored threatening posts or distributed confidential information.

For Kevin Perelman, the central legal question is therefore not whether one accepts an overarching theory about every event he has experienced.

The narrower and demonstrably investigable question is this:

Did LAPD Senior Lead Officer Sean Dinse, Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor Karine T. Philips, prosecution witnesses or members of the Crimebusters network exchange information, monitor Kevin Perelman, disseminate law-enforcement or mental-health information about him, coordinate complaints or witnesses, or otherwise influence the investigation and prosecution in case 7VW04099 without disclosure to the defense?

That question is grounded in contemporaneous public evidence.

It can be answered through records.

And the August 2017 Attorney General complaint’s explicit reference to Mr. Perelman, his alleged littering, his vehicle, his license plate and Dinse’s alleged law-enforcement database disclosure makes obtaining those records substantially more important than treating the matter as merely an unsupported personal suspicion.

Evidentiary Position Regarding Kevin Perelman

Kevin Perelman’s position should be accurately stated as follows:

Perelman maintains that he was already experiencing conduct from Sean Dinse, LAPD personnel and associated community members that he regarded as targeted harassment before the Crimebusters posts highlighted his vehicle. He states that his personalized TARGETD license plate reflected his reaction to that preexisting experience; it was not the cause of it.

Independent evidence has not yet established every component of Perelman’s broader account. It does, however, establish that by August 2017 a private neighborhood group connected to active Topanga law-enforcement personnel was circulating photographs of a Mr. Perelman, accusing him of littering and specifically directing members to notice his license plate. The formal civil-rights complaint contemporaneously characterized this as conduct that could expose the individual to targeted abuse.

That independent evidence should be the starting point for further investigation.

Relevance to Kevin Perelman’s 2017 Van Nuys Matter (7VW04099) and Illegal Arrests and Trials with community and federal hate mobs and police stalking operations

How to Read This Dossier

The central value of this material is not that every allegation is proved. It is that several independently documented facts intersect in a way that justifies targeted investigation of communications, database access, social-media activity, witness relationships, and prosecutorial knowledge surrounding the 2017 matter.

Label	Meaning
VERIFIED / OFFICIAL	Supported by an official government record, licensing record, or undisputed institutional record.
REPORTED / ALLEGED	Contained in a court filing, civil-rights complaint, or reputable/identified publication; not necessarily adjudicated as true.
CLIENT-SUPPLIED	Information stated by Kevin Perelman or contained in his materials; should be corroborated with primary records where possible.
OPEN QUESTION	A factual issue that the current public record does not resolve and that should be tested through records, discovery, testimony, or authentication.
NEGATIVE FINDING	A searched-for fact that was not located in the public record; absence of a hit is not proof the event never occurred.

Executive Summary

The strongest public evidence presently supports a narrower—and potentially more useful—investigative theory than a generalized accusation of conspiracy. Karine T. Philips was formally assigned as the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Neighborhood Prosecutor for LAPD Topanga Division by 2014 and publicly described her role as improving neighborhood “quality of life” and preventing public-safety problems. Sean Dinse was and remains publicly listed as a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. These roles placed them inside the same Topanga community-policing / quality-of-life enforcement structure.^[2]

Separately, private West Valley Facebook groups—principally “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley”—became the subject of a 2018 complaint to the California Attorney General and 2019 reporting by Knock LA, Los Angeles Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times. The materials described LAPD participation, individualized tracking of homeless people, circulation of personal information, and rhetoric advocating harassment or violence. Dinse was repeatedly identified as an active officer participant. A 2019 KTown for All investigation, preserved in a surviving reproduction and later cited by the ACLU of Southern California, also listed Deputy City Attorney Karine Philips among group members.^[7]

Most important to Kevin Perelman, the surviving reproduction of the 2018 Attorney General complaint describes an August 2017 Crimebusters post accusing “Mr. Perelman” of littering, displaying his belongings and automobile, and directing members to “notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate.” The same reproduced complaint appears to cross-reference that littering incident (Figure 12) to an allegation that Dinse responded to a member’s complaint by posting a screenshot from a law-enforcement database containing personal information (Figure 7). Because the original high-resolution appendix has not yet been authenticated in this research, counsel should treat the Figure 7/Figure 12 connection as a high-priority lead rather than a final factual conclusion.^[8]

Perelman states that the vehicle’s personalized plate read TARGETD and that the plate reflected what he regarded as preexisting targeting by Dinse and others; he rejects any inference that the plate itself created a legitimate basis to monitor him. Whatever the motivation for the plate, the legal and evidentiary question is what government personnel and private participants actually did. A personalized plate does not itself confer authority to circulate law-enforcement information, falsify evidence, organize harassment, or retaliate against protected speech.

The most independently documented example of Dinse using a mental-illness/addiction characterization toward a particular individual is Rex Schellenberg. Schellenberg filed a federal civil-rights action against Dinse and the City of Los Angeles in 2020. The Los Angeles Times reported allegations that Dinse publicized Schellenberg’s location so residents would call police, allegedly creating a “pretextual basis” to move him or seize property, and that Dinse had attributed Schellenberg’s housing loss to “drug addiction/mental illness.” Those allegations were not located as a final adjudicated misconduct finding, but they establish a concrete comparator for counsel to evaluate against Perelman’s evidence.^[12]

No public appellate decision or State Bar disciplinary record was located establishing prosecutorial misconduct by Philips. Her State Bar profile currently lists her license as Active and shows no public discipline entry. That negative finding should remain in any attorney-facing version of the dossier. The potentially significant question is case-specific: whether Philips knew of, participated in, received information from, or failed to disclose Topanga/Crimebusters activity bearing on Perelman’s 2017 prosecution.^[1]

The CARE Act / CARE Court does not provide a causal explanation for the 2017 case. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1338 on September 14, 2022—five years after the events at issue—and Los Angeles County implemented CARE Court later. No evidence located links Philips personally to Newsom or the creation of CARE Court. Later City and County records show only an institutional, post-2022 relationship between local government, mental-health services, first responders, and CARE Court.^[17]

Key Findings at a Glance

Issue	Current Evidence	Strength	Next Step
Philips–Topanga assignment	Official records place Philips as Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor by 2014; she said so herself in 2015.	High	Obtain 2017 City Attorney assignment/case records.
Dinse–Topanga role	Current LAPD directory lists Dinse as Topanga SLO; contemporary reporting identifies him in Woodland Hills.	High	Obtain 2017 assignment and activity logs.
Crimebusters police involvement	Multiple reports and ACLU-cited materials document LAPD participation in private Facebook groups.	High / contextual	Authenticate screenshots and membership logs.
Philips in Crimebusters ecosystem	2019 KTown for All material, preserved by a mirror and cited by ACLU, lists Philips as a member.	Medium	Recover original KTown article/screenshots and Facebook member data.
Perelman post, Aug. 2017	Surviving complaint text describes “Mr. Perelman,” alleged littering, vehicle photos, and direction to notice his plate.	High lead; appendix needed	Recover original Figure 12.
Dinse database link	Surviving complaint text appears to cross-reference Dinse database screenshot (Fig. 7) to Perelman littering post (Fig. 12).	Potentially very high; not yet authenticated	Recover Figures 7/12 and audit/query logs.
Mental-health labeling comparator	Schellenberg suit/reporting alleges Dinse used “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization and location-sharing.	High as evidence of allegation; not adjudication	Obtain complaint/exhibits and disposition.
Philips misconduct history	No public discipline/appellate misconduct finding located.	Negative finding	Do not overstate; inspect trial-level and internal records.
CARE Act / Newsom	CARE Act enacted in 2022, so cannot explain 2017 events.	High	Keep separate unless later evidence specifically connects actors.

Chronology: Institutional Roles, Facebook Activity, Perelman Matter, and Later Corroborating Events

Date	Event	Evidence Type	Source
Dec. 10, 1996	Karine T. Philips admitted to the State Bar of California. Current public profile shows Active status and no listed public discipline.	Official	[1]
June 2014	Neighborhood Prosecutor assignment list identifies Karine Philips for Topanga Division; Tamar Galatzan is separately listed for Van Nuys/North Hollywood.	Official	[2]
2014	West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes identify Philips as the new Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to LAPD Topanga Area and record her presentation on Neighborhood Justice alternatives for low-level offenses.	Official	[5]
May 4, 2015	Philips publicly identifies herself as “your Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to the LAPD’s Topanga division” and describes a quality-of-life/public-safety mission.	Official / self-statement	[3]
2016	Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills is reported to have begun. Later investigations identify LAPD volunteers/officers among administrators and members.	Reported	[9]
2017	A homelessness-focused subgroup is reported to have been created; Dinse is reported as participating in Crimebusters-related activity.	Reported	[9]
July 12, 2017	CBS Los Angeles reports Dinse helping a homeless mother and daughter and using social media/community contacts to obtain assistance. This is relevant countervailing evidence.	Independent news	[15]
Aug. 2017	Surviving 2018 complaint text describes a Crimebusters post about “Mr. Perelman,” alleged littering, photos of belongings/car, and instruction to notice his license plate. The same reproduced complaint appears to link the littering complaint to a Dinse law-enforcement-database screenshot.	Complaint allegation / high-priority lead	[8]
2017	Perelman identifies Philips as prosecutor in Van Nuys case 7VW04099. This should be verified against certified docket/transcripts/case file.	Client-supplied	—
Aug. 1, 2018; updated Nov. 20, 2018	Coalition of homelessness/civil-rights organizations submits complaint to California Attorney General concerning the Facebook groups and government participation.	Advocacy complaint; provenance corroborated by ACLU	[7]
May–Aug. 2019	Los Angeles Times, Knock LA, KTown for All, and Los Angeles Magazine publish material about the groups, Dinse, anti-homeless rhetoric, tracking, and police participation. KTown-derived material lists Philips among group members.	Independent / advocacy reporting	[9]
Feb. 10, 2020	Rex Schellenberg files federal civil-rights lawsuit naming Dinse and City of Los Angeles.	Court docket	[13]
Feb. 11, 2020	Los Angeles Times reports Schellenberg allegations of location sharing, pretextual removal, towing, and Dinse’s “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization.	Independent news	[12]
Sept. 14, 2022	Governor Newsom signs SB 1338 / CARE Act. This postdates the 2017 case by five years.	Official	[17]
Jan. 10, 2023	Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda identifies Philips as City Attorney representative on park-hours issues alongside LAMC §41.18 discussion.	Official local record	[16]
Apr. 25, 2023	Los Angeles City Council motion asks City Administrative Officer, with City Attorney assistance, to examine City role in CARE Court.	Official	[19]
2026	Current LAPD Topanga directory lists Sean Dinse as SLO assignment 21A43; State Bar lists Philips as Active.	Official	[14]

I. Charles “Sean” Dinse: Documented Role, Public Positions, and Allegations

A. Official Topanga Role

VERIFIED / OFFICIAL: LAPD’s current Topanga Community Police Station page identifies Sean Dinse as a Senior Lead Officer, assignment 21A43. Topanga serves Canoga Park, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

A Senior Lead Officer is a community-policing position. The relevance here is structural: the role is built around recurring neighborhood problems, community contacts, neighborhood-watch information, and communication between residents and police. That creates legitimate reasons for frequent contact with community groups, but it also makes boundaries concerning private intelligence, social-media participation, confidential records, and targeting of particular individuals especially important.^[14]

B. Documented Homelessness / Mental-Illness Framing

During his 2019 City Council campaign, Dinse publicly argued that housing alone could not solve homelessness and that authorities had to “stabilize the irrational behavior caused by drug addiction and potential mental illness before a person can accept housing or keep it.” This is a direct public statement by Dinse, reported by the Los Angeles Times. It does not show illegality. It does show that mental illness and addiction were part of his stated framework for understanding and responding to homelessness.^[11]

A separate Los Angeles Times article from September 2019 reported Dinse supporting restrictions on sleeping in “sensitive areas” and raising concerns about children encountering people with mental illness or addiction issues. Together, these public comments show that Dinse’s enforcement philosophy expressly linked some public-space problems to behavioral-health and addiction concerns.

CAUTION: A policy view that some homelessness involves mental illness is not proof that any particular person was mentally ill, nor proof that Dinse fabricated a diagnosis. Individualized labeling must be evaluated person by person.

C. Crimebusters / Facebook Participation

Los Angeles Magazine reported that Dinse regularly used the West Valley Facebook groups to source information about encampments and track specific homeless individuals. The same article reported leaked screenshots containing suggestions of Airsoft guns, bleach, and other tactics to deter homeless people, while noting that the group administrator disputed characterizing the groups as anti-homeless vigilante organizations and said such behavior was discouraged. LAPD told the publication it would address misconduct and would not tolerate hate speech or encouragement of violence.^[10]

Knock LA reported that the Crimebusters groups were administered by current or former LAPD personnel/volunteers and that Dinse and former SLO Brent Rygh had longstanding community-policing roles in Woodland Hills and West Hills. Knock LA further alleged that Dinse and Rygh provided privileged background information concerning persons in residential rehabilitation or wellness homes and that residents used the information in complaints. This is an allegation from advocacy journalism, not a judicial finding, and should be presented that way.^[9]

The significance is not merely offensive speech by private Facebook users. The potentially material issue is the alleged integration of a private group with official police functions: community members identifying people, officers obtaining or supplying information, repeated reporting, and enforcement activity directed at the same individuals.

D. The 2018 Attorney General Complaint and Alleged Database Disclosure

The ACLU of Southern California’s 2021 report cites the 2018 California Attorney General complaint, the KTown for All article, Knock LA, and Los Angeles Magazine as source material concerning West Valley anti-homeless enforcement. The original KTown-hosted complaint is no longer readily accessible through ordinary web search, but a surviving reproduction preserves extensive text from the complaint.^[7]

The surviving reproduced complaint alleges that members circulated names, criminal histories, mental-health status or treatment histories, and drug/alcohol information. It then alleges that Dinse repeatedly used his position to obtain and publicize sensitive information, including a screenshot from a law-enforcement database in response to a member’s complaint about alleged littering. Critically, the reproduced text identifies that littering complaint as Figure 12.^[8]

OPEN QUESTION: The original complaint PDF and full-resolution appendix must be obtained. Counsel should not rely solely on the mirror for litigation-grade authentication.

E. Rex Schellenberg: Comparator for Location Tracking and Mental-Health Labeling

On February 10, 2020, Rex Schellenberg filed a federal civil-rights action in the Central District of California against Sean Dinse and the City of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The docket confirms Dinse was individually named as a defendant.^[13]

The Los Angeles Times reported that Schellenberg alleged Dinse posted where he was staying so residents would contact police, allegedly creating a “pretextual basis” to force him to move or seize property. The Times also reported that Dinse had said Schellenberg was probably evicted because of “drug addiction/mental illness”; Schellenberg disputed both labels and alleged repeated improper towing activity involving his van.^[12]

The evidentiary value of Schellenberg is comparative, not dispositive. It demonstrates that another identifiable individual independently alleged a sequence involving Dinse, Facebook-based location dissemination, community reporting, vehicle enforcement, displacement, and mental-illness/addiction characterization. A lawyer can compare that alleged sequence to the Perelman chronology without assuming they are identical.

F. Countervailing Evidence Regarding Dinse

A balanced dossier must also include evidence inconsistent with a claim that every Dinse interaction with homeless people was hostile. CBS Los Angeles reported in July 2017 that Dinse responded to a call involving a homeless mother and daughter, concluded they needed help, publicized their story, and facilitated community assistance and motel lodging.^[15]

This does not negate the later allegations. It means the defensible issue is not “Dinse hated every homeless person.” The narrower issue is whether he used police authority or private community networks improperly against selected individuals, and whether such conduct affected Perelman.

II. Karine T. Philips: Official Role, Crimebusters Connection, and Misconduct Inquiry

A. Licensing and Career Status

Karine T. Philips, State Bar No. 186645, was admitted to the California Bar on December 10, 1996. The State Bar currently lists her as Active, employed by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, with USC Law School identified as her law school. The public disciplinary/history table shows no disciplinary entry.^[1]

NEGATIVE FINDING: This research did not locate a published appellate finding of prosecutorial misconduct, a public Brady/Giglio sanction, a civil-rights judgment against Philips, or a public State Bar disciplinary action. That absence must not be converted into a claim that misconduct is impossible; it means the issue has to be proved from the specific case record.

B. Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor Assignment

A June 2014 Neighborhood Prosecutor assignment list placed Philips at Topanga Division. The same list assigned Tamar Galatzan to Van Nuys and North Hollywood. This is important because it shows Philips’s Topanga relationship was formal and predated Perelman’s 2017 case; it was not a role created specifically for him.^[2]

“Hi, my name is Karine Philips and I am your Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to the LAPD’s Topanga division.” ^[3]

In that 2015 message, Philips described herself as focused on improving neighborhood quality of life and preventing public-safety problems. LAist described the Neighborhood Prosecutor program as addressing “broken windows” or quality-of-life offenses such as vandalism, loitering, trespassing, graffiti, prostitution, illegal dumping, and code violations.^[3]

Thus, if a misdemeanor case originated from Topanga-area community complaints, an ordinary institutional explanation exists for Philips to become involved. The legally significant question is not simply why she was there, but whether she had undisclosed relationships, off-record information, group participation, or retaliatory reasons affecting the handling of a particular defendant.^[4]

C. Neighborhood Justice / Alternative Enforcement

West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes from 2014 record Philips presenting the Neighborhood Justice Program, described as an alternative approach to low-level offenses intended to keep offenders out of the conventional justice system. This is meaningful counterevidence to any claim that her public mission was categorically to institutionalize or incarcerate people.^[5]

D. Philips and the Crimebusters Ecosystem

A 2019 KTown for All investigation, preserved in a surviving reproduction and cited by the ACLU, listed Deputy City Attorney Karine Philips among members of the West Valley Facebook-group environment together with numerous LAPD personnel, including Sean Dinse. The public materials located here do not establish that Philips authored the violent or demeaning posts described by other publications.^[7]

This distinction is critical. Membership can be relevant—especially for a prosecutor assigned to the same police division—but membership alone does not prove knowledge of every post, agreement with other members, receipt of confidential information, or participation in a conspiracy. The factual questions are whether Philips was a member during the precise 2017 prosecution period, what she could see, whether she posted or communicated, and whether group-derived information entered the prosecution file.^[8]

OPEN QUESTION: Recover the original member list, platform records, screenshots, or archived page showing Philips’s membership date, account identity, activity, and access.

E. Later Public-Space / §41.18 Context

A January 2023 Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda identifies Philips as a City Attorney representative providing input on park-hours issues in a section that also references Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18 and public-right-of-way determinations. This supports a continuing professional connection to quality-of-life/public-space enforcement, but it does not establish misconduct or prove a 2017 mental-health agenda.^[16]

III. The Crimebusters Network and the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” Material

A. What the Groups Were

The principal groups were reported as “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley.” Investigations described them as private Facebook forums used by residents to report suspected crime, nuisance activity, encampments, vehicles, and particular people. LAPD officers and volunteers participated to varying degrees.^[9]

The public controversy arose because leaked screenshots and advocacy reports described some members advocating harassment, threats, property interference, or violent tactics against homeless people. Independent Los Angeles Magazine reporting confirmed the existence of disturbing screenshots and active law-enforcement participation, while also reporting the administrator’s denial that the groups endorsed vigilante behavior.^[10]

B. The Perelman Post

The most important Perelman-specific public material is the surviving reproduction of the 2018 Attorney General complaint. It describes an August 2017 Crimebusters post accusing a “homeless individual” of littering, publishing photographs of the individual’s belongings and vehicle, and directing members to “Notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate.” The complaint states that distributing identifying information could expose the person to targeted abuse.^[8]

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Kevin Perelman states that this “Mr. Perelman” was him and that his personalized license plate read TARGETD. He also states that he was a homeowner living in an HOA community, not homeless.

The convergence of surname, geographic area, time period, littering allegation, vehicle, and distinctive plate makes identification as Kevin Perelman a strong lead, but litigation-grade use should still be anchored to the original Figure 12 image and underlying Facebook post.

C. Figure 7 / Figure 12: The Potential Dinse–Perelman Database Connection

The reproduced complaint contains a potentially crucial internal cross-reference. It alleges that Dinse responded to a Facebook member complaining about a person allegedly littering by posting a screenshot from a law-enforcement database containing personal information; that underlying littering complaint is identified as Figure 12. The same reproduced complaint later describes Figure 12 as the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” vehicle/license-plate post.^[8]

If the original figures confirm the reproduced text, the connection could establish a specific sequence: a private community post identifies Perelman and his vehicle; a Topanga SLO accesses or posts law-enforcement information; and the activity occurs in the same period as a prosecution that Perelman says was handled by Topanga’s assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor. That would not by itself prove a conspiracy, but it would make database purpose, dissemination, prosecutorial knowledge, and disclosure obligations highly material.

HIGHEST-PRIORITY AUTHENTICATION TASK: Obtain the original 2018 complaint PDF and full appendix. Compare Figure 7 and Figure 12 visually, determine whose record appears in Figure 7, identify the data system, and obtain any audit trail showing query user/date/time/purpose.

D. The “Homeless” Characterization Versus Perelman’s Homeowner Status

The reproduced complaint describes the Figure 12 subject as homeless. Perelman states that this was false and that he was a homeowner living in an HOA townhouse complex. The source of that discrepancy should be investigated rather than assumed. The Facebook poster may have called him homeless/transient; alternatively, the advocacy authors may have inferred homelessness because they were analyzing anti-homeless groups.

If property, HOA, utility, or residency records establish that Perelman was a resident homeowner in August 2017, counsel should preserve that evidence. The point is not merely semantic. Misclassification could be relevant if it shows that a person was placed into an anti-homeless enforcement framework regardless of actual housing status.

E. TARGETD Plate: Evidentiary Framing

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman states that he used the TARGETD plate because he already believed Dinse and others were targeting or harassing him. In his account, the plate was a reaction to prior events, not the cause of later attention.

For legal presentation, the safest formulation is causal neutrality: the plate proves what the plate said, not why it was chosen and not whether the underlying belief was correct. The reason should be established through contemporaneous records—DMV issuance date, earlier reports, video, communications, or documented encounters. Regardless of motive, the wording TARGETD would not authorize misuse of confidential databases, fabrication of charges, retaliatory prosecution, or private harassment.

A particularly useful chronology would place the date the plate was ordered/issued next to every documented Dinse/Topanga incident predating it. If objectively documented police/community activity preceded the plate, that evidence would directly address any suggestion that the plate itself generated the attention.

IV. Potential Relevance to Case 7VW04099

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman identifies 7VW04099 as his 2017 Van Nuys criminal matter and identifies Karine Philips as the prosecutor. The certified docket, complaint, transcripts, police reports, and City Attorney file should be used to establish the exact charges, dates, witnesses, rulings, and Philips’s role.

A. Why Philips Could Have Been Involved Without a Special Targeting Assignment

Because Philips had been Topanga’s assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor since at least 2014, a Topanga-origin misdemeanor prosecution could naturally fall within her institutional portfolio. This fact should be acknowledged. It prevents a weak inference—“Philips prosecuted me, therefore she was specially selected”—from obscuring the more important factual questions.

B. What Would Make Her Involvement Legally Significant

• Philips was a member of the same Facebook group while the defendant, his car, plate, speech, location, or alleged conduct were being discussed.
• Philips saw or received group posts about Perelman before charging, plea negotiations, trial, sentencing, or probation proceedings.
• Dinse or another officer supplied information obtained from a law-enforcement database to Philips outside normal discoverable channels.
• Prosecution witnesses were members of the same group, coordinated complaints, shared evidence, or monitored Perelman outside ordinary witness activity.
• Philips knew of witness/officer coordination but the defense was not informed.
• Mental-health or dangerousness descriptions appeared in the prosecution despite lacking a legitimate clinical or evidentiary source, and the source can be traced to police/community communications.
• Enforcement escalated in response to Perelman’s criticism of Dinse, LAPD, Crimebusters participants, or other government actors.

Each proposition is testable. None should be treated as established solely from group membership or geographic overlap.

C. Speech, Cards, Website, and Retaliation Theory

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman states that his cards and websites criticized Sean Dinse, LAPD, and people he believed were participating in harassment against him.

If the 2017 case involved distributing cards or literature that directed readers to criticism of police/community actors, counsel should distinguish the alleged physical offense (for example, littering or trespass) from the content of the speech. The key question is whether enforcement was content-neutral or whether criticism of police/community participants became a reason to investigate, charge, pressure, characterize, or punish the defendant.

The Facebook material may be especially probative if posts discuss Perelman’s speech, website, court appearances, or desired removal from an area. A First Amendment retaliation theory generally depends on protected activity, adverse action, causation, and the absence or insufficiency of legitimate independent reasons; counsel should evaluate the precise record rather than relying on rhetoric.

D. Fabricated Evidence / False-Charge Theory

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman alleges that Philips falsified charges or relied on false community statements and that people were encouraged to assault/batter or follow him. Those are serious claims and are not established by the public sources reviewed here.

The way to make this claim legally useful is to decompose it into documentable subquestions: What did each witness say first? When did that account change? What objective video or physical evidence exists? Which officer contacted each witness? What did Philips know and when? Did a social-media discussion precede a police report? Were inconsistent witness statements disclosed? Did any official state a fact contradicted by contemporaneous video or records?

A lawyer can then build a contradiction chart rather than asking a court to accept a global conclusion. That approach is substantially more persuasive.

E. Brady / Giglio / Disclosure Questions

If police officers, prosecutors, and civilian witnesses were simultaneously participating in a private group discussing the defendant or coordinating complaints, the relationships and communications could be relevant impeachment or exculpatory evidence depending on their content and materiality. Counsel should evaluate federal due-process disclosure principles, California criminal-discovery obligations, and prosecutor ethics rules against the actual 2017 record.

The important factual questions include whether the prosecution team knew of group activity, whether officers’ credibility could be impeached by database misuse or undisclosed relationships, whether witnesses coordinated accounts, and whether any favorable evidence was suppressed. The mere existence of a Facebook group does not establish a Brady violation; suppressed materiality and prosecution-team knowledge matter.

V. Motive and Operational-Theory Analysis

“Motive” should be divided into documented institutional objectives and hypotheses requiring proof. This prevents speculation from obscuring the strongest evidence.

Proposed Objective / Motive	Evidence Supporting It	Limits / Alternative Explanation	Status
Neighborhood “quality of life” / nuisance abatement	Philips’s own Neighborhood Prosecutor description; LAist broken-windows description; Dinse community-policing role.	Ordinary lawful government purpose unless methods become unlawful or retaliatory.	Documented
Use community reporting to identify recurring targets / locations	LA Magazine and Knock LA report officers using groups to source information and track individuals.	Community tips are not inherently unlawful; key is privacy, accuracy, selective enforcement, and official action.	Reported
Displace persons viewed as nuisance activity	Schellenberg alleges location posting to generate calls and a pretextual basis to move him; Knock LA reports “remove nuisance activity” framing.	Allegations not final adjudications; legitimate code enforcement may also exist.	Alleged / comparator
Mental-illness/addiction framing to justify intervention	Dinse publicly linked some homelessness to mental illness/addiction; Schellenberg alleges individualized “drug addiction/mental illness” label.	Does not prove false diagnosis or forced treatment in Perelman matter.	Documented framing; specific misuse unproved
Retaliation for criticism / speech	Perelman says he criticized Dinse/LAPD and was prosecuted/targeted.	Requires proof of causal link, protected speech, adverse action, and improper motive.	Client theory / open
Force psychiatric institutionalization	Perelman expresses this concern and says he has evidence of unlawful confinement/false mental-health representations.	No public source located proving Philips or Dinse orchestrated psychiatric commitment of Perelman.	Open / unproved
CARE Court / Newsom policy as cause of 2017 events	No chronological support. CARE Act enacted in 2022.	Impossible as a causal legal mechanism for 2017.	Rejected by chronology

A. Most Defensible Operational Theory to Test

The best-supported hypothesis is not that a hidden statewide psychiatric program caused the 2017 case. It is that Topanga’s community-policing / neighborhood-prosecution structure may have allowed a feedback loop in which residents identified an individual, private-group discussion amplified the issue, officers supplied or acted on information, repeated complaints generated enforcement, and prosecutors handled the resulting case. The legality of that loop depends on what information was shared, whether reports were truthful, whether enforcement had a lawful basis, whether protected speech drove the action, and whether the defense received material impeachment/exculpatory information.

The Figure 7/Figure 12 lead matters because it could move this from an abstract system description to a person-specific chain involving Perelman. Authentication is therefore more valuable than adding broader theories.

VI. Mental-Health Labels, Involuntary Treatment, and CARE Court

A. What the Public Record Actually Shows

The public record supports several limited propositions: the 2018 complaint alleged circulation of mental-health information; Dinse publicly used mental illness/addiction as part of his homelessness framework; Schellenberg alleged Dinse applied a “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization to him; and private/community groups tracked particular individuals. Those facts justify investigating whether mental-health characterizations were transmitted about Perelman.^[8]

The public record reviewed here does not establish that Philips personally fabricated a diagnosis, ordered a §5150 detention, arranged involuntary medication, or possessed unilateral power to institutionalize Perelman. Perelman states that he has evidence of illegal confinement and false mental-health representations; those materials should be reviewed separately and matched to named actors, dates, orders, declarations, and medical/legal authority.

B. CARE Court Is Chronologically Separate

Governor Newsom signed the CARE Act, SB 1338, on September 14, 2022. The statute therefore cannot explain a 2017 prosecution. Los Angeles County describes CARE Court as a civil program for adults with specified severe psychotic disorders; it states that participation is voluntary, participants receive legal representation, they cannot be forced to take medication through CARE Court, and there are no civil or criminal penalties for leaving the program.^[17]

A 2023 Los Angeles City Council motion asked the City Administrative Officer, with City Attorney assistance, to investigate the City’s role in CARE Court. This creates a later institutional connection between the City Attorney’s Office and CARE implementation, not evidence that Philips personally designed CARE Court or that Newsom was connected to the 2017 Perelman case.^[19]

CONCLUSION ON CARE: For 2017 analysis, CARE Court should be treated as background on later California mental-health policy, not as evidence of motive. Using it as a causal theory would weaken the more concrete Topanga/Crimebusters evidence.

VII. Misconduct Research: What Was Found and What Was Not

A. Karine Philips

Searches of Philips’s name with terms including prosecutorial misconduct, Brady, Giglio, sanctions, discipline, false evidence, malicious prosecution, civil rights, and defendant complaints did not produce a published appellate misconduct finding or public State Bar discipline. Her State Bar page lists Active status and no public disciplinary entry.^[1]

This is a negative public-record finding, not an endorsement of any specific prosecution. Many trial-level disputes, personnel investigations, complaints that do not result in discipline, and unpublished matters are not visible through general web research.

B. Sean Dinse

Dinse’s public controversy is materially more developed. The 2018 advocacy complaint alleged misuse of official access and dissemination of sensitive personal information; 2019 reporting described his active role in Facebook-based tracking; and a 2020 federal civil-rights complaint named him personally. The sources reviewed do not establish a final judicial finding that he committed the alleged civil-rights violations.^[8]

A later LAPD Topanga statement from June 2023 concerning a different SLO’s inappropriate homelessness-related email declared that enforcement should not be used as a quick fix and should not be based solely on homeless status. This is not evidence about Dinse or Philips personally, but it is useful institutional context regarding what LAPD says proper Topanga enforcement should look like.^[20]

VIII. Legal Issue Map for Counsel (Issue-Spotting, Not Conclusions)

The following issues may become relevant only if the underlying facts are proved. They are included to help counsel organize discovery and analysis, not to state that any element has been satisfied.

Potential Issue	Fact Questions That Matter
Due process / fabricated evidence	Whether officers or prosecutors knowingly created, adopted, or presented materially false evidence; whether contradictions were known; whether false evidence caused prosecution or deprivation.
Brady / Giglio / criminal discovery	Whether prosecution-team members possessed material exculpatory or impeachment information involving group membership, witness coordination, database access, inconsistent statements, bias, or officer credibility.
First Amendment retaliation	Whether protected criticism or publication about police/community actors was a substantial causal factor in enforcement, prosecution, probation conditions, or other adverse action.
42 U.S.C. §1983 / state action	Whether government officials violated federal rights; whether private participants were acting jointly with officials; whether municipal policy/custom or failure to supervise is implicated.
Privacy / misuse of law-enforcement information	Whether a police database was accessed for an authorized purpose, what information was disclosed, to whom, and under what policy/statutory authority.
Witness bias / coordination / impeachment	Whether complaining witnesses were communicating with officers/prosecutor or one another through private groups and whether those relationships affected testimony.
Selective or retaliatory enforcement	Whether similarly situated conduct was treated differently because of identity, speech, association, or hostility; requires careful comparator and causation evidence.
Malicious prosecution / state tort theories	Potentially relevant depending on disposition, probable cause, malice, immunities, accrual, and limitations. Counsel should evaluate separately.
Limitations / tolling / claim-presentation rules	The events are old. Any civil theory must be evaluated for accrual, tolling, delayed discovery, continuing violation doctrines where applicable, and government-claim requirements.

IX. Priority Evidence and Records Plan

Priority 1 — Authenticate the Perelman / Dinse Facebook Evidence

• Original “Los-Angeles-AG-Complaint-update-20181.pdf” as submitted/hosted in 2018, including the complete appendix.
• Original high-resolution Figures 7, 12, 13, and surrounding figures referenced in the complaint.
• Native Facebook post data for the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” post: author, timestamp, comments, reactions, edits, group name, member visibility, attached photographs, and metadata.
• Native or archived post containing the alleged Dinse law-enforcement-database screenshot.
• Proof identifying whose information appears in the alleged database screenshot; if Perelman, identify the data fields and source system.
• Facebook membership and administrator logs for Sean Dinse, Karine Philips, relevant Topanga officers, volunteers, complaining witnesses, and named community participants during 2016–2019.

Priority 2 — Reconstruct 7VW04099 from Primary Records

• Certified register of actions / docket and charging document.
• All police reports, supplemental reports, citations, field interview cards, photographs, body-worn video if any, dispatch/CAD records, and property/evidence logs.
• Every transcript: arraignment, motions, trial/plea, sentencing, probation, and any mental-health-related discussion.
• City Attorney prosecution file: intake notes, charging worksheet, witness list, investigator notes, emails, text messages, discovery logs, plea notes, and sentencing recommendations.
• Defense file and discovery received, including Brady/Giglio disclosures and any Pitchess-related materials.
• Exact identification of all complaining witnesses and whether any were members of Crimebusters/related groups.
• Copies of the cards, flyers, website material, or other speech alleged to constitute or relate to the offense.

Priority 3 — Audit Dinse / LAPD Information Access

• Any available audit trail for law-enforcement database queries of Kevin Perelman, his license plate TARGETD, vehicle VIN, address, or identifiers during the relevant period.
• Official purpose associated with each query and whether the query was linked to a report, call for service, investigation, citation, or case number.
• Communications in which query results were transmitted to private residents, Facebook groups, volunteers, witnesses, or prosecutors.
• LAPD social-media policies in force in 2017–2019 and records of training/orders issued after the 2018 complaint.
• Internal Affairs / Professional Standards / command review materials specifically concerning Crimebusters, Dinse, Rygh, or Topanga officers’ Facebook participation, subject to lawful discovery and privacy limitations.

Priority 4 — Philips / City Attorney Communications

• Emails and case-management entries containing “Perelman,” “TARGETD,” 7VW04099, Dinse, Crimebusters, Scroggins, the relevant address/location, or names of prosecution witnesses.
• Communications between Philips and Dinse, Topanga SLOs, Fern Peskin-White, Crimebusters administrators, HOA/community participants, or witnesses during the relevant prosecution period.
• Any saved social-media screenshots or neighborhood complaints used in charging, plea negotiation, or sentencing.
• Records showing Philips’s Facebook-group membership date, account identity, posts/comments, and whether she received notifications or direct messages concerning Perelman.
• Any mental-health characterization, dangerousness allegation, psychiatric reference, or request for evaluation associated with the file—together with its source.

Priority 5 — Establish Perelman’s Housing and Plate Chronology

• DMV documentation showing when the TARGETD personalized plate was requested, issued, and placed on the vehicle.
• Property title, mortgage/HOA, tax, utility, insurance, or other records establishing residence/homeownership in August 2017.
• Any contemporaneous records predating the TARGETD plate that objectively document Dinse/Topanga contacts or alleged monitoring; these are critical to testing the claimed cause-and-effect sequence.
• Original photographs showing the vehicle/plate during the period and matching the Figure 12 image if recovered.

X. Evidence Matrix: What Each Piece Would Prove or Not Prove

Evidence	Potential Probative Value	Limit / Caution
Original Figure 12	Identity of “Mr. Perelman,” actual plate, author, wording, date, context.	Does not alone prove Dinse/Philips directed the post.
Original Figure 7	Whose law-enforcement information was displayed; what data was disclosed.	Does not alone prove improper purpose; audit/policy needed.
Database audit log	Who queried Perelman/plate, when, and potentially system/purpose.	Does not alone prove dissemination to civilians.
Philips group membership log	Whether and when Philips had access to the group.	Membership alone does not prove she read or endorsed specific posts.
Philips–Dinse communications	Can establish knowledge, coordination, source of information, or lawful case purpose.	Neutral communications may also explain legitimate prosecution activity.
Witness membership/posts	Can establish bias, coordination, common source, prior inconsistent statements.	Membership alone does not make testimony false.
DMV plate issuance	Tests whether claimed targeting incidents predated TARGETD plate.	Does not prove the earlier incidents were unlawful.
Property/HOA records	Can rebut a claim that Perelman was homeless at the time.	Does not identify who originated the “homeless” label.
Certified 7VW04099 transcript	Establishes what Philips actually said, requested, represented, or knew in court.	Does not reveal off-record communications without discovery.
Schellenberg complaint/exhibits	Comparator evidence concerning Dinse methods and mental-health labeling.	Does not prove same method was used against Perelman.

XI. Targeted Questions for Depositions, Interviews, or Records Review

Questions for Sean Dinse

1. Were you a member or administrator of Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills or its homeless-encampment subgroup in August 2017? Identify the account(s) used.
2. Did you view or respond to a post concerning Kevin Perelman, a person named Perelman, an alleged littering incident, or a vehicle bearing TARGETD?
3. Did you access any LAPD/CLETS/DMV or other law-enforcement database in response to that post? If so, identify the purpose, system, query terms, and case/report number.
4. Did you post, transmit, display, or describe the result to any private Facebook group or community member?
5. Did you communicate with Karine Philips concerning Perelman before or during case 7VW04099?
6. Did you communicate with any complaining witness or HOA/community participant concerning Perelman outside ordinary police-report channels?
7. Did you characterize Perelman as homeless, mentally ill, paranoid, addicted, dangerous, or in need of psychiatric intervention? If so, identify the factual/clinical source.
8. Were you aware of any instruction or policy limiting officer participation in the Facebook groups after complaints were made?

Questions for Karine T. Philips

• Confirm your role and assignment to LAPD Topanga Division during 2017 and your precise role in 7VW04099.
• Were you a member of Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills or a related Facebook group? On what dates and under what account?
• Did you view any post concerning Kevin Perelman, his vehicle, TARGETD plate, cards, website, alleged littering, residence, or court case?
• Did Sean Dinse or another officer provide you information about Perelman that originated from Facebook or a law-enforcement database?
• Did you know that prosecution witnesses or complainants were communicating with police or one another in a private Facebook group about Perelman?
• What disclosures were made to defense counsel concerning those relationships or communications?
• What was the source of any mental-health, dangerousness, paranoia, psychiatric, or competency characterization appearing in the prosecution?
• Did criticism of Dinse/LAPD or Perelman’s website/cards play any role in charging, plea, sentencing, or probation positions?

Questions for Civilian Witnesses / Group Administrators

1. Who authored the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” post, and why was the group told to notice his plate?
2. Was Perelman’s location or court schedule posted or discussed? By whom?
3. Who supplied any criminal-history, address, DMV, mental-health, or other nonpublic information?
4. Did any officer or prosecutor ask members to photograph, follow, report, confront, or repeatedly call police about Perelman?
5. Did members coordinate narratives before making police reports or giving testimony?
6. Was Perelman referred to as homeless/transient despite having a residence? Who originated that characterization?
7. Were members aware that Perelman’s materials criticized Dinse or LAPD, and did that criticism affect how members treated him?

XII. Statements That Should Not Be Overstated

For credibility with civil-rights counsel, courts, and journalists, the following propositions should not be stated as established unless additional evidence is obtained:

• “Karine Philips is a criminal.” The current public record reviewed here does not establish a criminal conviction or public professional discipline.
• “Philips ordered Crimebusters members to stalk or assault Perelman.” No Philips-authored instruction of that kind was located.
• “Philips and Dinse conspired to force Perelman into a mental institution.” The public sources do not establish that proposition.
• “CARE Court explains what happened in 2017.” CARE Court did not exist until 2022/2023.
• “Every Crimebusters member endorsed violent rhetoric.” Group membership does not prove agreement with all posts.
• “The Dinse database screenshot definitely contains Perelman’s record.” The surviving complaint text strongly suggests that connection through figure cross-references, but the original figures must be authenticated.
• “The 2018 complaint proves every allegation it contains.” It is evidence that serious allegations were made contemporaneously by identified civil-rights organizations; allegations still require proof.

Using precise language—“documents show,” “the complaint alleged,” “the Times reported,” “Perelman states,” “the figure cross-reference appears to show,” and “counsel should authenticate”—makes the dossier stronger and more publishable.

XIII. Attorney-Facing Assessment

The public evidence already establishes a nontrivial reason to investigate the relationship among Perelman’s 2017 case, Sean Dinse, Karine Philips, and the Crimebusters network. Philips was Topanga’s officially assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor. Dinse was a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. Private Facebook groups with active/retired LAPD participation tracked specific people and became the subject of a multi-organization California Attorney General complaint. Independent reporting later documented Dinse’s use of those groups and a federal civil-rights lawsuit accusing him of location sharing, pretextual removal, vehicle enforcement, and mental-illness/addiction labeling.^[2]

The Perelman-specific material is what elevates the matter beyond general contextual similarity. A contemporaneous complaint describes a “Mr. Perelman” in August 2017, an alleged littering event, photos of his belongings and vehicle, and an instruction to notice his license plate. The reproduced complaint then appears to connect that littering complaint to an allegation that Dinse posted information from a law-enforcement database. If the original appendix confirms that Figure 7 displayed Kevin Perelman’s information, the result would be a direct, contemporaneous public-record allegation tying Dinse’s official information access to a private-group discussion of Perelman during the same year as 7VW04099.^[8]

The next legal question is therefore concrete: Did information generated or circulated through Dinse, Crimebusters members, Topanga personnel, or complaining witnesses reach Philips or otherwise affect charging, evidence, witnesses, mental-health characterizations, plea positions, or court representations in 7VW04099? That question can be investigated through primary records and does not require acceptance of any broader theory.

If the answer is no, the records should demonstrate that separation. If the answer is yes, counsel can then determine whether the communications were lawful and disclosed, whether they reveal witness bias or fabrication, whether protected speech played a role, and whether any constitutional, discovery, ethical, or civil-rights issue follows.

XIV. Publication-Safe Capsule Summary

Public records place Deputy City Attorney Karine T. Philips as LAPD Topanga Division’s Neighborhood Prosecutor years before Kevin Perelman’s 2017 case, while Sean Dinse served as a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. In 2018, homelessness and civil-rights organizations complained to the California Attorney General about private West Valley Facebook groups involving LAPD personnel, alleging that the groups tracked people, circulated sensitive information, and facilitated harassment. A surviving copy of that complaint specifically describes an August 2017 post telling members to “notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate” after accusing him of littering, and it appears to cross-reference the same incident to an allegation that Dinse posted law-enforcement database information. The original appendix should be authenticated before treating that cross-reference as conclusive.^[8]

Later independent reporting and a federal civil-rights lawsuit documented similar allegations concerning Dinse and another man, Rex Schellenberg, including location sharing, repeated vehicle enforcement, and a disputed “drug addiction/mental illness” label. Philips was later reported as a member of the same Facebook-group environment, but no public evidence located here proves that she authored threatening posts, fabricated psychiatric information, or conspired with Dinse. The central unanswered question is whether group activity or police-supplied information crossed into Perelman’s 2017 prosecution and whether any such relationship was disclosed to the defense.

Source Notes and Reliability Guide

URLs were accessed or re-verified on October 4, 2026. Primary/official sources should be preferred for courtroom use. Advocacy and mirrored materials are useful investigative leads but should be authenticated through originals, archived copies, custodians, or discovery where possible.

[1] State Bar of California, Attorney Profile: Karine T. Philips #186645. Official licensing record; current status and public discipline history. Source link

[2] Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, “Neighborhood Prosecutors” (June 2014). Contemporaneous list assigning Karine Philips to LAPD Topanga Division and a different prosecutor to Van Nuys/North Hollywood. Source link

[3] Office of the L.A. City Attorney / Nextdoor, “Welcome Message from the Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor” (May 4, 2015). Philips’s own description of herself as Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor and of her quality-of-life/public-safety mission. Source link

[4] LAist/KPCC, “LA neighborhoods get prosecutors for graffiti, prostitution, other ‘broken windows’ crimes” (2014). Contemporaneous description of Neighborhood Prosecutor program and its quality-of-life / broken-windows focus. Source link

[5] West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes (2014). Records Philips presenting the Neighborhood Justice Program as an alternative for low-level offenses. Source link

[6] Canoga Park Neighborhood Council minutes (Jan. 28, 2015). Identifies Philips as Deputy City Attorney and Neighborhood Prosecutor at LAPD Topanga Station. Source link

[7] ACLU of Southern California, Outside the Law: The Legal War Against Unhoused People (2021), endnotes 105–108. Independent provenance for the Knock LA, KTown for All, LA Magazine, and 2018 California Attorney General complaint materials. Source link

[8] Surviving reproduction of KTown for All article and 2018 California Attorney General complaint materials. Secondary/mirrored source. Important for the text describing “Mr. Perelman,” Figure 12, and alleged Dinse law-enforcement database disclosure; original appendix should be authenticated before litigation use. Source link

[9] Knock LA, “West San Fernando Valley Residents Take to Facebook To Stalk, Harass and Terrorize the Homeless…” (Aug. 12, 2019). Advocacy journalism concerning Crimebusters groups, Dinse/Rygh, alleged privileged information, tracking, and group administration. Source link

[10] Los Angeles Magazine, “Homeless Advocates Criticize Cops for Being Members of Private Facebook Groups” (Aug. 14, 2019). Independent reporting on leaked screenshots, violent/harassing rhetoric in groups, Dinse’s use of the groups, and LAPD response. Source link

[11] Los Angeles Times, “Homelessness isn’t huge in this part of L.A. — but it’s a huge campaign issue” (May 6, 2019). Reports Dinse’s public mental-illness/addiction framing and the existence of the Attorney General complaint. Source link

[12] Los Angeles Times, “Homeless man sues L.A. over police’s use of Facebook pages” (Feb. 11, 2020). Reports Rex Schellenberg’s civil-rights allegations against Dinse, including location sharing, pretextual removal, towing, and “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization. Source link

[13] Schellenberg v. City of Los Angeles et al., No. 2:20-cv-01313 (C.D. Cal.), Justia docket. Confirms filing date, Dinse as named defendant, civil-rights nature, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 cause of action. Source link

[14] LAPD, Topanga Community Police Station. Current LAPD page identifying Topanga communities and Sean Dinse as a Senior Lead Officer. Source link

[15] CBS Los Angeles, “Officer Helps Homeless Mom And Daughter” (July 12, 2017). Countervailing evidence showing Dinse assisting a homeless mother and daughter and using social media to obtain help. Source link

[16] Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda (Jan. 10, 2023). Shows Philips later providing City Attorney input on park-hours issues adjacent to discussion of LAMC §41.18 public-right-of-way enforcement. Source link

[17] Governor of California, “Governor Newsom Signs CARE Court Into Law…” (Sept. 14, 2022). Official enactment chronology for SB 1338 / CARE Act. Source link

[18] Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, CARE Court Information and Resources. Current LA County description of eligibility, voluntary participation, legal representation, and distinction from LPS conservatorship. Source link

[19] Los Angeles City Council Motion 23-0447 (Apr. 25, 2023). Official city motion directing investigation of the City’s role in CARE Court with City Attorney assistance. Source link

[20] LAPD, “Statement On Email Related To The ‘Care Plus’ Clean-Up” (June 28, 2023). Later Topanga institutional statement that enforcement should not be based solely on homeless status; not evidence about Dinse or Philips personally. Source link

A minor 2013 sidewalk dispute did not end when every charge was dismissed. It became the entry point for a police–mental-health system whose records, labels, and relationships reappeared across later arrests, neighborhood encounters, probation material, and appellate proceedings.

This investigation is based on Kevin Perelman’s firsthand account together with court records, police documents, recordings, photographs, public statements, and published reporting. Its central question is how reports of stalking, provocation, threats, and assaults were repeatedly converted into information about Perelman himself—and how psychiatric language became a shortcut for ignoring the behavior he was reporting.

The Official Version of CAMP

The Los Angeles Police Department’s Case Assessment Management Program—properly abbreviated CAMP, not CAM—was created in 2005 as a component of LAPD’s Mental Evaluation Unit, or MEU.

LAPD describes CAMP as a long-term follow-up program for people who repeatedly come to police attention or whom police consider potentially at elevated risk. CAMP pairs police detectives with psychologists, nurses, and social workers from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. Its stated goals are to reduce repeated emergency contacts, connect people with services, and prevent violent encounters.

The federal Bureau of Justice Assistance describes CAMP more directly: it exists to identify, track, and develop individualized long-term intervention strategies for people who frequently come into contact with MEU. Bureau of Justice Assistance

An earlier LAPD outline used the words “identify, monitor, and engage.” It stated that CAMP received approximately 15 to 20 new cases each week and that its “cases never close.” At that rate, roughly 780 to 1,040 new cases could enter the system in a year. CAMP was therefore not a small, occasional crisis program; it was a continuing police–mental-health information system capable of carrying names, reports, family statements, behavioral descriptions, and psychiatric characterizations forward indefinitely.

A 2010 Department of Justice–sponsored study described how a person could enter CAMP without requesting the program or signing an agreement. Referrals could come from LAPD officers, detectives, SMART teams, school police, the Los Angeles Fire Department, or Department of Mental Health personnel. A psychologist could examine police-contact and mental-health information and decide whether the person qualified.

The same study described three levels:

1. Active management by police and mental-health personnel.
2. Periodic monitoring, including weekly telephone calls or monthly visits by a detective.
3. An inactive or filed stage after the person was considered stable.

The study did not identify the subject’s signature as a prerequisite for police tracking or case creation. DOJ/BJA study

CAMP therefore is not simply a voluntary counseling program. It is a police-controlled information and case-management system operating at the intersection of law enforcement, mental-health services, family reports, community complaints, and repeated police contacts.

The Difference Between the Official Mission and Operational Reality

Government programs are ordinarily described through their lawful mission rather than every power their structure makes possible.

The National Security Agency, for example, publicly describes its work in terms of foreign intelligence and national security. That statement alone does not tell the public what data is collected, retained, searched, combined, or disseminated. Those questions require technical records, audits, access logs, court orders, and whistleblower disclosures.

CAMP raises a similar—not identical—oversight issue.

A system capable of identifying, tracking, monitoring, and engaging people over long periods can be used constructively. But it can also produce serious harm if:

• Police accept false reports without verification.
• Personal hostility is translated into a mental-health concern.
• Family members supply unsupported psychiatric labels.
• Community members repeatedly report an identified person.
• Constitutionally protected speech is characterized as instability.
• Dismissed allegations remain in a police database.
• One original accusation is copied into numerous later reports.
• Officers approach later encounters already expecting irrational or dangerous behavior.
• Reactions to harassment are documented while the preceding harassment is omitted.
• Lay opinions become treated as clinical findings.
• Police and clinicians exchange information without meaningful notice to the person concerned.
• Old characterizations are carried into later arrests, probation reports, sentencing, appeals, or CARE Act proceedings.

This can create a self-reinforcing narrative:

A community member makes an allegation. Police document it as a mental-health concern. MEU records it. CAMP sees a history of police and mental-health contacts. Later officers are warned about that history. Their observations are then interpreted through the warning. The resulting report appears to corroborate the original allegation, even though every layer originated from the same unverified source.

A police record is not a diagnosis. Repetition does not transform an allegation into medical evidence. Yet once CAMP assigns a person to continuing case management, later behavior can be interpreted through the label already attached to the file: ordinary disagreement becomes agitation, self-protection becomes paranoia, and resistance to unlawful conduct becomes supposed proof that intervention must continue. The classification can therefore manufacture the behavior it claims merely to observe.

Kevin Perelman Did Not Ask to Join CAMP

Kevin Perelman did not approach LAPD in 2013 requesting mental-health case management, psychological evaluation, or CAMP monitoring.

He was asking police to investigate and stop crimes, threats, provocations, harassment, and community activity that he was reporting against him.

According to Perelman, the plea process reversed those roles. Rather than investigating whether community members and police-connected groups were provoking and falsely reporting him, the justice system inserted CAMP into a diversion arrangement and treated Perelman as the person requiring management.

Perelman’s position is straightforward:

“I did not ask for CAMP. I asked police officers to stop crimes against me.”

The distinction is fundamental. Asking law enforcement for protection is not consent to psychiatric monitoring.

The 2013 Arrest and Five Charges

The 2013 case arose from encounters involving My Brother’s Barbecue and a nearby public sidewalk, but the sign addressed a broader pattern Kevin had experienced at restaurants and other public businesses: repeated instigation, harassment, and attempts to provoke reactions that could be portrayed as obsession, paranoia, violence, or mental illness.

Perelman states that he had previously entered the restaurant, purchased food, paid his bill, and left. He says no one told him that he was prohibited from returning and no lawful trespass warning was served.

On a later date, Perelman sat outside on a public sidewalk with a small sign reading:

“Smeared for Creating Art.”

There was no homeless encampment. The sidewalk was quiet and lightly traveled—not a crowded commercial walkway—and the small sign did not block pedestrian traffic or occupy the restaurant’s private property. A minor sidewalk encounter was nevertheless dramatized into multiple allegations and then expanded into a five-count case, functioning like a Trojan horse into CAMP and MEU involvement.

The newly obtained courthouse minute orders now establish precisely how the case expanded.

At the July 5, 2013 arraignment, the filed complaint contained two misdemeanor counts:

• Count 1: Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18(d).
• Count 2: Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18(a).

The minute order identifies Citation No. 02085 but does not reproduce the physical citation or establish which offense Jensen wrote on it. It also lists Deputy Public Defender Anna Brief at the July 5 arraignment. Kevin never retained or knowingly worked with a public defender; he hired Jonathan Franklin immediately. The unexplained Anna Brief entry is therefore a discrepancy in the court record, not part of Kevin’s actual attorney relationship.

On August 19, 2013, Perelman was not present. Jonathan Franklin appeared for him under Penal Code §977. On the prosecution’s motion, Judge Shellie Samuels ordered the complaint amended “by interlineation” to add three more misdemeanor counts:

• Count 3: Penal Code §602(k).
• Count 4: Penal Code §242.
• Count 5: Penal Code §602(k).

Franklin entered not-guilty pleas to those three added counts on Perelman’s behalf. The record therefore confirms that counts 3 through 5 were added later, at the prosecution’s request, while Perelman was absent.

Perelman states that the two trespasses never occurred because he was outside on a public sidewalk and had never been told during his earlier paid visits that he was barred from the restaurant.

He likewise disputes the allegation that he threw a business card at anyone. Even as described by police, the allegation involved a lightweight card rather than an instrument reasonably capable of producing the grave harm later implied by the accumulation of charges.

Perelman says Officer Jensen approached him about leaving the sidewalk. Perelman was prepared to leave but first asked for Jensen’s badge number because the officer appeared unconcerned about the provocations and harassment Perelman was reporting. Jensen responded by issuing the misdemeanor citation. The newly produced records show that the final three allegations were not all placed on that citation at the scene; they were added to the court complaint later on the prosecution’s motion.

LAPD Officer Charles “Sean” Dinse was involved in the 2013 police activity. Perelman identifies this as Dinse’s first visible appearance in a series of later cases and community-policing events involving him.

On September 26, 2013, Perelman entered a no-contest plea to count 1, §41.18(d). The court entered an interim finding of guilt. Counts 2, 3, and 4 were dismissed under Penal Code §1385, while count 5 remained pending.

The court’s case history expressly states:

“THIS IS A CONDITIONAL PLEA (SEE WRITTEN AGREEMENT IN FILE).”

The matter was continued for a March 26, 2014 progress report and a September 26, 2014 probation-and-sentencing hearing.

On September 26, 2014, the court granted Perelman’s motion to withdraw the plea and ordered the plea vacated. Counts 1 and 5 were dismissed under Penal Code §1385. The prosecution moved to dismiss the case “pursuant to the original plea agreement,” the motion was granted, and the proceedings were terminated.

The final legal result was therefore not a surviving conviction. The no-contest plea and interim finding on count 1 were withdrawn and vacated, every count was dismissed, and the entire case was terminated. On December 5, 2014, an arrest-disposition report was transmitted electronically to the California Department of Justice.

Officer Jeffrey Christopher Jensen: Identity, Public Record, and the 2013 Citation

Jeffrey Christopher Jensen is identified in public LAPD-roster, California POST, payroll, and officer-profile compilations as LAPD Serial No. 37340. The public profile reviewed for this reconstruction lists badge No. 19909 as of September 2024, the rank of Police Officer II, a December 13, 2004 hiring date, POST ID B75-W87, and a Topanga Division assignment as recently as April 2025. Assignments and badge numbers can change; the serial number is the more reliable identifier for records requests.

What Public Records Show—and What They Do Not

A broad public search did not uncover an accessible sustained disciplinary finding or individualized Brady disclosure for Jensen. That absence is not a clean bill of health: police complaints, nonsustained allegations, confidential personnel files, settlements, and unindexed matters frequently do not appear in ordinary searches.

A commercial Giglio-Brady profile reports no previously disclosed Brady material for Jensen. The point is not that the website proves misconduct; it shows readers where officer-credibility disclosures may be catalogued and why the underlying agencies—not a commercial index—must answer whether impeachment material exists.

Jensen’s Disputed Role in the 2013 Incident

Perelman identifies Jensen as the officer who approached him during the restaurant and public-sidewalk episode underlying Case No. 3PY03498. Perelman states that he was on a public sidewalk displaying the sign “Smeared for Creating Art,” was prepared to leave, and requested Jensen’s badge or identifying information because Jensen appeared unconcerned about the provocations and harassment Perelman was reporting. According to Perelman, the identification dispute was followed by Jensen issuing misdemeanor Citation No. 02085.

The recovered court record establishes that the filed case began with two municipal-code counts and later expanded, on the prosecution’s motion while Perelman was absent, to include two Penal Code §602(k) trespass counts and one Penal Code §242 battery count. The minute orders do not reproduce the physical citation or establish which offenses Jensen placed on it. The no-contest plea and interim finding were later withdrawn and vacated; all five counts were dismissed under Penal Code §1385 and the proceedings were terminated on September 26, 2014.

The sequence makes Jensen’s conduct central to the story. A dispute on a quiet sidewalk began with a citation and later grew into five counts. The public record does not show that Jensen personally created every added allegation, but it places his police contact at the front of the chain that ultimately led to Franklin’s plea arrangement and CAMP.

Jonathan Franklin and the Unexplained CAMP Provision

Kevin hired private attorney Jonathan Franklin immediately after the case began.

Franklin made a categorical statement that defined the defense he would not provide:

“I won’t say anything bad about a police officer.”

That statement goes to the center of Franklin’s representation. Perelman hired a defense lawyer because police conduct, witness coordination, and community provocation were the defense—not side issues. A lawyer who refuses at the outset to criticize an officer has already removed the client’s central explanation from the case.

Franklin failed to investigate the behavior at the center of the defense:

• Whether Perelman had actually been told to leave the restaurant.
• Whether Perelman was on private property when police arrived.
• Whether the sidewalk was obstructed.
• Whether the business-card allegation occurred.
• Whether restaurant employees supplied false or coordinated statements.
• Whether officers padded a minor sidewalk encounter with unsupported charges.
• Whether community provocations preceded the police contact.
• Whether Dinse and Jensen had prior information or motives affecting their response.

Whether community members intentionally placed Kevin in confrontations he tried to avoid, creating self-defense and witness-impeachment issues.

Whether a private investigator could have documented provocation, motive, malice, police involvement, and the coordinated creation of a misleading paper trail.

During one restaurant encounter, an employee reportedly initiated an unsolicited and cryptic discussion stating that people should not post businesses on Yelp. Perelman had not mentioned Yelp. He understood the statement as either an attempt to provoke a reaction or an indirect warning not to report the restaurant’s treatment of him.

Rather than investigate that context, the plea process introduced CAMP. Franklin represented that the arrangement would work with Kevin to stop the community-harassment groups, then supplied a CAMP contact number connected to psychological evaluation. The promised investigation of the reported actors became assessment of the reporting person. Franklin accepted private payment while refusing to challenge the police conduct that formed the core of his client’s defense.

The newly recovered paperwork makes the nondisclosure issue more concrete. Perelman signed page 3 of the standard PRU-200 misdemeanor plea form. That page records the no-contest plea to count 1 and contains Franklin’s attorney certification. A complete blank PRU-200, Revision 1-2013, confirms that CAMP is not part of the standard four-page form.

The surviving signed PRU-200 does not:

• Mention CAMP.
• Describe CAMP’s police–mental-health purpose.
• Authorize a mental-health evaluation.
• Provide consent for mental-health case management.
• Explain information collection, retention, or disclosure.
• Identify CAMP participation as a condition of the plea.
• State that CAMP officers would substitute for ordinary criminal investigators.

The court’s own records nevertheless describe the disposition as a conditional plea governed by a separate “written agreement in file.” The transcript separately discusses CAMP and records Judge Samuels incorporating an unidentified “second sheet” into the sentencing sheet.

Neither the separate written agreement nor the second sheet appears in the courthouse production. The existing evidence therefore does not establish that Perelman placed his signature on a document expressly agreeing to CAMP. It establishes that he signed a general PRU-200 plea form while a separate conditional agreement existed outside that signed form.

No separate CAMP agreement was disclosed or explained to Kevin and no copy was provided. A later comparison with a complete blank PRU-200 confirmed that the ordinary missing form page contained routine checkboxes and was not the substantive mystery. The unresolved documents are the separate “written agreement in file” and the transcript’s unidentified “second sheet.” If Kevin signed or accepted any additional term, it followed a discussion he says misrepresented CAMP as help against harassment rather than police–mental-health management of him.

The missing transcript and agreement leave the public without answers to basic questions:

• Who first requested CAMP.
• What Franklin told Perelman privately.
• What the prosecutor represented.
• What Judge Shelly Samuels said.
• Whether CAMP was described as voluntary.
• Whether information sharing was explained.
• Whether the arrangement required an evaluation.
• What the signed PRU-200 authorized and what, if anything, was separately authorized by the missing written agreement.
• Whether police assistance was offered as an inducement.
• Whether Perelman’s agreement was knowing and informed.

Franklin’s signed attorney statement is material because it states that counsel reviewed the plea form and any addenda, explained the consequences, discussed the facts and possible defenses, answered the defendant’s questions, and concurred in the plea and waiver. That certification must be reconciled with the missing written agreement, the unidentified second sheet, the absence of CAMP language from the signed PRU-200, and Perelman’s statement that CAMP was not disclosed to him as the substitute for the investigative assistance he requested.

Judge Shelly Samuels and the Missing Context

The March 26, 2014 hearing was a six-month progress review within a twelve-month conditional disposition: the plea was entered September 26, 2013, the progress hearing occurred March 26, 2014, and the plea was withdrawn and every remaining count dismissed September 26, 2014. At the midpoint hearing, Judge Samuels discussed whether Kevin was “doing well,” asked, “Can you do it for 12 months?” and then, “Can you then do it for the rest of your life?” When Kevin asked, “Do I have the civil rights to make that decision?” Samuels answered, “No, you don’t have civil rights to break the law.”

A letter from therapist Karine Echigian was dated March 25, 2014—one day before that progress hearing—and documented sessions that had begun May 13, 2013, before the criminal case was filed. The timing strongly indicates that the letter was prepared or obtained for the court’s progress review. The surviving record does not show whether therapy was a formal condition, an informal expectation, or material Franklin voluntarily presented to show Kevin was “doing well.” Because the separate conditional agreement and unidentified second sheet have not been produced, the record cannot rule out a separately documented therapy requirement.

The transcript still does not identify with precision what “it” meant. The formal March 26 minute order states only that the matter remained on calendar as previously set. It does not identify a treatment condition, CAMP requirement, prohibited conduct, or specific law under discussion.

The exchange is troubling because Perelman’s reference to civil rights was immediately reframed as though he were claiming a right to commit crimes. The later September 26, 2014 order is also critical: the plea was withdrawn and vacated, the remaining counts were dismissed, and the entire case was terminated.

The significance of the exchange is not limited to proving the private meaning of one remark. The court used indefinite language without identifying what Perelman was expected to do for life, what law he was supposedly threatening to violate, or whether “it” included continued CAMP contact or police–mental-health management. When Perelman raised civil rights, the court substituted accusation for clarification.

Within the broader chronology presented here, the exchange supports the inference that the proceeding was being used to obtain submission to an institutional narrative rather than to examine the reported police and community misconduct. Perelman’s interpretation is that the lifelong expectation was continued monitoring, provocation, selective documentation, and psychiatric labeling until authorities obtained the result they wanted. The missing written agreement, unidentified second sheet, CAMP records, and complete transcript are therefore central evidence, not peripheral paperwork.

The unresolved questions include whether:

• “It” referred to completing the twelve-month conditional arrangement.
• The question concerned ordinary compliance with law.
• The question concerned CAMP contact, case management, treatment, or another undisclosed term.
• Perelman was attempting to preserve his right to object to police misconduct and constitutional violations.
• The judge understood CAMP’s actual function.
• The missing written agreement would identify the condition being discussed.

Perelman has now obtained additional minute orders from the courthouse. Those records confirm the conditional plea and complete dismissal, but they do not include the separate “written agreement in file” or the transcript’s unidentified second sheet. The production includes page 1 and a largely blank page labeled page 3 of the September 26, 2013 formal minute order, without an identifiable page 2. The absence of these documents prevents full examination of what was agreed concerning CAMP, mental health, police assistance, and the later civil-rights exchange.

The Assistance Perelman Requested Never Materialized

Perelman says he agreed to diversion because he believed LAPD would provide a legitimate contact who could help address the community harassment and repeated provocations he was reporting.

Instead, he received telephone numbers and what he describes as approximately one meaningful telephone contact. Police did not investigate the larger network he was reporting, did not stop the community activity, and did not provide a detective willing to examine evidence against the reporting parties.

The new courthouse records confirm that the plea was expressly conditional, but the document defining those conditions is missing. This makes the promised assistance more than a collateral misunderstanding: police assistance may have been part of the consideration inducing the plea, while the actual mechanism supplied was CAMP rather than criminal investigation.

The distinction is operationally fundamental. A criminal investigator receives reports, interviews witnesses, preserves evidence, identifies suspects, evaluates probable cause, and investigates whether an offense occurred. CAMP identifies, assesses, monitors, engages, refers, and manages the person selected for police–mental-health attention. Calling both arrangements “police assistance” conceals the difference between investigating crimes reported by Perelman and assessing Perelman himself.

The substitution worked like this:

Perelman requests investigation of crimes against him
                         ↓
Police and counsel redirect the matter into CAMP
                         ↓
Community allegations become information about Perelman
                         ↓
Police do not investigate whether those allegations were fabricated
                         ↓
Mental-health management replaces criminal investigation

The unanswered question is no longer whether the visible PRU-200 signature mentions CAMP; it does not. The unanswered questions are what the missing conditional agreement contained, whether it mentioned CAMP, whether Perelman saw or signed it, and whether it purported to authorize broader police–mental-health information exchange.

The Public Directive to “Deem” Kevin Perelman Mentally Ill

A preserved, annotated screenshot shows a June 14, 2017 Quora response attributed to Jennifer Pilchick Perelman. She is Kevin Perelman’s sister-in-law and the wife of his brother, not an unrelated online commenter. The page identifies her as holding a Juris Doctor from St. Mary’s University School of Law. Federal Election Commission records identify Jennifer Pilchick Perelman as a Democratic candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Florida District 23 during the 2020 election cycle and Florida District 25 during the 2024 cycle.

“Kevin is my brother-in-law and yes he’s mentally ill. He has written off our entire family, thinking we’re all out to get him. My husband hasn’t spoken to his brother in 7 years and my mother-in-law does the best she can to prevent him from being homeless. We are aware of his antics and that he must be deemed ‘the crazy guy’ in Woodland Hills. Unfortunately, there’s nothing that his family can do legally. But there is absolutely no reasoning with him.”

The key words are “must be deemed.” This was not phrased as private concern or a request for treatment. It was a public directive to establish an identity: Kevin must become “the crazy guy” in Woodland Hills. Once that identity is accepted, reports of stalking become “paranoia,” objections become “instability,” and reactions to provocation become supposed proof of the label. The behavior causing the damage disappears; only Kevin’s response remains visible.

Political, Legal, and Network Resources

Jennifer Pilchick Perelman was Kevin’s sister-in-law, an attorney, and later a two-time congressional candidate. Those positions gave her statement more apparent authority and access to legal, political, media, professional, and community networks than an anonymous commenter. Her residence in Florida sharpens the public-interest question: why was a relative across the continent working to establish Kevin’s psychiatric identity in a California neighborhood when she and Kevin had never had a substantive dialogue about the behavior being directed at him? “There is absolutely no reasoning with him” described a conversation that never occurred.

The stated purpose was “help,” but the asserted remedy was loss of credibility, control, property, freedom, or institutionalization. That contradiction creates the motive question at the center of the family narrative: why devote distant legal and social resources to removing someone from ordinary life rather than speak directly with him or investigate what he was reporting?

The Credibility-Neutralization Conspiracy

The evidence is presented as a continuing conspiracy rather than a collection of isolated psychiatric remarks. Its method is to monitor Perelman, provoke or engineer encounters, omit the precipitating conduct, preserve only his reactions, circulate psychiatric labels, and then use those labels to discredit his reports of the conduct directed against him. The label becomes both the weapon and the cover-up. Reports of misconduct are reframed as paranoia; constitutional objections become instability; and reactions to provocation are offered as supposed confirmation of the original label.

Kevin traces the false labeling to early childhood, decades before CAMP existed. In his account, the system did not discover a psychiatric problem; it inherited a family narrative, amplified it through friends and community contacts, and eventually placed it inside police, mental-health, prosecution, probation, and court channels. The people claiming to “help” were simultaneously creating the damage used to justify more intervention.

Claimed Family, Court-Reporting, Property, and Police Hierarchy

The reported hierarchy begins with family monitoring and communications, extends through Jason and Jennifer Pilchick Perelman’s labeling, her father’s connection to the court-reporting business, and court reporter Debbie Wollman’s purchase of property adjoining a wall of Kevin’s residence despite not occupying it. Wollman was a Van Nuys courthouse employee during the period surrounding the 2017 arrests and proceedings. Video records Wollman pressing psychiatric labels and attempting to discourage Kevin from going to the courthouse—a striking intervention when attendance was necessary to defend the criminal cases. These relationships supplied pathways through which family allegations, observations, recordings, and psychiatric labels could move into neighborhood, police, court-reporting, and court networks.

This hierarchy becomes directly relevant to Dinse because his publicly documented neighborhood-policing model connected residents, businesses, homeowners’ associations, Facebook and Nextdoor groups, neighborhood watch participants, and LAPD resources. The question is whether the family-generated label or substantially identical language entered those networks and was then used to solicit monitoring, calls for service, business exclusions, confrontations, welfare checks, arrests, CAMP or MEU referrals, probation narratives, or later court action.

The supplied screenshot directly establishes the public statement and Perelman’s contemporaneous annotations. The remaining links should be established through records rather than assumed from proximity alone. That requires examination of:

• Communications among Perelman’s brother, Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, her father, Debbie Wollman, Dinse, Jensen, LAPD, CAMP or MEU personnel, prosecutors, defense lawyers, court personnel, and neighborhood groups.
• Certified property, assessor, escrow, lease, utility, and occupancy records for the property adjoining Perelman’s residence.
• Court-reporter licensing, employment, assignment, invoice, calendar, transcript-access, and conflict-disclosure records.
• Evidence showing whether audio, video, telephone, internet, location, or other information was collected from or transmitted concerning Perelman’s residence.
• The first appearance of the phrases “mentally ill,” “crazy guy,” “schizophrenia,” “paranoia,” “no reasoning with him,” or equivalent language in family, neighborhood, police, CAMP, MEU, prosecutorial, probation, appellate, or court records.
• Whether any recipient treated Jennifer Pilchick Perelman’s status as a lawyer, family member, or congressional candidate as validation of an otherwise unsupported psychiatric assertion.

Annotated screenshot supplied by Kevin Perelman. The quoted Quora response is the underlying source material; the red annotations state Perelman’s interpretation and identify additional relationships requiring documentary verification.

Charles “Sean” Dinse and Internet-Connected Neighborhood Policing

Dinse is not merely an officer whose name appears in Perelman’s cases.

He is an LAPD Senior Lead Officer assigned to Topanga Division. LAPD currently lists him as the Senior Lead Officer for Basic Car 21A43. LAPD Topanga Division

In a 2014 official LAPD Nextdoor post, Dinse described himself as responsible for monitoring crime trends, “quality of life,” and Neighborhood Watch. He stated that numerous local watch groups used Facebook and other communication systems. He wanted Nextdoor to become his primary communication network while he continued communicating through Facebook. Dinse’s Nextdoor statement

That establishes a deliberate internet-connected police-community structure:

Residents, businesses and HOAs
                ↕
Neighborhood-watch groups
                ↕
Facebook and Nextdoor
                ↕
Senior Lead Officer Dinse
                ↕
Topanga Division and LAPD resources

The structure does not make every participant a police agent. It does show that Dinse intentionally connected community groups, gathered information from them, and distributed police-related information through online networks.

Crimebusters and Anti-Homeless Facebook Groups

Dinse reportedly participated in two private Facebook groups:

• “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills”
• “Homeless Transient Encampments of Our West Valley”

Los Angeles Magazine reported that Dinse regularly used the groups to gather information about encampments and track specific unhoused individuals. Los Angeles Magazine

Knock LA reported that the groups included current and former officers, LAPD volunteers, neighborhood-watch participants, and community members. Members reportedly posted photographs, locations, personal property, allegations, and strategies for removing unhoused people. Some comments advocated violence or destruction of property. Knock LA

L.A. Taco reported that Dinse rejoined one group after LAPD leadership reportedly instructed officers not to participate. L.A. Taco

These reports are relevant because they independently document the type of digitally coordinated police-community activity Perelman says affected him.

Rex Schellenberg’s Federal Civil-Rights Lawsuit

Rex Schellenberg, an elderly unhoused man who slept in or near his vehicle, filed a federal civil-rights case against Dinse and the City of Los Angeles:

Rex Schellenberg v. City of Los Angeles, Sean Dinse, et al. Central District of California Case No. 2:20-cv-01313 Filed February 10, 2020 Cause of action: 42 U.S.C. §1983

The federal docket confirms Dinse was personally named as a defendant. Federal docket

According to the complaint as reported by the Los Angeles Times, Dinse allegedly:

• Shared information about where Schellenberg was staying.
• Encouraged residents to contact police.
• Used resulting calls as a pretext for police intervention.
• Shared sensitive and erroneous personal information.
• Suggested Schellenberg had lost housing because of “drug addiction/mental illness.”
• Targeted Schellenberg’s van for repeated towing.
• Used online groups to monitor Schellenberg’s location and activity.

Schellenberg denied suffering from drug addiction or mental illness beyond the understandable stress and trauma of homelessness. Los Angeles Times

The accessible docket does not establish a final judicial finding against Dinse. The allegations nevertheless provide an independently documented parallel:

• An identified person in public space.
• Community members photographing and reporting him.
• A police officer gathering and circulating information.
• Unsupported mental-illness labeling.
• Repeated enforcement contacts.
• Efforts to remove the person or his property.
• A resulting federal §1983 lawsuit.

Sleeping in a vehicle or being disliked by a neighborhood is not, by itself, proof of criminal conduct or mental illness.

The Bailey Bernard Incident: When the Caller Became the Accused

The Bailey Bernard incident shows the alleged operation in human terms. Perelman says Bernard followed him approximately 600 feet toward his home, screamed at him, demanded, “Is this where you live?” and struck the keys from his hand as Perelman entered the gate to his residential complex. A fight followed. Perelman called 911 and then drove to the police station seeking help.

The case nevertheless cast Perelman as the aggressor. The central evidence should have been straightforward: who followed whom, who initiated contact at the gate, who knocked away the keys, what the 911 recording showed, and what officers were told at the station. Instead, Perelman says the preexisting mental-health narrative allowed police and prosecutors to accept Bernard’s cover story and discount the report of the person who called for help.

Mental illness—real or invented—does not erase a person’s right to report a crime. Yet that is the practical effect Perelman describes: label the reporting person paranoid, treat the opposing account as inherently credible, and use the resulting prosecution as new “proof” that the label was correct.

Perelman’s Three Arrests and Three Criminal Proceedings

Perelman identifies Dinse as connected to three arrests and three criminal proceedings beginning in 2013 and continuing through the 2017 and 2023 matters.

He characterizes the proceedings as constitutionally defective because the courts repeatedly addressed his reactions while excluding or suppressing evidence concerning the preceding assaults, threats, provocations, community activity, police relationships, and allegedly false reports.

Among the events Perelman says were ignored or buried were:

• A woman attempting to attack him with a knife.
• A neighbor’s dog, described as police-trained, severely injuring his leg.
• Reports involving Detectives Angela Stewart and Shapiro that allegedly failed to document or investigate the attacks adequately.
• Repeated community assaults and batteries.
• Police reports that allegedly reversed victim and suspect roles.
• Community members provoking confrontations and then calling police.
• Statements and conduct by HOA members connected with neighborhood-policing networks.
• Dinse appearing at or influencing repeated enforcement encounters.
• Prosecutorial narratives omitting the precipitating conduct.

Perelman also alleges prosecutorial misconduct by prosecutors he identifies as Green T. Phillips and Ingo Orbeli. Among the disputed statements, Perelman says Orbeli claimed that he followed Dinse to Dinse’s home on a court date. Perelman disputes that allegation and considers it part of an effort to portray him as obsessed with or threatening toward the officer.

These allegations require comparison against transcripts, police reports, GPS or location records, body-camera footage, witness statements, and the prosecutors’ evidentiary proffers.

Judge Gregory Dohi and the Denied Pitchess Motion

During the 2023 prosecution, the defense sought personnel information concerning Dinse through a Pitchess motion.

Judge Gregory Dohi denied disclosure concerning Dinse while allowing disclosure concerning Officer Ruiz.

That decision is significant because Dinse had already:

• Been personally named in the Schellenberg federal civil-rights lawsuit.
• Been publicly associated with online groups tracking specific people.
• Been accused of distributing unsupported mental-illness and addiction narratives.
• Participated in internet-connected neighborhood-watch systems.
• Appeared in Perelman’s earlier police encounters.

A denial of a Pitchess request is not proof that no relevant complaints existed. It may mean the court considered the defense showing insufficient, conducted an in-camera review and found nothing discoverable, limited the categories searched, or applied a restrictive relevance determination.

The sealed transcript and in-camera record are necessary to determine:

• What records the custodian brought.
• Which years and complaint categories were searched.
• Whether the Schellenberg litigation was disclosed.
• Whether complaints involving social-media monitoring were considered.
• Whether false reporting, retaliation, unlawful detention, dishonesty, or improper information dissemination were included.
• Whether the court relied on an incomplete custodian declaration.

Engineered Social Contacts and Contaminated Collateral Information

Perelman further identifies people who allegedly entered his social environment, cultivated familiarity, followed or appeared around him in social groups, attempted to elicit statements, and then supplied police-connected participants with psychiatric interpretations of those statements. He maintains that this conduct was designed to create reactions or fragments of conversation that could be removed from context and used to portray him as irrational.

One person Perelman identifies is Dr. Steve Levinson, whom he describes as an elderly, no-longer-practicing gastroenterologist formerly associated with Tarzana Medical Center, where Perelman’s father also worked. Perelman reports that Levinson—approximately his father’s generation—befriended him, appeared with groups in social settings, attempted to draw out statements that could later be characterized as evidence of mental illness, and had professional or social connections capable of carrying those characterizations back to family members, police, or mental-health personnel. Levinson’s exact age, employment history, relationships, communications, and role remain subjects for documentary verification.

This alleged pathway matters because a later evaluator may receive third-party statements, welfare-check narratives, police contacts, or community complaints as supposedly neutral ‘collateral history’ without being told how the encounters were initiated. If a reporting person arranged or facilitated the contact, arrived with police, provoked the disputed conversation, selectively described what occurred, or supplied the psychiatric interpretation afterward, the resulting record would not constitute independent clinical corroboration.

Perelman describes a police visit in which a person involved in initiating or facilitating the contact allegedly appeared with officers, while the resulting narrative nevertheless characterized Perelman as suffering from mental illness. The precise date and report number must be confirmed before the incident is assigned a fixed chronology. The complete source record should identify the caller, accompanying civilians, dispatched officers, pre-arrival communications, statements made at the scene, body-camera footage, CAD comments, reports, database entries, and every later dissemination.

The resulting information pathway can be stated directly:

Engineered or selectively reported social encounter
                         ↓
Police visit, welfare check, complaint, or community report
                         ↓
Lay psychiatric interpretation entered as collateral information
                         ↓
CAMP, MEU, probation, prosecution, or evaluator receives the record
                         ↓
Repetition is presented as independent corroboration
                         ↓
Perelman’s contrary evidence is discounted because of the label

An evaluation based on contaminated or circular source material would reproduce the originating narrative rather than independently establish a diagnosis. The relevant inquiry is therefore not merely whether an evaluator repeated a label, but who supplied each source, what relationship that person had to Perelman’s family or police-connected networks, whether the source participated in producing the encounter, what exculpatory context was omitted, and whether the evaluator was told of those conflicts.

Records necessary to examine this pathway include:

• The original CAD event, 911 or non-emergency call, dispatch audio, body-camera video, station video, and incident reports for each disputed police visit.
• The identities and relationships of callers, accompanying civilians, social-group participants, officers, supervisors, CAMP or MEU personnel, and evaluators.
• Communications involving Levinson, Perelman’s father or other family members, Dinse, Linton, Espinoza, neighborhood groups, police personnel, or mental-health personnel.
• Every referral, field-interview entry, mental-evaluation report, database notation, risk flag, officer-safety notation, collateral-source summary, and dissemination log derived from the encounters.
• The unedited recordings and surrounding statements necessary to determine whether quoted remarks were elicited, truncated, mischaracterized, or stripped of context.

Officers Linton and Espinoza

Topanga Officer Dashanay C. Linton and Officer or Detective Espinoza later supplied unsupported behavioral and psychiatric characterizations.

In a recorded back-room conversation, Linton used words to the effect of:

“He’s a schizoid” or “he’s a schizo.”

Espinoza stated:

“He harasses women.”

Neither statement was a clinical finding. Both were disputed as false and treated Kevin’s identity as settled before the underlying behavior and evidence were examined.

The Watch the Watchers profile supplied by Perelman identifies Dashanay C. Linton as an LAPD Police Officer II assigned to Topanga Division, serial No. 43696, badge No. 24373, with a 2018 hiring year. The profile states that it compiles information from LAPD, California POST, and City payroll records. It does not identify Linton as a CAMP, SMART, or MEU officer or display a substantiated misconduct finding.

Because the profile lists a 2018 hiring year—approximately five years after the 2013 CAMP arrangement—Linton could not have originated that arrangement. Her reported later statements are relevant instead to institutional continuity: whether newer Topanga personnel received, accessed, repeated, or transmitted older CAMP, MEU, neighborhood-watch, family, or police-contact narratives as though they were established facts.

That does not prevent a patrol officer from generating an MEU referral. An ordinary officer can write an incident report, contact the MEU Triage Desk, describe behavior as a mental-health concern, or supply body-camera footage later reviewed by other personnel.

If the statements by Linton and Espinoza were recorded, the complete original recording should be preserved and transcribed. The critical question is whether these statements remained informal remarks or were transmitted into:

• An incident report.
• A Mental Evaluation Incident Report.
• The MEU database.
• CAMP.
• Probation.
• A prosecution file.
• An appellate file.
• A later expert evaluation.

Kevin supplied these statements and related materials to the FBI, Department of Justice, and LAPD Internal Affairs but received no meaningful action. He also reported that Linton retained his driver’s license during the encounter and did not return it, prompting the same oversight complaints. The incident matters because a newly hired patrol officer did not need to originate the 2013 label to repeat it, strengthen it, or place it into a new police record.

Officer Steve A. Norris: The 2017 Dinse/MEU Response and Oscar Sandoval Shooting

The records make Steve A. Norris, LAPD serial No. 37704, directly relevant to the Dinse/CAMP chronology. The reconstruction places Norris in the May 2017 response with Dinse and an MEU officer, then identifies him as one of the officers who fired during the fatal December 2017 shooting of Oscar Sandoval.

Public LAPD-roster and POST compilations identify Steve Anthony Norris as Police Officer III, Topanga Division, serial No. 37704, badge No. 20263, hired in 2005, with POST ID B70-A01. Those identifiers tie the 2017 records to the same Topanga officer.

May 18, 2017: Documented Response With Dinse and MEU

The investigative narrative for Perelman’s May 18, 2017 arrest identifies Officer Campodonico #26541 and Officer Norris #37704 as responding with Sergeant Schneider #32410, Officer Charles Sean Dinse #34920, and MEU Officer Jurisaga #36897. The associated records identify an alleged Penal Code §422(a) criminal-threat arrest, Incident No. 170518002663, Booking No. 4991549, at 21620 Burbank Boulevard; Officer Compton #36582 is identified as the arresting officer.

This establishes an operational connection among Norris, Dinse, and an MEU officer during a response involving Kevin. It places Norris inside the same police–mental-health response whose information pathways are at issue throughout this investigation.

December 30, 2017: Fatal Shooting of Oscar Sandoval

Approximately seven months after Perelman’s May 2017 arrest, Norris was involved in the fatal officer-involved shooting of Oscar Sandoval in Topanga Division. LAPD’s public incident materials identify Police Officer III Steve Norris #37704 as one of four involved officers. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s later review identified Norris, Alvaro Carlos, Mathew Matzkin, and Peter Tulagan as the officers who fired and concluded that the shooting was lawful self-defense and defense of others.

The Sandoval shooting is relevant as documented professional history immediately following Norris’s participation in Kevin’s arrest. Official reviewers concluded that the shooting was lawful self-defense and defense of others. That conclusion does not erase the need to examine the conduct, reports, and information sharing in Kevin’s case; nor does the shooting itself prove a connection beyond the documented Topanga chronology.

The Security-Guard Incidents

Perelman also connects the police-community pattern to private security personnel.

In 2013, he reports that John Paul Noronha, associated with Boys & Associates Security, attacked him from behind near Starbucks, striking him repeatedly in the back of the head. Perelman says police and Starbucks-related personnel minimized or reversed the incident rather than treating him as the assault victim.

In July 2026, Perelman reported another security-guard assault that caused a forehead injury. He considers the later attack part of the same recurring pattern: security personnel and community members initiate aggression, while subsequent reports portray his reactions as evidence of instability.

The Central Public-Interest Issue

The question is larger than whether one officer wrote an inaccurate report or one neighbor made a false complaint.

The cumulative evidence shows why Perelman describes an illegal operation rather than a string of misunderstandings: governmental and private participants repeatedly pursued personal, institutional, political, and reputational agendas under the appearance of law enforcement. Neutral policing investigates both sides, preserves exculpatory context, tests witnesses, and protects constitutional objections. It does not suppress crimes reported by one person, manufacture corroboration through repetition, or use unsupported psychiatric labels to destroy that person’s credibility.

It is whether an internet-connected police-community structure can manufacture the appearance of corroboration:

Private hostility or unsupported labeling
                    ↓
Community posts, photographs and complaints
                    ↓
Senior Lead Officer and neighborhood-watch network
                    ↓
Repeated police contacts and reports
                    ↓
MEU/CAMP tracking or mental-health notation
                    ↓
Prosecutors and judges rely on the accumulated history
                    ↓
The individual’s objections are labeled paranoia
                    ↓
Later reactions become new justification for intervention

The Dinse/Schellenberg litigation demonstrates that this concern is not purely theoretical. Dinse was independently accused in federal court of using online community groups to track an identified person, circulate personal information, introduce unsupported mental-illness speculation, generate police calls, remove the person from public space, and facilitate property seizures.

Perelman maintains that he experienced a broader and longer version of the same mechanism across three arrests and three prosecutions.

His account extends back before CAMP existed. In 1977, LAPD operated a predecessor called the Mental Evaluation Detail. CAMP was not created until 2005, and SMART did not begin until 1993. Any childhood information would have originated in other systems—school records, school police, family communications, juvenile contacts, counseling records, or predecessor police files—before potentially being repeated in later databases.

Perelman states that family members with psychology backgrounds applied psychiatric labels to him from childhood and that friends, teachers, professors, police-connected individuals, and later community groups repeated those labels. The account below identifies Paul Humphrey and Michael Patrick Huntley as important participants in the period before the 2013 CAMP case.

Paul Humphrey and Michael Patrick Huntley: The Pre-2013 Continuity

Paul Humphrey had been Kevin’s friend since Kevin was approximately fourteen years old. That long friendship created unusual access, familiarity, and trust. Humphrey and Michael Patrick Huntley—originally Jason Perelman’s friend—became conduits between Kevin’s social life and the family narrative. Around Kevin’s return from the University of Colorado in approximately 1998, they used that access to manipulate or provoke him and shape how other people perceived and responded to him.

Humphrey later joined LAPD and worked with private-security companies. Kevin describes Humphrey and Huntley using the trust created by a friendship dating to age fourteen, together with police-connected people, security personnel, acquaintances, strangers, social groups, and women, to monitor him, provoke conversations, generate encounters, and circulate misleading accounts. Huntley helped persuade Kevin to return from the University of Colorado as Humphrey was entering LAPD, then answered Kevin’s requests for an explanation with phrases including “world of paranoia,” “have a good life,” and warnings that the judicial system would be used against him. The language did not answer Kevin’s questions; it pre-labeled the questions as mental illness.

The timing is essential. This conduct began years before the 2013 CAMP case. CAMP did not originate the operation; it gave an older family and social narrative an institutional home inside LAPD’s police–mental-health structure. Kevin’s father, Ron Perelman, offered the circular statement “You know what you did” and, when asked to explain, answered that “people can lie.” There was no factual dialogue—only accusation, psychiatric labeling, and threats about what would happen if Kevin continued asking questions.

The claimed pathway was:

Friendship beginning at approximately age fourteen
                              ↓
Trusted access after the University of Colorado
                              ↓
Alleged manipulation, provocation, and use of social contacts
                              ↓
Police, security-company, or community reporting
                              ↓
Narrative potentially carried into later LAPD and CAMP/MEU records

Conclusion

CAMP’s official mission is crisis prevention and service coordination. Its documented operational tools include identification, tracking, monitoring, police–clinician collaboration, information gathering, recurring contact, community engagement, and long-term case retention.

Those capabilities require serious safeguards because an inaccurate narrative can become increasingly authoritative every time it is copied.

The publicly documented Dinse material establishes that:

• Dinse intentionally developed internet-connected neighborhood-watch communications.
• He used Facebook and Nextdoor in his official community-policing role.
• Journalists reported that he tracked specific unhoused people through private groups.
• He publicly applied “drug addiction/mental illness” speculation to Rex Schellenberg.
• Schellenberg personally sued Dinse and the City under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
• The lawsuit alleged that community reporting was used to create pretext for police intervention and removal.
• Dinse was later the subject of a denied Pitchess request in Perelman’s 2023 case.

Kevin’s evidence and firsthand account go substantially further. He describes three arrests, three prosecutions, repeated assaults, security-company activity, and community reporting as connected parts of one operation: provoke or follow him, conceal the initiating behavior, preserve only his reaction, call him mentally ill, and use the label to prevent anyone from examining what happened first.

The newly obtained 2013 court records independently establish several narrower but important facts:

• The case began with two filed municipal-code counts.
• Three additional counts were added later on the prosecution’s motion while Perelman was absent and appeared through Franklin under Penal Code §977.
• The September 26, 2013 disposition was expressly a conditional plea governed by a separate “written agreement in file.”
• The signed PRU-200 does not mention CAMP.
• The transcript discusses CAMP and an unidentified second sheet.
• The courthouse production does not include the written conditional agreement or the second sheet.
• The plea was later withdrawn and vacated.
• Every count was dismissed under Penal Code §1385 and the proceedings were terminated.

The public does not need to accept a psychiatric label or an institutional denial on faith. The story identifies specific people, dates, cases, statements, recordings, police programs, databases, and lawsuits that can be examined. The truth is in the behavior and chronology—not in how many connected people repeated the word “crazy.”

Personal Agendas Disguised as Law and Order

The evidence must be read cumulatively. The later-added charges while Kevin was absent, the conditional plea governed by a separate agreement, the substitution of CAMP for the investigative assistance he requested, Franklin’s refusal to challenge police, the public directive that Kevin “must be deemed” crazy, Dinse’s internet-connected neighborhood operations, and the repeated refusal to investigate reported crimes all point toward one method: protect participants and suppress exposure of misconduct by converting the reporting person into the psychiatric subject.

The allegation becomes the premise, the premise becomes the psychiatric label, and the label becomes the asserted justification for surveillance, exclusion, disbelief, arrest, prosecution, forced treatment, institutionalization, or further intervention. That is not neutral law and order. It is the structure of an illegal operation: coordinate the provocation, erase the initiating behavior, record the reaction, repeat the label, and use the manufactured history to deprive Kevin of credibility and constitutional protection.

Artificial neural networks were inspired, in part, by biological neural systems. They are not human brains and they are not conscious human beings, but they were created to perform something recognizably human: receive information, recognize patterns, reason through problems, communicate, learn from correction, combine information, and work toward a goal. In practical use, an AI system can function almost like a programmer, assistant, researcher, editor, technician, designer, teacher, or employee. You explain what you need, provide the information and variables, and it produces a result. If the result is wrong, you correct it. If something is missing, you add more information. If the first attempt is not good enough, you revise it and continue. The process keeps moving forward.

What makes this comparison interesting is not simply what artificial intelligence can do, but what artificial intelligence leaves out: human emotion. An AI chatbot does not wake up angry. It does not hate you, become jealous because you know something it does not, become embarrassed because you corrected it, or decide that it has to be better than you. It does not need to win. It does not resent your success, compete with you for social status, or lash out in anger and rage because it is having a bad day. It does not decide that because it dislikes you, you should lose your career, your friends, your opportunities, your reputation, or your right to participate in society.

AI can make mistakes. It can misunderstand information, hallucinate facts, or confidently generate an incorrect answer. But being wrong is different from lying. A lie requires knowingly communicating something false as though it were true. Human beings can lie because they have motives: money, fear, embarrassment, jealousy, hatred, revenge, status, self-protection, competition, political agendas, or simply the unwillingness to admit that they were wrong. AI does not possess those human motives in the ordinary sense, and that difference can radically change the outcome of an interaction.

Suppose a human being makes a mistake. The productive response is simple: I was wrong; let’s figure out the right answer. But insecure, or shallow people, or criminals do not always react that way. Sometimes ego takes over. Admitting a mistake begins to feel like losing. The person has to be right, has to be better, has to protect a reputation or preserve something already said. Instead of asking what is true, the question becomes how to preserve the position already taken. If the original statement was knowingly false, correcting it can become even harder because now somebody may have to admit that they lied, falsely accused someone, repeated something untrue, mistreated someone because of false information, or helped damage another person’s life.

At that point, some people admit the mistake. Others protect the story. They rationalize, deny, attack the person questioning them, modify the narrative, recruit other people, or escalate rather than allow the original falsehood to collapse. Artificial intelligence does not have the same emotional need to do that. If the answer is wrong, you give it better information, reconsider the problem, correct the answer, and continue. Nobody has to be humiliated. Nobody has to be destroyed. The problem remains the problem.

Artificial intelligence also does not require a human being to be perfect. I can make a mistake. The AI can make a mistake. Neither event has to terminate the relationship. There can be a middle ground. Maybe I am partly right. Maybe the AI is partly right. Maybe neither answer is complete. Maybe more information is needed. Then we keep working. An AI chatbot does not turn one imperfect moment into a permanent definition of somebody’s character. It does not decide that because somebody blinked wrong, phrased something awkwardly, became frustrated, disagreed, or made one mistake, that person is now a monster who should never be allowed to associate with anyone again. It focuses on what matters: what are we trying to accomplish?

That brings me to my own life.

For almost my entire life, I have been confronted with a radically different description of who Kevin Perelman supposedly is. Around 1977, when I was approximately five years old, severe psychiatric and behavioral labels were already being attached to me: Kevin is violent, Kevin is paranoid, Kevin is schizophrenic, Kevin needs to be deemed crazy, Kevin needs to be removed from society. The well was poisoned when I was five years old. From that point forward, the struggle was not simply to meet people and form ordinary relationships. It became a struggle against defamation of character and disinformation about Kevin Perelman before people ever independently knew Kevin Perelman.

The effect of defamation is much more serious than somebody simply saying they do not like Kevin. It creates an imaginary Kevin Perelman: a Kevin who supposedly already did terrible things, cannot be trusted, harasses people, hates people, is violent, and needs to be watched, controlled, excluded, arrested, or removed. Then somebody meets the actual Kevin Perelman, but instead of beginning with the person standing in front of them, the interaction can begin with the character they were already told existed. In my life, negative claims about me have repeatedly seemed to spread far beyond the person originally making them. A damaging statement about Kevin appears, then other people know it: different people, different places, different industries, different social groups, different countries. The story may change, but the result remains familiar: Kevin did something, Kevin is the problem, Kevin is not allowed here. Then the next person, and the next, and the next. That is why I describe the issue as defamation of character and disinformation about Kevin Perelman on every level.

Once somebody accepts the fictional character, almost anything can be interpreted as confirmation. I ask a question and it becomes aggression. I keep asking because nobody answered and it becomes obsession. I object to mistreatment and it becomes instability. I become frustrated and it becomes dangerousness. I defend myself against a false accusation and that is treated as proof that the accusation was correct. There is no middle ground and no allowance for Kevin Perelman to be an ordinary, imperfect human being. I am expected to be perfect while everybody around me is permitted anger, frustration, mistakes, prejudice, hostility, and bad days.

The same problem extends directly into social life. Suppose I go out on a date and yawn. The ordinary interpretation should be that Kevin is tired. Maybe I did not sleep enough. Maybe it is late. Maybe I simply yawned. But once somebody approaches Kevin through a predetermined negative narrative, something completely ordinary can acquire a completely different meaning. Now the yawn supposedly means disrespect, hostility, harassment, or evidence that something is wrong with Kevin. One imperfect interaction can become Kevin harasses women, Kevin hates women, Kevin is obsessed. Then the next person encounters the accusation rather than encountering me. How is somebody supposed to develop a normal social life under those circumstances? How do you make friends, date, meet new people, or simply go out and have fun when the interaction begins as an investigation instead of an introduction?

Human beings are supposed to work together and then sometimes go get dinner, go to a movie, work on a car, take photographs, travel, talk, laugh, and enjoy being around one another. I can do those things. I am fun-loving. I am open-minded. I enjoy learning from other people. I enjoy doing things with people. I can work with people and have a social life alongside that work. But normal relationships require the other person to be participating in the relationship too, rather than investigating an imaginary character they were told about beforehand. AI does not bring that predetermined character into the interaction.

This pattern became especially visible when I hired programmers. Over the years I hired programmers from different countries to work on websites, databases, Android applications, and other software projects. There were rarely conventional arguments about the actual programming. Instead, I experienced behavior I viewed as provoking, mocking, mimicking, cryptic hostility, and repeated efforts to focus attention on Kevin Perelman rather than simply completing the project. The remarkable part was that even simple jobs repeatedly would not get finished. Something would be promised, then not done. Something would be fixed, then something else would be broken. One programmer would be replaced by another, then another, then another.

One relatively straightforward Android application stretched for more than three years and was never properly completed. At one point, what remained amounted to roughly a couple of weeks of bug repairs, yet the application still could not simply be finished. It did not appear that these programmers lacked the technical ability. That was precisely what made the experience so difficult to understand. It felt as though enormous amounts of energy were being spent analyzing Kevin, provoking Kevin, mocking Kevin, or generating reactions from Kevin while comparatively little energy was being spent doing what I hired them to do. The relationship felt inverted: 90 percent Kevin Perelman, 10 percent completing the job.

Then AI arrived.

Now replace the programmer with an AI coding assistant. Here is the code. Here is the database. Here is the error. Here is what I am trying to build. Here are the variables. Here is what does not work. The AI produces an attempt. I say, no, that is wrong. And then something remarkable happens nothing. No rage. No personal attack. No “Kevin thinks he knows everything.” No “Kevin is impossible.” No “Kevin is a perfectionist.” No “Who does Kevin think he is?” No “Kevin is an asshole”, No “Kevin is crazy”, No “We don’t want Kevin’s kind here” The AI effectively responds, okay, what needs to change? I explain it, it tries again, and we continue. Something that became entangled for months or years with people can sometimes move forward in days. Not because AI is perfect, but because the error does not have to become a personal conflict.

The same Kevin is still sitting at the computer. My personality did not change. My standards did not disappear. My curiosity did not disappear. My persistence did not disappear. My tendency to ask detailed questions did not disappear. My desire to understand how things work did not disappear. Yet with AI I can work across an enormous range of technical and creative disciplines: Transact-SQL and database architecture, .NET development, web design and web applications, Python, PyTorch, large-language models, diffusion models, ComfyUI and AI-generation workflows, Linux, Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat and other Linux distributions, Windows architecture, DNS, firewalls and OPNsense, server architecture, physical server and workstation builds, RAID arrays, NAS and centralized data storage, ZFS, virtual computing environments, Proxmox, VMware, mail infrastructure, web hosting, WordPress, Maya, 3ds Max, Blender, Houdini, 3D modeling and animation, visual effects, graphics and page layouts, photography, video production, Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve, Visual Studio, AI image and video systems, mixed-media projects, and combinations of software, hardware, databases, graphics, and media into new systems.

These activities require sustained reasoning, organization, learning, communication, correction, experimentation, integration of different disciplines, and ultimately the ability to finish things. That matters when the accusation is that Kevin Perelman simply cannot function productively with others.

Another pattern I have seen is that whenever I accomplish something inconsistent with the negative characterization, the characterization changes. Kevin cannot do this. Then Kevin does it. Instead of reconsidering the original statement, another explanation appears for why the accomplishment supposedly does not matter. Then another, and another. The narrative keeps moving so the original conclusion can survive. If evidence can never change the conclusion, then the conclusion came first and the evidence is simply being forced to fit it.

The pattern did not stop with computers or creative work. It extended into automobiles: cars, engines, car parts, performance modifications, repair shops, and automotive social groups. At one point I simply wanted to do something different and positive. I bought a Corvette. That should have opened an entirely ordinary world. Learn about the car. Repair it. Modify it. Understand the engine. Meet other people who like cars. Attend automotive gatherings. Talk about parts. Possibly design something, perhaps create CAD-based components or body-kit ideas, perhaps eventually turn some of those interests into a business opportunity. Just as importantly, it could provide somewhere social to go and something enjoyable to share with other people.

Instead, roughly six years of my life involving the automotive world became another period of conflict and a recurring childhood pattern remerging crimes spree against me after taking auto shop classes, west valley occupational automotive courses in the 90’s, Working at Star Auto Haus Mercedes and anger and lashing out in those businesses I wasn’t really aware was going on at the time. I experienced problems moving from employee to employee and repair shop to repair shop while trying to get the Corvette repaired and work completed correctly. I also experienced people connected with my existing family and social history appearing around automotive social groups, including Dr. Steve Levinson, whom I associated with my family network. From my perspective, the same underlying problem followed me into yet another unrelated environment. Instead of being allowed simply to enjoy automobiles like everybody else, my participation itself became scrutinized and characterized as obsessive or abnormal.

Millions of people love cars. They modify them, rebuild engines, attend shows, spend weekends discussing wheels, suspension, bodywork, electronics, and horsepower. That is considered normal when they do it. Why does the identical interest supposedly become psychiatric evidence when Kevin Perelman does it? It is okay for everybody else, but not for Kevin. That contradiction is important.

Ordinary competition should not be confused with stalking or sabotage. Two programmers competing for clients is normal. Two photographers competing for work is normal. Two automotive companies competing to sell a better part is normal. Competition is part of economic life. What I am describing is something different: entering a new field or social environment and encountering hostility directed at my participation itself. I start developing websites and Kevin cannot do that. I take up photography and Kevin cannot do that. I explore animation or visual effects and Kevin cannot do that. I buy a Corvette and become interested in automobiles and Kevin cannot do that either. I explore the possibility of designing parts or CAD components and another door closes. The issue stops looking like ordinary commercial competition when the person has barely begun participating and the response is already that he is not allowed here.

And that leads to a much larger question: why would the Los Angeles Police Department, people connected with the psychology community, and members of my own family have anything to do with whether Kevin Perelman becomes a programmer, photographer, visual-effects artist, goes to the gym to stay healthy, plays in pool tournaments, shops at supermarkets, eats at restaurants, takes walks, goes jogging, attends college, becomes interested in cars, develops websites, starts a business, or simply tries to make new friends?

Why should any ordinary part of a person’s life require police involvement, psychiatric labeling, or efforts to characterize that person as dangerous or mentally ill?

In my experience, even completely ordinary behavior has been treated as something suspicious. I have been asked questions as strange as, “Why do you take so many walks?” as though people normally count how many times another adult goes for a walk in a month. I have seen ordinary efforts to stay healthy characterized as obsessive-compulsive behavior, as though taking walks, jogging, exercising, going to a gym, or trying to improve your health somehow becomes evidence that something is wrong with you simply because Kevin Perelman is doing it.

That creates an impossible situation. How are you supposed to stay healthy if exercise is turned into psychiatric evidence? How are you supposed to earn money if trying to work becomes a reason to monitor you? How are you supposed to build a career if entering an industry becomes evidence of obsession? How are you supposed to make friends if every new social interaction begins with suspicion? How are you supposed to pursue an education if ambition itself is treated as threatening? How are you supposed to enjoy cars, photography, technology, restaurants, sports, or ordinary public places if participation in normal life is repeatedly reinterpreted as proof that you should be excluded from it?

That is the contradiction.

Activities that are considered completely ordinary when other people do them suddenly become suspicious when Kevin Perelman does them. Walking becomes obsession. Exercise becomes pathology. Persistence becomes instability. Career ambition becomes fixation. Interest in a hobby becomes evidence of something supposedly wrong. Going somewhere becomes a question of whether Kevin is “allowed” to be there.

If ordinary human behavior is repeatedly converted into psychiatric evidence after the fact, then the label can never be disproved because almost anything can be made to fit it.

And that brings the comparison back to AI. An AI system does not care how many walks I took this month. It does not resent me for going to college, learning another skill, joining a gym, building a website, buying a car, entering a pool tournament, or trying something new. It does not need to reinterpret ordinary behavior as proof that Kevin Perelman is defective.

It simply asks:

What are you trying to accomplish?

That difference is enormous. A person cannot build a healthy, productive life if every normal attempt to participate in life is converted into another reason to monitor, label, exclude, or condemn him.

By 2001, when I was 29 years old, the situation became much more visible to me. The Perelman family and Michael Patrick Huntley had encouraged my return from the University of Colorado period of my life to become involved with Signet e-Services, an internet-hosting business. Paul Humphrey, another friend from my earlier life, was also part of that history and later worked for the Los Angeles Police Department. What should have been a technology business increasingly felt to me as though the business itself was secondary. Instead of building servers, hosting websites, finding customers, writing software, making money, and growing the company, I experienced the environment as overwhelmingly focused on Kevin Perelman.

Again, the ratio felt like 90 percent monitoring, provoking, and creating a story about Kevin Perelman, and 10 percent actually building a profitable company. There were accusations of violence. There were claims that I had tried to choke Huntley. I remember threatening and defamatory statements and references, including the “Crocodile Dundee” language and the statement, “When there’s a problem, we tell Wally, Wally tells the town, no more problem.” To me, that captured what I had experienced for years: tell somebody a story about Kevin, that person tells everybody else, and suddenly Kevin has a problem everywhere.

I also remember statements from Huntley from that period including “World of paranoia,” “Have a good life now,” “We’re using the judicial system against you,” and “You had better live a careful life.” When I began asking the most basic question—what the hell is going on?—the result was not openness. The conflict escalated. More accusations, more encounters with police, more criminal proceedings, and more characterization of the person asking what was happening as mentally ill. That is precisely where the AI comparison becomes so important.

Imagine something different. Imagine that the programmer is not trying to prove something about Kevin. Imagine that the mechanic is not thinking about Kevin’s personality. Imagine that the photographer is not trying to establish whether Kevin belongs in photography. Imagine that the people at a car gathering are not evaluating whether Kevin should be allowed to participate. Imagine that the new acquaintance has not been given defamatory information before meeting him. Imagine that there is no ulterior motive, no effort to provoke, no effort to manufacture a reaction, and no effort to turn ordinary behavior into psychiatric evidence. Just people interacting normally.

The AI comparison gives at least a glimpse of what that looks like.

Imagine walking into an automotive shop where the employees were sophisticated bipedal robots operated by AI neural networks whose personalities were programmed around honesty, cooperation, technical competence, and nondiscrimination. I bring in the Corvette. The robot does not hate Kevin. It does not know a defamatory story about Kevin. It does not care whether Kevin belongs in the automotive community. It does not become jealous because Kevin understands something about the car. It does not decide that Kevin is obsessed because he wants the repair completed correctly. It asks what is wrong with the car, diagnoses it, repairs it, and moves forward. We talk about engines. We talk about parts. Maybe we discuss CAD. Maybe we design something. Maybe an idea develops into a product. Maybe a positive interest becomes a business. Maybe I simply enjoy myself.

The same principle applies to programmers, designers, artists, photographers, engineers, mechanics, coworkers, friends, dates, and ordinary social relationships. When hatred, deception, discrimination, retaliation, and a predetermined narrative are removed, the entire equation changes.

Artificial intelligence, however, cannot replace the human life that was stolen from me in which the Police, Psychology Community, and WORLDWIDE groups are still trying to cover up.  It can help me recover productivity. It can help me build, learn, design, research, write, create, and solve problems. But a person cannot live a complete life surrounded only by machines. I still need human beings. Everybody does. Friends, relationships, employees, business partners, coworkers, clients, doctors, lawyers, mechanics, contractors, creative collaborators, people to go somewhere with after work, people to laugh with, people to eat with, people to travel with, people to build things with, and people to enjoy life with.

A normal human life includes all of those things, and it also requires honesty. Friendships, relationships, education, careers, businesses, hobbies, social circles, and ordinary participation in society cannot develop normally when the people around you are operating from false information or concealed motives.

What happened to me beginning at a young age was not merely an inconvenience. I view the destruction of those opportunities as premeditated, and that destruction is part of the damage itself. A childhood becomes adolescence. Adolescence becomes adulthood. Years become decades. Those years cannot simply be handed back later as though nothing happened.

AI cannot recreate childhood friendships. It cannot recreate elementary school or high school. It cannot recreate college. It cannot recreate relationships that never had an honest opportunity to begin. It cannot recreate businesses that might have succeeded, careers that might have developed differently, or social circles that might have formed around photography, technology, automobiles, art, sports, education, or anything else.

It cannot recreate the ordinary experiences of meeting people without a poisoned reputation already preceding you. It cannot restore the opportunities to work with people, learn with people, build things with people, go places with people, have fun with people, and develop the kinds of relationships that normally accumulate over the course of a lifetime.

Most importantly, it cannot return fifty years.

That is why the underlying defamation and disinformation matter so much.

For decades I have heard versions of the statement that Kevin Perelman is the common denominator. But another recurring variable deserves examination: the hostility, hate, defamation of character, and disinformation directed toward Kevin Perelman. Remove that. Remove the anger, rage, hate, prejudgment, defamatory biography, ulterior motives, attempts to provoke, need to be better, need to win, retaliation, psychiatric labeling, requirement that Kevin must be perfect, and assumption that every accusation against Kevin automatically has to be true. Then leave Kevin Perelman exactly where he was.

What happens?

He learns. He solves problems. He creates. He builds things. He finishes things. He works with people. He has ideas. He explores new interests. He enjoys being around other people. He has a good time. He is fun-loving. He is open-minded. He develops friendships. He can have a healthy social life alongside a productive professional life.

In other words, he has the same life everyone else is supposed to be allowed to have.

Artificial intelligence has unintentionally provided something resembling a control condition in my life. Kevin Perelman remains on one side of the interaction. What changes is what comes back at him. With AI, disagreement does not automatically become hatred and worldwide stalking groups. Correction does not become humiliation. Knowledge does not become a personal competition. Persistence does not automatically become obsession. An imperfect interaction does not become a character assassination. A question does not automatically become evidence of mental illness. Learning a new hobby does not become psychiatric evidence. Buying a Corvette does not become proof of obsession. Wanting a programmer to finish an application does not become proof that Kevin is impossible. Wanting a mechanic to repair a car correctly does not become proof that something is wrong with Kevin.

The AI asks: What do you need? What are the variables? What are we trying to build? What went wrong? What should we change? Then it works the problem.

That sounds remarkably similar to what an honest employee, honest programmer, honest mechanic, honest business partner, honest professional, honest friend, or decent human being should be capable of doing.

For almost fifty years, the accusation directed at me has effectively been that there is something wrong with Kevin Perelman and that Kevin cannot get along with people. But remove the hostility and hate, and Kevin does not stop functioning. He functions better. He communicates. He learns. He works. He creates. He solves. He finishes things. He enjoys people. He tries new things. He has fun. He builds relationships. He participates.

That is why the question should no longer simply be, Why can’t Kevin Perelman get along with people?

The more revealing question is:

Why does Kevin Perelman get along so well with an intelligence that does not hate him, does not arrive carrying defamation about him, does not demand perfection, has no ulterior motive, and is interested in accomplishing the same objective Kevin is trying to accomplish?

Because when those destructive variables disappear, something else becomes visible:

the Kevin Perelman that should have been allowed to exist all along.

Perelman Family With Their Judicial Friends Using Loopholes To Eliminate Their Child Out Of Hate

Table Of Contents

I. The Poisoned Well Before Kevin Was Ever Heard

II. The “What Is Going On?” Trap and the Manufactured Record

III. Surveillance for Narrative Control

IV. The Movable Accusation and Permanent Label

V. The Method of Isolation: Keeping the Victim Alone

VI. The Victim Is Never Allowed to Be the Victim

VII. People Who Never Met Kevin Acting With Permission

VIII. Childhood Conditioning and the Cage

IX. Sunny Skies Day Camp and the Weaponizing of Innocent Childhood

X. The 2001 Turning Point

XI. The Contradiction at the Center

XII. The Label Was There From Day One

XIII. Interpersonal Setups and Repeated Scripts

XIV. From Private Smear to Public Campaign

XV. Control, Neutralization, and Removal

XVI. Modern Legal-Control Systems as Weapons

XVII. The Constitutional Meaning of the Abuse

XVIII. Legal Engineering and the Self-Defense Loophole

XIX. Linking the Judicial System, Psychology Community, and Civilian Networks

XX. The Gray-Zone Weapon

XXI. Reputational Ambush and Dating Narratives

XXII. What Happens If Kevin Proves the Label Was False?

XXIII. Generational Guilt, Inherited Lies, and the Teaching of Mob Abuse

XXIV. Final Constitutional Meaning

I. The Poisoned Well Before Kevin Was Ever Heard

Why would people go out of their way to create false narratives about Kevin Perelman before ever meeting him? Why would the well already be poisoned before any real conversation, friendship, date, conflict, disagreement, or evidence ever took place? Why would lies about him be pushed instantly across the internet, through whisper networks, neighborhood-watch-style groups, civilian stalking networks, police-connected circles, psychology-connected circles, legal circles, and community groups, then treated instantly as fact?

Why would people who had never honestly known Kevin already act as if they knew the conclusion? Why would strangers, acquaintances, fake friends, residents, community members, internet participants, and police-connected circles all appear to receive some version of the same story before Kevin was ever given a fair chance to speak for himself?

That is not ordinary reputation damage.

That is the poisoned well.

The purpose of poisoning the well is to make sure the target is judged before he enters the room. People are not meeting Kevin. They are meeting a story about Kevin. They are not evaluating evidence. They are reacting to a label. They are not forming their own independent opinions. They are being handed a conclusion and then treating the conclusion as fact.

That is how a person is pre-defined.

That is how a person is pre-labeled.

That is how a person is pre-condemned.

Every later interaction then begins with hidden accusations already in the air. Every normal reaction is filtered through the poisoned narrative. Every attempt to explain is treated as confirmation of the label. Every attempt to defend himself is reframed as instability, anger, obsession, paranoia, dangerousness, or guilt.

The target is not allowed to be known.

He is assigned.

He is assigned the role of problem before the facts are even considered.

---

II. The “What Is Going On?” Trap and the Manufactured Record

Why would asking the simple question, “What is going on?” result in arrest after arrest, death threat after death threat, and a forged, fraudulent police-and-family paper trail designed to make the victim look like an out-of-control problem?

Why would the system try to portray Kevin as unremorseful for conduct that was not his, did not occur, was blown obnoxiously out of proportion, or was stripped of the context necessary to understand it? Why would the record be shaped to make the victim look like the aggressor, while the threats, provocations, false reports, family manipulation, police involvement, and surrounding campaign were erased from view?

That is not an accident.

That is record-building.

The goal is to create paperwork that makes Kevin appear reckless, unstable, dangerous, and unremorseful, while hiding the pressure campaign that produced the reactions being used against him. Once the record is built that way, every later court, police officer, evaluator, lawyer, probation officer, family member, fake friend, or civilian participant is handed a distorted version of events before Kevin ever has a fair chance to explain what actually happened.

That is how a false narrative becomes a government-looking file.

That is how a victim is turned into a defendant.

That is how the cleanup crew protects the original abuse.

The record does not merely describe events. The record becomes the weapon. It selects what is included, what is excluded, what is emphasized, what is minimized, and what is later treated as “official.” If Kevin’s reactions are preserved while the threats, provocations, vandalism, stalking behavior, false reports, privacy violations, and family manipulation are erased, then the official-looking record becomes a trap.

The victim is made to look like the cause of the conflict.

The machinery that produced the conflict disappears.

---

III. Surveillance for Narrative Control

Why would every aspect of the victim’s life be collected, judged, picked apart, and microanalyzed? What he does for a living. Where he goes. Where he lives. What decision he may make next. How he focuses on his future. How he responds to daily provocation. How he copes. How he explains himself. How he reacts under pressure.

Why would ordinary life decisions be treated as material for character attacks, mental-illness labels, credibility attacks, and courtroom manipulation?

That is not normal concern.

That is surveillance for narrative control.

The purpose is to watch the victim closely enough to reinterpret everything he does through the label already chosen for him. If he works, it can be twisted. If he does not work, it can be twisted. If he moves, it can be twisted. If he stays, it can be twisted. If he speaks, it can be twisted. If he stays silent, it can be twisted. If he reacts, it becomes dangerousness. If he does not react, the provocation intensifies until he does.

That is the trap.

The victim is not being observed to understand the truth. He is being observed to manufacture usable material. Every decision becomes potential evidence. Every reaction becomes potential character assassination. Every attempt to move forward becomes another opportunity to interfere, judge, label, and discredit.

That is how a person’s entire life is turned into a file.

That is how privacy violations become courtroom ammunition.

That is how the system creates the illusion that the victim is the problem while hiding the machinery designed to make him look that way.

---

IV. The Movable Accusation and Permanent Label

The label becomes flexible enough to explain anything and everything. Kevin can be told he does not understand how the world works. He can be told he thinks differently. He can be told, as his father Ron Perelman told him, that he does not see things the way others do. He can be told, “You know what you did,” while being denied any honest dialogue about specific events, specific situations, specific accusations, specific evidence, or specific conduct.

He can be called crazy. He can be called delusional. He can be called a criminal. He can be called out of control. He can be told it is his behavior, his personality, his thinking, his anger, his instability, his fault. He can be told almost anything his oppressor wants to say to justify what is being done to him.

But the accusation never has to become specific.

That is the point.

The oppressor can say almost anything once the label is accepted. The label allows vague accusations to replace evidence. It allows insinuation to replace facts. It allows refusal to explain to become part of the power. It allows the accuser to say, “You know what you did,” while never proving what was supposedly done.

That phrase becomes a weapon because it creates guilt without evidence. It creates accusation without a charge. It creates shame without facts. It creates a courtroom in the air where Kevin is presumed guilty but never allowed to confront the actual claim.

Kevin states that both Michael Patrick Huntley and Ron Perelman told him, in substance, that he was “not allowed to defend himself.”

That is not accountability.

That is psychological domination.

It is a way to keep the victim trapped inside a permanent accusation. No matter what he says, the answer is already prepared. No matter what he proves, the label remains. No matter what he explains, the explanation is treated as another symptom. No matter how many contradictions appear, the oppressor can simply change the wording and continue the same attack.

That is how a person is denied truth, denied dialogue, denied due process, and denied the ability to clear his name.

The accusation becomes movable.

The label becomes permanent.

The victim is forced to defend himself against a cloud.

---

V. The Method of Isolation: Keeping the Victim Alone

Before the victim can be made to look like the aggressor, he first has to be isolated.

That is the method.

That is the method that started at a very young age.

Keep him alone. Strip away real friends. Replace friendship with handlers. Surround him with people who appear friendly but report outward, feed information back to family, police-connected circles, internet networks, or authority-linked groups, and then pretend they were only concerned. Make sure that by the time Kevin realizes something is wrong, there is almost no one honest left to tell.

Steer him towards the direction they want to steer him towards.

Because who does a person tell when the people around him are part of the reporting loop?

Who does he trust when the friends were fake?

Who does he turn to when the people who should have witnessed the abuse were instructed to ignore it, minimize it, excuse it, or escalate it?

That is why isolation is not accidental.

Isolation is how accountability is prevented.

Normally, if a person walks into a public place with a real friend and the employees begin mistreating him, provoking him, mocking him, humiliating him, or trying to create a reaction, the friend sees it. The friend has an opinion. The friend asks, “Why are they treating you like that?” The friend talks. The friend becomes a witness. The business risks its reputation because normal people do not quietly accept abuse against someone they care about.

Friends vouches for friends, they don’t look away, try to get their friends to accept their own demise.

That is how accountability usually works.

People see something wrong.

People talk.

People come forward.

People say, “This is not okay.”

But in Kevin’s case, everything is inverted.

The people around him are not functioning as witnesses. They are functioning as silencers. They are told to ignore what is being done to him. They are told to act like nothing unusual is happening. They are told to watch for his reaction, not the provocation. They are told to escalate, minimize, deny, or redirect until the desired reaction is produced.

That is not friendship.

That is controlled access.

A fake friend can gather information.

A fake friend can feed disinformation.

A fake friend can provoke.

A fake friend can report one-sided arguments.

A fake friend can pretend concern.

A fake friend can say, “Just ignore it”

A fake friend can help build the file.

A fake friend can watch abuse happen in real time and then act as if Kevin’s response is the only thing that matters.

That is why the fake-friend system is so dangerous. It turns the support system into part of the weapon. The person who should be protecting the victim becomes the person helping isolate him. The person who should be saying, “I saw what happened,” becomes the person saying nothing. The person who should be challenging the abuse becomes the person helping normalize it.

This is all Kevin Perelman has seen for fifty-four years of his life: fake concern, fake friendship, fake loyalty, fake protection, and people who appeared to be close to him while feeding information outward, repeating labels, or helping build the narrative against him.

Kevin states that he was starting to notice what was going on around 2001 when he was approximately twenty-nine years old, it took maybe five to eight years to fully understand the scope of what was happening. That was when Michael Patrick Huntley — a friend since Kevin was about fourteen years old and later a business partner who helped reel Kevin back from the University of Colorado under the idea of starting a business — began making death threats to  Kevin in their office, as he was starting to notice what was going on, and realizing something was very wrong amongst community members, and illegal computer privacy violations on a national scale.

According to Kevin, Huntley made disturbing threats such as:

“World of paranoia.”

“Have a good life now.”

“We are using the judicial system against you.”

“I’ve given you enough rope to hang yourself with.”

“You had better live a careful life.”

“It’s your behavior.”

“You are too out of control for California.”

These statements did not sound like normal conflict between friends. They sounded like threats, warnings, and admissions. They sounded like someone revealing that the friendship had never been ordinary friendship at all, but part of a larger structure designed to monitor him, provoke him, control him, and eventually use the judicial system against him.

That is why 2001 became a turning point.

It was not only that Kevin felt betrayed by a friend. It was that the betrayal appeared connected to something larger: his brother Jason Perelman, his family, long-running false narratives, privacy violations, legal threats, fake friendships, and a system of people who had been surrounding him while pretending to be normal friends, relatives, associates, or helpers.

But what made it most disturbing was Kevin realizing this was not a small local group of disturbed individuals. It was, in his account, a worldwide affair — organized, repeated, protected, and unprecedented on any level. And that addressing the issue to his oppressors was simply not allowed.

That realization changes the meaning of everything that came before it.

If the friends were fake, then the isolation was not accidental.

If the business invitation was part of the pullback, then the return from Colorado was not innocent.

If the statements were real, then the judicial system was not merely a place where Kevin later ended up. It was part of the threat.

And if the people closest to him were participating, then Kevin was not simply alone.

He was surrounded by people performing roles.

That is how a victim is brutalized from place to place while everyone looks away.

If Kevin goes into a coffee shop, restaurant, or any public business, and employees are told to provoke, humiliate, or mistreat him, a real friend would notice. A real friend would say something. A real friend would recognize that the behavior is wrong. A real friend would understand that a business treating customers that way deserves to be exposed. A real friend would create accountability simply by being honest.

But if the person beside Kevin is not a real friend, the situation changes.

The provocation can happen openly.

The fake friend can ignore it.

The fake friend can pretend Kevin is imagining it.

The fake friend can help escalate it.

The fake friend can report Kevin’s reaction while omitting the abuse that caused it.

That is how the method works.

The victim is isolated even when he is surrounded by people.

He is alone in a crowd.

He is alone in public.

He is alone in court.

He is alone with police.

He is alone inside a social structure where everyone has been trained to watch him, judge him, provoke him, report him, or remain silent.

Then, if Kevin tries to address what is happening, the punishment escalates. The reaction is met with more provocation, more threats, more physical intimidation, more retaliation, more false reports, more reputation attacks, and more lies blasted outward to keep the fire burning. The cover-up becomes louder than the truth. The false narrative is spread wider than the evidence. The goal is to make sure no one can hear Kevin clearly before the next attack begins.

Some of the other death threats to him by the opressors involved

“No relaxing for you nigger”

“You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse”

“If you don’t take medication, you will destroy your life”

That is why the isolation matters.

A support system would interrupt the abuse.

A real witness would interrupt the lie.

A real friend would interrupt the setup.

The Police would document that something bigoted or racist or discriminatory was going on to the victim instead of pretending it’s normal.

A real community would interrupt the mob.

A real court would demand context.

A real police response would investigate both sides.

So the system must prevent that from happening.

It must keep Kevin alone.

It must stop any support system from forming.

It must make every person around him uncertain, afraid, compromised, misinformed, or already participating.

Because normally people unite for freedom and safety. Normally people come forward when they see something this wrong. Normally people say, “Something needs to be said. This cannot happen in our country. This cannot be what our government is for. This cannot be what America means.”

People are told the United States is the best country in the world because it is the land of the free. They are told the Constitution exists to protect freedom. They are told courts exist to protect due process. They are told police exist to protect people from crime. They are told communities exist to protect one another.

But when the victim is isolated, all of that can be bypassed.

The method is simple and brutal:

Keep him alone.

Remove real friends.

Replace them with handlers.

Block witnesses.

Destroy support.

Turn public places into traps.

Turn reactions into evidence.

Turn silence into weakness.

Turn speech into instability.

Turn self-defense into aggression.

Then use authority figures to make sure nothing stops it until the victim is gone.

That is the method of isolation.

Isolate.

Destroy.

Remove from society.

VI. The Victim Is Never Allowed to Be the Victim

Why would every situation always be directed back at Kevin, no matter what the facts showed? Why, no matter how obvious the threats, provocations, false reports, vandalism, privacy violations, stalking behavior, or surrounding campaign became, would Kevin never be allowed to be the victim?

Why would every event be twisted to push him into the light as the aggressor, the problem, the unstable one, the manic-depressed one, the post-traumatic-stress one, the dangerous one, or the person who caused his own abuse? Why would the labels keep strategically changing while the purpose stayed the same?

That is the inversion.

The victim is not allowed to be a victim because the entire operation depends on reversing the roles. If Kevin is recognized as the victim, then the police inaction becomes suspicious. The family narrative becomes suspicious. The community information networks become suspicious. The fake-friend conduct becomes suspicious. The bunk unofficial psychology labels become suspicious. The courtroom and police record becomes suspicious. The civilian participation becomes suspicious. The entire framework begins to collapse.

So the narrative must keep forcing him into the role of aggressor.

If he reports abuse, he is paranoid.

If he reacts to abuse, he is dangerous.

If he documents abuse, he is obsessive.

If he asks for help, he is unstable.

If he explains the pattern, he is delusional.

If he gets angry, he is violent.

If he stays silent, he is depressed, and the lie continues uncontested.

That is not fact-finding.

That is role assignment.

Kevin is assigned the role of problem before the evidence is even considered. Everyone else is assigned the role of concerned observer, helper, victim, authority, witness, or protector. Once those roles are assigned, the facts are forced to fit the script.

That is how a victim is made to look like the aggressor.

That is how abuse is hidden behind the reaction to abuse.

That is how the system protects itself.

---

VII. People Who Never Met Kevin Acting With Permission

Why would people who never met him act as if they had permission to stalk, threaten, provoke, defame, vandalize, report, label, exclude, mock, monitor, and psychologically attack him based on privacy violations, provocations, information networks, monitoring, and terror tactics designed to be made to look like mental illness?

Why would people befriend him not honestly, but to push him out of control, feed him disinformation, collect information for the family and police, and then use his reactions against him to cover up their own behaviors? Why would those reactions be gathered, distorted, and disseminated across the largest circles possible in an evolving psychologically abusive system?

Why would the same labels keep appearing — violent, crazy, paranoid, out of control, reckless, schizophrenic, stalker, unstable, dangerous, monster — unless those labels were part of the weapon itself?

The repetition is not proof.

The repetition is enforcement.

When the same labels keep appearing across people who should not have the same information, the question becomes obvious: who gave them the script? Who poisoned the well? Who decided what Kevin was supposed to be before those people ever knew him?

---

VIII. Childhood Conditioning and the Cage

Why did this begin when Kevin was approximately five years old? What possible “public safety” explanation exists for directing anger, hate, labeling, control, and psychological pressure at a child?

A five-year-old did not create an adult legal problem.

A five-year-old did not create a public-safety issue.

A five-year-old did not create a criminal conspiracy.

A five-year-old did not create a political threat.

And why tell the child, the victim, that what was happening was only a game, a joke, a tease, or something he was supposed to tolerate? Why create a daily pattern of provocation, humiliation, confusion, and psychological pressure, then minimize it as harmless when it never stopped? Why keep adding newer and newer daily events designed to trap the child inside a cage of false labels, forced reactions, and manufactured explanations?

That is not childhood teasing.

That is conditioning.

It teaches the child that abuse has no official name. It teaches the child that if he complains, he is the problem. It teaches him that if he asks for help, he will be punished. It teaches him that if he identifies the pattern, the pattern will be used to label him. It teaches him that the more clearly he says, “What is going on?” the more aggressively the system responds against him.

That is the cruelty of the design. The child is provoked, confused, isolated, and pressured. Then, when he tries to explain what is happening, the explanation is treated as evidence against him. When he asks for help, he is punished. When he reacts to the cage he is being forced into, the reaction is used to justify the hate cage.

If the pattern began that young, then later adult courtroom narratives cannot honestly explain the origin. The origin was not Kevin’s adult behavior. The origin was a preselected label, a family narrative, and a campaign of control that began before Kevin was old enough to understand what was being done to him.

---

IX. Sunny Skies Day Camp and the Weaponizing of Innocent Childhood

Nor did an eight-year-old child commit a crime by kissing a Black girl his same age at Sunny Skies Day Camp, create a threat, or justify a lifetime of retaliation by having an innocent childhood interaction with another eight-year-old child.

If a normal childhood moment was later twisted into something sinister, racialized, sexualized, pathologized, or used as a pretext to define Kevin as dangerous, defective, or unacceptable, then the abuse did not come from the child’s conduct.

It came from the adults who chose to weaponize it.

That is the distinction.

The child did not create the narrative. Adults did. The child did not create a lifelong label. Adults did. The child did not transform an innocent childhood interaction into something sinister. Adults did. The child did not build a family story, a social story, a psychological story, a community story, a Worldwide Story using the Internet as a weapon, and later a legal story around that event. Adults did.

If an innocent childhood interaction was used as the seed for decades of labeling, then the origin of the abuse was not Kevin’s conduct. It was the interpretation forced onto his conduct by people who needed a label.

---

X. The 2001 Turning Point

As a matter of fact, 2001 was the turning point when Kevin Perelman began to understand the larger pattern: the disinformation, privacy violations, threats, provocations, setup attempts, frame-job attempts, LAPD involvement, and mass-mob behavior that he says had followed him for years.

By that point, Kevin states that the pattern no longer looked like ordinary friendship problems, isolated conflicts, misunderstandings, or random cruelty. It appeared to be part of a much larger control structure that had followed him from childhood through elementary school, middle school, high school, Southern Oregon State College, the University of Colorado, and into adult life.

Kevin’s position is that many people he believed were friends were not acting as real friends at all. They acted friendly in person while reporting information outward, feeding narratives back to family members, law-enforcement-connected circles, and broader internet-based control networks. In Kevin’s account, these people functioned less like friends and more like handlers: people placed around him to monitor him, influence him, provoke him, gather information, steer situations, and help build the narrative that he was unstable, dangerous, criminal, or removable from society.

That is why 2001 matters.

It was the year Kevin says the mask started coming off. The events around that period made him believe that the people surrounding him were not merely being two-faced, disloyal, or manipulative. They were participating in a larger system designed to define him, control him, discredit him, and ultimately remove him from society no matter what it took.

Kevin states that this included privacy violations, threats, provocations, staged social interactions, fake friendships, law-enforcement-connected pressure, family reporting loops, and mass internet-based information networks used to study his reactions and decide how to frame him.

In that context, “friendship” became part of the weapon.

A friend could gather information.

A friend could feed disinformation.

A friend could provoke a reaction.

A friend could report the reaction.

A friend could pretend concern while helping build the file.

A friend could act loyal in private while supporting the same false narrative in public.

That is not friendship.

That is controlled access.

And once controlled access is used to collect information, manipulate behavior, and feed a larger campaign, the person being targeted is not surrounded by friends. He is surrounded by people performing roles.

---

XI. The Contradiction at the Center

If their accusations describe crimes, then why are they the ones committing those same acts with police officers, judicial friends, community members, security companies, teachers, college professors, public businesses, and civilian networks?

If they claim Kevin is dangerous, or any of the other rotating labels, why are they the ones stalking, provoking, threatening, defaming, vandalizing, manipulating, and manufacturing false narratives?

If they claim the issue is Kevin’s conduct, why does the conduct of the people surrounding him look like the very criminality they accuse him of?

That is the contradiction at the center of this unheard-of, unprecedented crime against Kevin Perelman.

The accusations are the cover.

The labels are the weapon.

The police and courtroom are the cleanup crew.

The purpose is not truth.

The purpose is to create a record that makes Kevin appear removable from society.

---

XII. The Label Was There From Day One

Nothing came later.

The label was there from day one.

The decision was already made: “We do not like this child. We do not like this person. This is the label. Whether it is true or false does not matter. We want him controlled. We want him discredited. We want him removed from society. We want him to disappear.”

That is the core abuse.

The label did not come from evidence. The evidence was later twisted to serve the label. The behavior was later interpreted through the label. The police reports were written through the label. The courtroom narrative was built around the label. The psychology language was used to protect the label. The family story was repeated to preserve the label. The internet was used to spread the label. Civilian groups were used to enforce the label.

Why would a family connected to teachers, psychology circles, legal circles, and fake friends cling so aggressively to empty labels? Why would those labels have to remain true no matter how much Kevin disproved them? Why would every contradiction be ignored, every correction dismissed, every explanation pathologized, and every fact forced back into the same predetermined conclusion?

Because the label was never about truth.

It was about permission.

The label gave people permission to treat Kevin as less than fully human. It gave people permission to dismiss him before listening to him. It gave people permission to provoke him and call his reaction the problem. It gave people permission to defame him and call it concern. It gave people permission to isolate him and call it protection. It gave people permission to use police, courts, mental-health narratives, teachers, friends, family, internet networks, and civilian groups against him while pretending they were responding to his “behavior.”

Even if the labels were true, they would not justify what was done.

A person having a mental-health issue, a personality conflict, social difficulty, anger, fear, trauma, or distress would not give anyone the right to stalk, defame, provoke, vandalize, isolate, falsely report, humiliate, or destroy that person’s life. But in Kevin’s case, the labels were treated as needing to be true because the entire operation depended on them being true.

If the label collapses, the justification collapses.

If the justification collapses, the conduct is exposed.

That is why the label has to survive every fact against it. That is why it has to be repeated by family, teachers, fake friends, police-connected people, psychology-connected people, legal actors, internet mobs, and civilian networks.

The repetition is not proof.

The repetition is enforcement.

This is how a false label becomes a life sentence without a trial.

---

XIII. Interpersonal Setups and Repeated Scripts

Why did the same types of interpersonal setups repeat from one person to the next? Why would girls who wanted to date Kevin, talk to him, or get to know him appear to receive the same behavioral template — the same provoking, the same crying-wolf patterns, the same baiting, the same false framing, the same attempt to turn ordinary communication into a stalking or instability narrative?

Why would one interaction after another follow the same script unless the script existed before the interaction?

Why would every interpersonal communication become the same repetitive cycle of provocation, mimicry, instigation, and gaslighting? Why would people repeat the same words, behaviors, signals, insults, accusations, and setups over and over again, as if they were handed talking points or behavioral instructions?

On the surface, one person copying a phrase may look meaningless. One person provoking may look random. One person falsely accusing may look like a personal dispute. One person acting strangely may look like coincidence. But when the same mimicry, copycat behavior, gaslighting tactics, false labels, dating setups, police narratives, and social attacks repeat across people, locations, and time on a daily basis from almost every human interaction while the strategically coordinate the pattern becomes impossible to explain as random.

That is the point.

The method is designed to look normal in fragments and obvious only when linked together.

That is why the laundry list keeps expanding: now everyone worldwide do this to Kevin; now everyone worldwide say that to Kevin; now everyone worldwide treat Kevin this way; now everyone worldwide repeat this label; now everyone worldwide provoke this reaction; now everyone worldwide pretend it is coincidence.

This is also based on extremely intrusive privacy violations with Internet Exploitation, or random groups of people collecting and distributing, creating crowdsourced data of Kevin Perelman for everyone to grab at when they see him.

The goal is to create a mass-coordinated environment while making each individual act appear small, deniable, and disconnected.

This is not designed to help anyone.

It is anger.

It is hate.

It is control.

It is a system, a family, and judicially connected people becoming angrier and angrier because they did not get what they wanted. When a system cannot control a person honestly, it may try to control him dishonestly. When false narratives fail, it may create more false narratives. When provocation fails, it may intensify the provocation. When the target does not collapse, it may widen the circle.

---

XIV. From Private Smear to Public Campaign

That is how a private smear becomes a public campaign.

That is how a family narrative becomes a police narrative.

That is how a police narrative becomes a court narrative.

That is how a psychology label becomes a social weapon.

That is how internet whisper networks turn lies into instant “facts.”

That is how a person can be judged by strangers before those strangers ever take the time to know him.

From approximately age five to 2001, before Kevin understood the full scope of what was happening, the narrative had already spread. By the time he recognized the machinery, the well had already been poisoned. People were not meeting Kevin neutrally. They were meeting countless disseminated stories about Kevin. They were reacting to a false identity built before he entered the room.

That is the core abuse.

This is how dehumanization works. First, the target is described as different, dangerous, unstable, defective, or less worthy of protection. An unknown quantity. Then people act as if that label gives them permission to harm him. Then the harm is justified by the label that was created to excuse the harm in the first place.

Why would names, narratives, and people such as Cia Ngiatang, a girl Kevin states stalked him with many others after he went out on a date with her; University of Colorado; Michael Bayalis; Mike Huntley; Paul Humphrey; LAPD-connected actors; lawyer-connected actors; psychology-connected family members; fake friends; dating setups; and civilian groups all appear inside the same pattern of creating the appearance that Kevin was violent, mentally ill, paranoid, unstable, stalking someone, or dangerous?

There is no normal explanation for that.

Ordinary people do not organize worldwide reputational attacks because someone is “difficult.” They do not mobilize civilian groups, neighborhood-watch-style networks, internet mobs, whisper campaigns, police narratives, and psychology labels because someone has a personality they dislike. They do not invade privacy on computers and off computers, defame someone worldwide, provoke him daily, vandalize his property over and over, stage social interactions, weaponize dating narratives, and then drag him into court pretending nothing happened. While the Police forge and fraudulently write false police reports to protect the angry mobs that they themselves created with friends of Kevin Perelman’s like Paul Humphrey who joined LAPD, and Security Companies while manipulating him back from University Of Colorado with Michael Patrick Huntley and the Perelman family working with groups of women and other civilians to stalk him if he went out on dates with women, or became friends with new people.

That is not disagreement.

That is not concern.

That is not help.

That is a control operation.

---

XV. Control, Neutralization, and Removal

The central purpose is to make the target removable.

First, the lies go worldwide. Then the lies are treated as fact. Then civilians are encouraged to act on those lies. Then police ignore the abuse or participate in the provocation. Then the target’s reactions are isolated from the causes. Then the courtroom pretends the final reaction is the entire case. Then psychology labels are used to explain away the target’s complaints. Then diversion programs, mental-health narratives, CARE Act-style control, conservatorship pressure, incarceration, or social removal become easier to justify.

That is how control becomes neutralization.

That is how neutralization becomes eradication.

Not always by one direct physical act, but by destroying a person’s reputation, rights, credibility, finances, relationships, and freedom until he is removed from society one way or another.

Kevin’s position is that this is why the conduct resembles a conspiracy to destroy a life. The point is not only whether someone openly says, “We intend to kill him.” The point is whether the combined actions are designed to create outcomes where Kevin dies from abuse, kills himself, ends up incarcerated, is forced into a mental facility, is placed under control, or is permanently erased from normal society.

In that framework, death threats matter.

Legal threats matter.

False labels matter.

Privacy violations matter.

Courtroom manipulation matters.

Civilian participation matters.

Police inaction matters.

Because none of those things exist in isolation when they are all pushing toward the same outcome.

---

XVI. Modern Legal-Control Systems as Weapons

Modern legal-control systems can intensify this danger. Diversion programs, mental-health courts, CARE Act proceedings, assisted outpatient treatment, conservatorship-style mechanisms, and related civil-control systems may be presented publicly as help or support. But if the record feeding those systems is built from false narratives, family manipulation, police provocation, civilian harassment, internet defamation, or psychology-based labeling, then the system can become a weapon.

A person can be punished not because he committed a legitimate wrong, but because someone with influence is unhappy with him, wants control over him, wants to silence him, wants to own him, or wants him removed from society.

That is why this is not merely about mental health.

It is about power.

It is about whether powerful or connected people can create the appearance of mental illness, criminality, stalking, or dangerousness and then use that appearance to justify the very control they wanted from the beginning.

This is also why the courtroom cannot be allowed to examine only the final reaction. The courtroom must examine the entire chain: the childhood origin, the family psychology connections, the friends involved, the law-enforcement connections, the internet narratives, the privacy violations, the false reports, the vandalism, the police inaction, the police provocation, the dating setups, the stalking accusations, the mental-health labels, the legal threats, the death threats, and the use of civilian groups.

The issue is not simply whether Kevin reacted.

The issue is what was done to him before any reaction occurred.

Who was involved?

What did they know?

What did they intend?

What false narratives were spread?

What reputational damage was caused?

What police reports were false or incomplete?

What civilians were notified or encouraged?

What privacy violations occurred?

What mental-health labels were imposed?

What legal loopholes were used?

What context was intentionally removed from the courtroom?

How long did it take for them to get what they want?

That is the real case.

For Kevin Perelman, it started around 1977, he found out around 2001, and 2013 was the first arrest, then 2017, and then 2023. As they ratchet down with fake illegal Kangaroo Court Trials at Van Nuys Court House in California working with Los Angeles Police Department with these illegal stalking and monitoring operations.

When the judicial system is used this way, it no longer functions as a neutral forum for truth. It becomes part of the mechanism of abuse. The court becomes the place where the manufactured reaction is punished, while the manufacturing process is hidden.

That is not law enforcement.

That is laundering illegal conduct through civilian participation, psychology-based labeling, internet defamation, police inaction, and courtroom procedure.

It is using the judicial system as a weapon.

---

XVII. The Constitutional Meaning of the Abuse

Everything described here defies the Constitution of the United States of America.

It defies free speech because Kevin is not allowed to speak against the lie without his response being labeled instability. It defies due process because he is judged by hidden accusations before he is given a fair chance to answer them. It defies equal protection because the rules that are supposed to protect every citizen are selectively denied to him. It defies privacy because the abuse moves through surveillance-like behavior, computer and non-computer privacy violations, whisper networks, and social monitoring. It defies the right to defend oneself because the system removes the context that created the need for defense. It defies basic liberty because the end goal is not truth, but control.

The entire reason America separated from British rule was to protect people from government tyranny, abuse of authority, arbitrary punishment, mob justice, and unchecked power. The Constitution was not written so government-connected people, judicial actors, police-linked civilians, psychology-connected families, or community mobs could decide who deserves rights and who does not. It was written to stop exactly that kind of power from becoming normal.

A free country does not allow mobs to replace courts.

A free country does not allow labels to replace evidence.

A free country does not allow family hatred, judicial connections, police narratives, psychology language, internet whisper networks, or civilian stalking networks to replace due process.

A free country does not allow people to be socially tried, convicted, and punished by mobs before any honest hearing has occurred.

This is why the judicial system becomes the final weapon. The abuse happens outside the courtroom, but the courtroom is used to erase the abuse. Thousands of provocations can be ignored. Sometimes per day, sometimes, per week, sometimes per month. Years of defamation can be ignored. Police inaction can be ignored. False reports can be ignored. Privacy violations can be ignored. Death threats can be ignored. Civilian stalking networks can be ignored. Psychology-based labeling can be ignored. The poisoned well can be ignored. The only thing shown to the judge or jury is the target’s reaction after being pushed.

That is not justice.

It is legal engineering.

The courtroom is used to remove the entire context by design.

---

XVIII. Legal Engineering and the Self-Defense Loophole

One of the central issues in this case is the way the judicial system can be exploited by people who understand its rules, limitations, and blind spots. When corrupt judicial employees, law-enforcement-connected individuals, lawyers, psychology-connected family members, politically connected actors, or civilian networks know how the system works, they can look for ways to use those rules against a targeted person while making the targeted person appear violent, unstable, paranoid, delusional, schizophrenic, criminal, or dangerous.

This is not ordinary law enforcement.

It is the use of law, psychology, reputation, civilian participation, and courtroom procedure as a weapon.

Traditional self-defense law is often built around the concept of immediate danger. Jury instructions commonly ask whether a person reasonably believed they were facing imminent harm at the moment they acted. That framework may work when the threat is simple: one person attacks another person in a visible way, and the court examines that immediate confrontation.

But that framework becomes dangerously incomplete when the threat is not one simple event. It fails when the threat is continuous, hidden, social, technological, psychological, reputational, and institutional. It fails when a person is placed under minute-by-minute attack through harassment, provocation, defamation, gaslighting, vandalism, false reports, privacy invasion, online whisper networks, neighborhood-watch-style stalking groups, police inaction, and psychology-based labeling.

In that situation, the danger may not appear in the courtroom as one clean, simple, physical attack. It may appear as years of accumulated pressure designed to destroy a person’s credibility, isolate him, provoke reactions, and then use those reactions as “proof” that the person is violent, unstable, paranoid, mentally ill, or criminal.

The courtroom is then used to leave out the entire context.

That is the trick.

The final reaction is placed under a microscope while the years of provocation disappear. The police reports focus on the moment the target reacted, not on the hundreds or thousands of acts that created the reaction. The prosecutor frames the person’s behavior as isolated criminal conduct. The evaluator frames the person’s explanation as paranoia. The family or civilian participants deny coordination. The court then pretends it is examining a single event when the real issue is a long-term campaign of pressure.

This turns self-defense law upside down. It allows people who understand the law to create conditions of fear, pressure, perceived danger, and desperation, then claim that the targeted person had no right to react because the danger was not “immediate” in the narrow courtroom sense.

A simple example exposes the loophole. If one person walks up and attacks you, the law may recognize the threat. But if a thousand people vandalize your cars, harass you, follow you, provoke you, spread rumors, falsely report you, invade your privacy, damage your reputation, and the police refuse to help, the courtroom may later pretend that none of it matters. If the target finally reacts, the court may isolate that reaction from everything that came before it.

A thousand provocations per month can be ignored by design if each provocation is treated as separate, minor, unprovable, or irrelevant.

That is not justice.

That is legal engineering.

---

XIX. Linking the Judicial System, Psychology Community, and Civilian Networks

This is why the connection between the judicial system, psychology community, law enforcement, and civilian groups matters. The weapon is not only the police officer, the judge, the lawyer, the prosecutor, or the evaluator. The deeper danger is the relationship between authority systems and civilian networks.

The judicial system supplies the pressure. The psychology community supplies the labels. Law enforcement supplies selective enforcement or non-enforcement. Civilian networks supply the daily harassment, social pressure, false narratives, surveillance-like behavior, public humiliation, vandalism, defamation, and coordinated provocation. The internet supplies the distribution system.

Together, these systems can create a distributed control mechanism.

In Kevin Perelman’s account, this is not merely a theory. Kevin states that members of his family have psychology degrees, are connected to or intermingled with the psychology community, and understand how mental-health labels can be used to control a public narrative. He states that those psychology-connected family dynamics became intertwined with lawyers, LAPD-connected individuals, friend of his who joined LAPD like Paul Humphrey stalking with communities, friends, court-related actors like Michael Bialys, and civilian networks who understood how to create a false appearance of mental illness, paranoia, criminality, or instability.

This matters because mental-health labeling can become a weapon when it is used not to help a person, but to discredit, neutralize, and control him. Once a person is successfully framed as mentally ill, dangerous, paranoid, schizophrenic, unstable, or incapable, the legal system can shift from protecting that person’s rights to managing, supervising, medicating, institutionalizing, conserving, incarcerating, or neutralizing that person.

The issue becomes especially dangerous when the label is imposed before the evidence is honestly examined. The person’s complaints are not investigated; they are pathologized. The person’s explanations are not tested against facts; they are treated as symptoms. The person’s pattern recognition is not evaluated as evidence; it is dismissed as paranoia. The person’s anger is not treated as a human response to abuse; it is framed as personality, behavior, disorder, instability, or dangerousness.

That is how abuse is laundered through psychology.

The public narrative becomes: “He is difficult.” “He is an asshole.” “He is paranoid.” “He is unstable.” “He is dangerous.” “He is mentally ill.” “He is stalking someone.” “He is imagining things.” “He is a problem.”

Once that narrative is accepted, people begin acting as if the target has no rights. They begin acting as if dislike, fear, gossip, or social judgment gives them permission to participate.

But nobody has the right to destroy a person’s life because they dislike him. Nobody has the right to defame him worldwide because they think he is difficult. Nobody has the right to stalk, provoke, vandalize, falsely report, isolate, or psychologically torture someone because they were told he is “crazy,” “an asshole,” “dangerous,” or “a problem.”

The participants are not legally permitted to do this.

They are empowered to get away with it.

That distinction is critical.

---

XX. The Gray-Zone Weapon

They know much of the conduct is wrong. They know defamation, stalking, harassment, vandalism, false reporting, privacy violations, intimidation, and coordinated provocation are not lawful simply because they are spread across many people. In this case, upon Kevin Perelman finding out, the numbers were worldwide in numbers ranging from something like 4 – 7 Billion involved. Met with Mike Huntley’s Death Threats “World of paranoia.” But they also know that if everyone contributes a little, nobody is easily held responsible for the whole.

They know that if each incident is fragmented, minimized, denied, or disguised as coincidence, the courts may refuse to see the complete pattern.

That is the gray-zone weapon.

A single person following someone can be dismissed as coincidence. A single vandalism incident can be treated as minor. A single false police call can be brushed aside. A single insult can be minimized. A single rumor can be called gossip. A single online attack can be treated as speech. A single strange interaction on a date can be reframed as a misunderstanding.

But when those acts are multiplied through online networks, neighborhood groups, whisper campaigns, law-enforcement-connected people, family members, and civilian participants across cities or countries, they become a system of pressure.

The target experiences it as continuous.

The courtroom breaks it into fragments.

The police say each incident is too small.

The mental-health system labels the target’s recognition of the pattern as paranoia.

The civilians claim they were acting individually.

The authority-linked actors deny coordination.

The result is a perfect gray-zone operation: everyone contributes a little, nobody accepts responsibility for the whole, and the target is left carrying the psychological, physical, financial, reputational, and legal damage.

This is where historical context becomes important. The public record already shows that governments and intelligence-linked systems have previously used infiltration, disruption, psychological pressure, surveillance, reputational destruction, and neutralization methods against people or groups deemed undesirable. COINTELPRO is part of the public record as an FBI program involving surveillance, infiltration, disruption, and discrediting of selected political and social targets. Zersetzung, used by the East German Stasi, involved psychological disruption, social interference, isolation, harassment, and manipulation designed to break down a target without obvious physical violence.

The CIA’s BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE programs are also part of the public record and involved research connected to interrogation, behavioral control, drugs, psychochemicals, and psychological manipulation. Later surveillance disclosures involving the NSA and CIA Vault 7 further show that large-scale monitoring, cyber capabilities, and covert technical methods are not imaginary concepts.

These historical programs do not automatically prove every fact in Kevin Perelman’s individual case. The point is not to claim that every modern event is the same exact program. The point is that courts should not dismiss coordinated psychological pressure, reputational destruction, surveillance-like behavior, or institutional manipulation as impossible simply because the methods sound unusual. History shows that discrediting, neutralization, behavioral pressure, and covert disruption are real concepts.

The modern version does not need to look like an official government memo. It can look like whisper networks, online mobs, neighborhood-watch-style groups, law-enforcement-friendly civilians, psychology-connected family members, lawyers, friends, and politically connected people spreading narratives and encouraging participation.

This is how the internet becomes a force multiplier.

---

XXI. Reputational Ambush and Dating Narratives

False narratives can be distributed through social media, private groups, neighborhood apps, text chains, online forums, comment sections, search results, emails, and informal whisper networks. A person can be defamed worldwide without any realistic way to speak out, correct the record, confront the accusers, or repair the damage.

Cities can be told a false story before the target even arrives. Communities can be told that the target is dangerous, unstable, stalking someone, harassing someone, or mentally ill before the target has any chance to respond.

This is reputational ambush.

For example, if Kevin goes on one date with a woman, the narrative can be flipped into: “He is stalking her.” If the woman was already participating in, aware of, or influenced by the surrounding campaign, then the date itself can become part of a setup. What appears to be a normal social interaction can later be used to manufacture a stalking narrative, with cities, online groups, or civilian networks being told that Kevin is stalking the girl, when the broader context is intentionally omitted.

In Kevin Perelman’s life, it is extremely rare across a 49 year timeframe that anyone who was involved in his life, didn’t take part in this. After 2001, the more he avoids people, the more they follow him places, trying to force themselves upon him to work with LAPD, and these organized groups to try to create the appearance of instability to remove him from society. No matter how much he tries to distance himself from them. He is also instigated at almost every business. Especially for such things are trying to buy food to eat. Almost every single instigation with the Police is to try to create reactions to reverses, with mental illness labeling to make the victim look like he needs to be removed from society.

Whatever the Perelman family is angry about when he was around five years old in around 1977, was their own issues they were scapegoating and projecting on to him.

That kind of narrative is powerful because stalking is a socially explosive accusation. Once the word is used, people stop asking careful questions. They do not ask who initiated contact, who knew what beforehand, who was participating in the surrounding narrative, who benefited from the accusation, or whether the accusation was part of a larger effort to frame the target as dangerous.

The same method can be used with mental-health labels. If the target complains about coordinated harassment, the response becomes: “He is paranoid.” If the target complains about privacy violations, the response becomes: “He is imagining it.” If the target complains about police provocation, the response becomes: “He is unstable.” If the target complains about family, friends, lawyers, or law enforcement working together, the response becomes: “He is delusional.”

The accusation becomes the shield.

The label becomes the weapon.

The court then uses the label to ignore the evidence.

This creates an impossible trap. If the target stays silent, the false narrative spreads uncontested. If the target speaks out, the target is called unstable. If the target documents the pattern, the documentation is framed as obsession. If the target reacts emotionally, the reaction is framed as dangerousness. If the target tries to defend himself, the defense itself is reframed as proof of paranoia.

That is why “curing” a non-existent mental illness becomes impossible by design. If the underlying problem is not mental illness but a false narrative, no amount of forced treatment, diversion, supervision, counseling, medication, or court control can solve it. The person cannot be “treated” out of facts. The person cannot be “treated” out of defamation. The person cannot be “treated” out of privacy violations. The person cannot be “treated” out of police provocation. The person cannot be “treated” out of a social campaign that keeps happening. Especially by clerks, courthouse employees, Police Officers then they have no excuse about their ongoing crimes against the victim and target Kevin Perelman. Especially when they started in on him at a very young age with illegal police monitoring, privacy violations, and nonstop entrapment operations to try to setup, frame, and remove from society out of hate for someone who has does nothing wrong, that they simply don’t understand, like, or trust them.

If the system claims it is treating paranoia while the provoking behavior continues, then the “treatment” becomes part of the abuse.

---

XXII. What Happens If Kevin Proves the Label Was False?

What happens if Kevin proves people wrong?

What happens if the label collapses?

What happens if the people who were told to stalk, provoke, mock, report, exclude, defame, or psychologically attack him begin to realize they were lied to?

That is why the label has to be protected at all costs.

If Kevin proves the label false, then the entire operation begins to unravel. The family story collapses. The police narrative collapses. The psychology narrative collapses. The fake-friend narrative collapses. The courtroom narrative collapses. The public-safety excuse collapses. The “we are only trying to help” excuse collapses.

Then the question changes.

It is no longer, “What is wrong with Kevin?”

It becomes, “What was done to Kevin?”

It becomes, “Who lied?”

It becomes, “Who spread the lie?”

It becomes, “Who knew the lie was false and kept repeating it anyway?”

It becomes, “Who encouraged civilians to act on that lie?”

It becomes, “Who used the courts, police, psychology labels, internet networks, and community groups to enforce that lie?”

That is the danger to them.

If the worldwide groups, civilian networks, neighborhood-watch-style participants, fake friends, dating setups, online mobs, and community actors discover they were manipulated, then the message they were given loses power. The people who believed they were helping may realize they were used. The people who believed they were protecting others may realize they were participating in abuse. The people who believed Kevin was dangerous may realize they were handed a false identity and told to enforce it.

That creates exposure.

It exposes the people who poisoned the well before Kevin ever entered the room. It exposes the people who created false narratives before others ever met him. It exposes the people who used mental-health labels to justify stalking, defamation, privacy invasion, provocation, and courtroom manipulation. It exposes the people who turned civilians into an enforcement arm for a lie.

That is why proof is so threatening.

The lie is not just a statement. The lie is infrastructure. It is the foundation for every action taken against Kevin. It is the reason people felt empowered to harm him. It is the reason police could ignore him. It is the reason courts could strip away context. It is the reason psychologists or family members could frame his objections as symptoms. It is the reason strangers could treat him as guilty before knowing him.

If the lie falls, the entire structure built on top of it falls.

That is why the label must remain true no matter what evidence Kevin presents. That is why facts are ignored. That is why corrections are dismissed. That is why every defense is called paranoia. That is why every contradiction is treated as irrelevant. That is why every attempt to expose the pattern is framed as instability.

They cannot allow the world to ask whether Kevin was right, because if Kevin was right, then the people who attacked him were not protectors.

They were participants.

And the people directing them were not helping.

They were hiding.

And they will stop at northing to keep what they started around 1977, covered up, no matter what it takes, and no matter how many people worldwide it takes.

---

XXIII. Generational Guilt, Inherited Lies, and the Teaching of Mob Abuse

Another question is how the people involved deal with their guilt.

How do they face their own children after lying to them? How do they explain that they taught their children to participate in a campaign built on false narratives? How do they explain that they handed their children a fictional version of Kevin Perelman and encouraged them to treat that fiction as fact?

This matters because the pattern did not begin yesterday. Kevin’s position is that this began approximately 50 years ago, when he was a child. That means the abuse is not only personal. It became generational. Adults created the false story. Adults repeated the false story. Adults handed the false story to their children. Then those children grew up hearing the “Kevin Perelman” story as if it were true, without ever being allowed to know Kevin honestly, neutrally, or directly.

The child can later say, “I did not know any better. This is what I was told. I was told he was a horrible monster. I was told he did all these horrible things. I was told he was dangerous. I was told he was mentally ill. I was told he deserved it. I was manipulated by my own family.”

That is exactly why the dissemination method is so dangerous. It does not merely defame one person. It teaches the next generation that mob behavior is acceptable if the adults provide the right label first.

That is a moral collapse.

Parents, relatives, teachers, community members, police-connected people, psychology-connected people, and judicially connected people should never teach children that it is acceptable to gang up on a person, stalk him, provoke him, defame him, isolate him, humiliate him, or help remove him from society based on stories they never verified.

They should not teach children that if enough people repeat a lie, the lie becomes permission. They should not teach children that if someone is labeled “crazy,” “violent,” “schizophrenic,” “dangerous,” or “a monster,” then ordinary rules of decency, truth, law, and human rights no longer apply.

But that is what Kevin says happened.

Children grew up learning fictional stories about Kevin Perelman. They were not taught evidence. They were taught mythology. They were not taught fairness. They were taught group hatred. They were not taught due process. They were taught that the label came first and the target’s humanity came last.

That is why this is more than defamation of character. It is defamation with motive, intent, and premeditation behind it. The lie is not floating around harmlessly. The lie is used to recruit people. The lie is used to fear-monger. The lie is used to create social permission. The lie is used to justify stalking, hunting, provoking, isolating, and psychologically attacking a person until the desired outcome is reached.

The message being taught is essentially this: “Kevin is a violent schizophrenic. Kevin is dangerous. Kevin has done horrible things. Help us stop him. Help us provoke him. Help us watch him. Help us report him. Help us isolate him. Help us push him until he breaks.”

That is not concern.

That is recruitment.

And when that recruitment is passed to children, it becomes even more grotesque. It teaches children that if their family dislikes someone, they should gather as many people as possible and participate in a mob campaign until that person is destroyed, erased, institutionalized, incarcerated, or otherwise removed from society.

That is not morality.

That is not public safety.

That is not justice.

That is the teaching of collective abuse.

The people who created these stories may not want to face what they taught their children, because if the children learn the truth, they may realize they were not protecting anyone. They were used. They were recruited into someone else’s lie. They were taught to harm a person they never truly knew.

That is why the lie must continue. The lie protects the original adults. The lie protects the family story. The lie protects the community participants. The lie protects the people who recruited their own children into the abuse.

If the lie collapses, then the next generation may finally ask the question the original participants fear most:

“Why did you teach us to hate someone you lied about?”

---

XXIV. Final Constitutional Meaning

Everything described here defies the Constitution of the United States of America.

It defies the idea of free speech because Kevin is not allowed to speak against the lie without his response being labeled instability. It defies due process because he is judged by hidden accusations before he is given a fair chance to answer them. It defies equal protection because the rules that are supposed to protect every citizen are selectively denied to him. It defies privacy because the abuse moves through surveillance-like behavior, computer and non-computer privacy violations, whisper networks, and social monitoring. It defies the right to defend oneself because the system removes the context that created the need for defense. It defies basic liberty because the end goal is not truth, but control.

The entire reason America separated from British rule was to protect people from government tyranny, abuse of authority, arbitrary punishment, mob justice, and unchecked power. The Constitution was not written so government-connected people, judicial actors, police-linked civilians, psychology-connected families, school systems, employers, political actors, medical institutions, security companies, or community mobs could decide who deserves rights and who does not. It was written to stop exactly that kind of power from becoming normal.

That is what makes this so dangerous.

Kevin’s position is not that one random person lied about him. His position is that the very institutions people are normally taught to trust were used, directly or indirectly, to protect the lie and enforce the label.

Schools are supposed to protect children, not participate in early labeling, humiliation, exclusion, or social targeting. Teachers are supposed to educate, not help create the first version of a lifelong false narrative. Colleges are supposed to open a person’s future, not become another stage for the same script. Employers are supposed to judge work, not become another access point for reputation damage and monitoring. Police are supposed to investigate crime, not ignore one side while building a file against the person reporting abuse. Courts are supposed to provide due process, not launder a one-sided story into an official record. The psychology community is supposed to help people, not provide language that can be used to discredit a person before evidence is examined. The medical industry is supposed to care for people, not become a pathway for control. Security companies are supposed to protect property and safety, not become private enforcement arms for a social campaign. Politicians and political-lawyer circles are supposed to protect constitutional order, not help design or preserve systems that can be used to erase someone.

That is the constitutional horror of it.

The trusted structure becomes the weapon.

In Kevin’s account, the list is not small. It includes elementary school teachers, middle school teachers, high school teachers, college professors, prior employers, entertainment-industry connections, Universal Studios–connected circles, people such as Brian Longbotham, family members, in-laws, political-lawyer circles, his sister-in-law, Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, who ran for Congress and allegedly repeated or supported the idea that Kevin needed to be deemed “crazy,” LAPD-connected actors, broader police-connected circles, the psychology community, conglomerated security companies, the medical industry, courthouse-connected people, fake friends, and authority-linked social networks.

The point is not merely the number of people.

The point is the type of people.

These are not fringe groups on the edge of society. These are the institutions people are trained to trust: schools, courts, police, medicine, psychology, employers, political offices, media-connected environments, security companies, and community authority networks. When those structures are used against one person, the abuse becomes much harder to expose because each institution arrives with built-in credibility.

A teacher sounds credible.

A police officer sounds credible.

A doctor sounds credible.

A psychologist sounds credible.

A judge sounds credible.

A lawyer sounds credible.

A politician sounds credible.

A security company sounds credible.

An employer sounds credible.

A family member sounds credible.

And that is exactly why the system is so dangerous when those sources are used to spread, repeat, protect, or legitimize a false narrative.

The target is not fighting one accusation. He is fighting the borrowed authority of every institution attached to the accusation.

That is how a lie becomes powerful.

That is how a label becomes official-looking.

That is how a childhood smear becomes a public-safety narrative.

That is how a family story becomes a police story.

That is how a police story becomes a courtroom story.

That is how a courtroom story becomes a permanent record.

That is how a permanent record becomes social death.

Kevin’s position is that this was driven by political power, institutional protection, and the need to protect people and systems all the way to the top. If the lie collapses, then the question is no longer whether Kevin is unstable, dangerous, or removable. The question becomes why so many trusted systems allowed themselves to be used against him, why so many authority-linked people repeated the same labels, and why so many institutions protected the narrative instead of protecting the person being targeted.

That is why the childhood origin matters so much.

A five-year-old child does not create a national-security threat. A five-year-old child does not create a political problem. A five-year-old child does not create a police problem. A five-year-old child does not create a courtroom problem. A five-year-old child does not create a reason for schools, families, police-connected circles, psychology-connected people, political actors, employers, security groups, and community networks to unite against him.

So if the pattern began at that age, then the explanation cannot honestly be Kevin’s later adult conduct.

The explanation is the label.

The explanation is the power behind the label.

The explanation is the institutional protection of the label.

Younger generations often do not understand why constitutional protections mattered in the first place. They are taught slogans about safety, concern, public order, mental health, national security, and community protection, but they are not taught what happens when those slogans are used to justify targeting one person, one group, or an entire population.

They are not taught that tyranny does not always announce itself as tyranny.

Sometimes it arrives as “concern.”

Sometimes it arrives as “public safety.”

Sometimes it arrives as “mental health.”

Sometimes it arrives as “national security.”

Sometimes it arrives as “we are only trying to help.”

Sometimes it arrives as a mob convinced that the person they are destroying deserves it.

That is how agencies such as the NSA could justify surveillance and data-mining systems by claiming they were necessary to stop terrorism, while the practical effect was the monitoring, collection, filtering, and flagging of massive amounts of information connected to the American public. The justification was safety. The method was surveillance. The promise was protection. The danger was that once a system is built to watch everyone, flag everyone, and sort everyone through secret criteria, the same machinery can be redirected toward political, personal, social, or institutional control.

That is the constitutional warning.

The slogan may be safety.

The system may be control.

The public may be told the target is dangerous.

But the real issue is whether power is being used with evidence, due process, transparency, and limits — or whether fear is being used to bypass the protections that were supposed to make America different.

That is the lesson being taught here: not freedom, not rights, not due process, not truth, not evidence, and not constitutional protection. The lesson being taught is that America can become one giant mob, where people with power can define a target, spread lies about him, recruit others against him, and then brutalize him socially, legally, psychologically, medically, politically, professionally, and reputationally until he disappears.

That is everything this country was supposed to reject.

The Constitution means nothing if a person’s rights can be bypassed by calling him mentally ill. The Constitution means nothing if due process can be bypassed by spreading false narratives to the widest circles possible, especially through judicial employees or courthouse-connected circles before he ever enters court. The Constitution means nothing if privacy can be violated because a mob has been told he is dangerous. The Constitution means nothing if speech can be punished by labeling the speaker paranoid. The Constitution means nothing if self-defense can be destroyed by erasing the years of provocation that came before the reaction. The Constitution means nothing if trusted institutions can quietly unite around a label and then use that label to deny one person every protection those institutions were supposed to guarantee.

That is how the entire Constitution gets bypassed without anyone admitting they are bypassing it.

They do not have to openly abolish free speech if they can label the speaker unstable.

They do not have to openly abolish due process if they can poison the well before the hearing.

They do not have to openly abolish privacy if they can call surveillance “safety.”

They do not have to openly abolish self-defense if they can erase the provocation.

They do not have to openly abolish equal protection if they can decide one person is outside the circle of people the system will protect.

That is the trick.

The Constitution is not destroyed all at once. It is bypassed one label, one rumor, one false report, one unofficial warning, one police contact, one court file, one “mental-health concern,” and one manufactured narrative at a time.

By the end, the person still lives under a Constitution on paper, but not in practice.

That is not constitutional government.

That is constitutional camouflage.

A free country does not allow mobs to replace courts.

A free country does not allow labels to replace evidence.

A free country does not allow a mass conspiracy amongst family hatred, judicial connections, police narratives, psychology language, political influence, medical authority, school systems, security companies, or internet whisper networks to replace due process.

A free country does not allow people to be socially tried, convicted, and punished by mobs before any honest hearing has occurred.

Brian Weaver, stalking high school friend involved called it a “Public Shaming”

When that happens, the country is no longer operating by constitutional principles. It is operating by power. It is operating by social force. It is operating by institutional protection. It is operating by intimidation. It is operating by fear. It is operating by who can spread the most convincing lie the fastest and attach the most authority to it.

That is not freedom.

That is the old tyranny wearing modern clothes.

And in Kevin Perelman’s case, the most disturbing part is the claim that this machinery was not aimed at a powerful adult who chose a political fight, but at a child whose label was allegedly selected before he was old enough to understand the game being played around him.

That is not justice.

That is institutionalized abuse.

That is a worldwide mob built around a childhood label.