Kevin Perelman

26500 Agoura Rd, Ste 102

Calabasas, CA 91302

312-259-3686

10/17/2025

The State Bar of California – Office of Chief Trial Counsel

845 South Figueroa Street

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515

Re: Formal Complaint – Attorney Misconduct, Judicial Bias, and Systemic Due Process Violations

Case No. B343120 (Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Div. Four), and Related Cases 3PY034G8 and 7VW040GG

Attorneys: Shep Alan Zebberman (#155478), Yisrael Gelb (#344G24); Judges: Stephen Austin Marcus (#G7026), Gregory Arthur Dohi (#155604)

To Whom It May Concern:

I submit this formal, detailed complaint regarding egregious attorney misconduct, grossly ineffective assistance, and a persistent pattern of due process violations throughout my recent criminal trials and appeals. This complaint primarily addresses Shep Alan

Zebberman (#155478, trial counsel), Yisrael Gelb (#344924, appointed appellate counsel), and ongoing failures by the California Appellate Project – Los Angeles (CAP-LA) to ensure

impartial, qualified representation. I also flag severe concerns about judicial conduct by Judges Stephen Marcus and Gregory Dohi in Van Nuys Courthouse as integral to the failures in my cases.

Ineffective Assistance, Conflict of Interest, and Attorney Negligence:

• Shep Alan Zebberman (#155478), my trial counsel and a devout Jewish attorney, failed to investigate or present exculpatory evidence, refused to file critical motions (including full and proper Pitchess motions and a change of venue), discouraged valid defense strategies, and displayed personal animosity, including discriminatory and prejudicial attitudes. He also disclosed to me that he had personal and social ties to several judges on my case, including stating that he attended college with Judge Gregory Dohi. This raises serious concerns about conflict of interest and his failure to zealously advocate on my behalf.
• Yisrael Gelb (#344G24), my appointed appellate counsel, continues to represent me despite a clear conflict of interest. He has only two years of legal experience and is a rabbi who is closely connected to Mr. Zebberman within the Jewish community.

Mr. Gelb has not meaningfully challenged prior counsel’s failures or pursued habeas petitions or other appropriate relief. He either lacks the knowledge or is unwilling to pursue these remedies. My repeated requests to CAP-LA for reassignment on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel have been ignored, further evidencing the unfair and potentially corrupt handling of my trials and appeals.

Judicial Bias, Threats, and Due Process Violations:

• Judge Stephen Austin Marcus (#G7026) threatened me in open court, stating, “I’ll squeeze you out of there,” referring to my house, in a manner that was intimidating and prejudicial showing motive.
• Judge Gregory Arthur Dohi (#155604) denied essential portions of the Pitchess motion for discovery of LAPD Officer Charles Sean Dinse’s records (despite

documented federal lawsuits and evidence of misconduct), and displayed bias and conflict of interest by his close association with my trial lawyer. These failures blocked access to crucial impeachment evidence and rendered the trial unfair.

• Both judges exhibited prejudgment, intimidation, and improper relationships that contributed to a systemic lack of fairness (see attached trial notes and supporting documentation).

Pattern of Identical Due Process Violations Across Multiple Cases:

This pattern is not isolated. Nearly identical due process violations—including judicial denial of key defense motions, refusal to allow exculpatory evidence, defense counsel’s

divided loyalty, and courtroom intimidation tactics—have occurred in Case Nos. 3PY034G8 and 7VW040GG (Los Angeles County). In each, my right to a fair trial and to adequate,

independent counsel was systematically undermined by the same types of misconduct and institutional bias. Details of these proceedings, docket records, and court filings are attached for your review.

Systemic CAP-LA and Administrative Failures:

Despite repeated, written requests, I have never received official notice or communication by mail regarding attorney appointments, relevant deadlines, or changes in my appellate counsel. Court docket inconsistencies—including future-dated proofs of service and a

“replace appointed counsel” order never acted on—compound my due process concerns. Communications with CAP-LA leadership (see attached email) show a disregard for my

conflict and experience concerns and an unwillingness to ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Concerns about Attorney Assignment and Transparency:

I would also like to bring to your attention serious irregularities in the assignment of my appellate counsel, Yisrael Gelb (#344924). According to the official CAP-LA Attorney/Staff Directory (October 2025 printout, attached), Mr. Gelb does not appear as a staff or

recognized panel attorney with CAP-LA. This lack of transparency is deeply concerning, especially as I have reason to believe he may have been brought into my case through personal, family, or community connections, rather than through CAP-LA’s formal

assignment process. The combination of his absence from the public roster and his close community ties to my previous counsel, Shep Alan Zebberman, has heightened my

concerns regarding conflict of interest and the lack of independent, impartial appellate

representation. I respectfully request that the State Bar and appropriate oversight agencies investigate whether proper procedures were followed in Mr. Gelb’s appointment and

whether any inappropriate influence or favoritism played a role.

Request for Investigation and Disciplinary Action:

I respectfully request:

• A full investigation into the conduct of Shep Alan Zebberman (#155478), Yisrael Gelb (#344924), and the active roles of Judges Marcus and Dohi in these proceedings.
• Supervisory inquiry into CAP-LA’s attorney assignment process and its response to my complaints.
• Remedial, disciplinary, or corrective actions as warranted, including notice to the relevant judicial oversight body.

All claims are supported by the attached exhibits, IAC statements, trial notes, habeas filings, and record excerpts.

Attachments Index:

1. Second letter to CAP after ignoring first request
2. CAP-LA Attorney/Staff Directory, October 2025 printout
3. Email from Rick Lennon (CAP-LA), September 14, 2025
4. Appellate court docket screenshots (“replace appointed counsel”)
5. Proof of Service Date 10/20/2025 instead of 10/15/2025 inconsistencies
6. Criminal cases (now including 3PY03498 and 7VW04099)
7. Prior request for reassignment of appellate counsel (August 4, 2025)
8. Statement of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
9. Ineffective Assistance, Misconduct C Corruption Statement – Trial Judicial Misconduct – Notes

Thank you for your attention and immediate review. Please confirm receipt and advise if further documentation or testimony is required.

Sincerely,

Kevin Perelman

Attachment 1

Second letter to CAP after ignoring first request

Kevin Perelman

26500 Agoura Rd, Ste 102

Calabasas, CA 91302

312-259-3686

10/16/2025

California Appellate Project – Los Angeles

Attn: Executive Director Jennifer Peabody (or Supervising Attorney) 520 S. Grand Ave, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 243-0300

Fax: (213) 243-0303

Email: Capdocs@lacap.com

Re: Request for Appointment of New Appellate Counsel and Formal Complaint – Case No. B343120

To Whom It May Concern:

I urgently reiterate my request for the appointment of new appellate counsel and submit this formal complaint regarding the ongoing mishandling and oversight of my appeal, Case No. B343120.

Conflict of Interest, Prejudice, and Attorney Selection Concerns

My trial attorney, Shep Alan Zebberman (#155478), was privately retained and provided

ineffective assistance of counsel. My current appellate counsel, Yisrael Gelb (#344924), is a rabbi and presents a clear religious identity. I am Jewish myself, but I have observed a troubling pattern in which nearly all attorneys assigned to me—either by the courts or CAP—share the same tight-knit community affiliation, sometimes with visible religious leadership roles. This pattern raises concerns that attorney selection, rather than being

impartial and neutral, may be influenced by factors risking divided loyalty and bias. I firmly believe that religion and law should remain strictly separate in professional legal

assignment. I request oversight and transparency to ensure fairness and diversity in attorney assignment.

Inexperience of Appointed Counsel

Yisrael Gelb, according to state bar records, has only been licensed for approximately two years. This minimal experience is deeply concerning, as my appeal involves complex

constitutional issues, alleged judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, and a significant

impact on my future. It is simply not appropriate for a case with these stakes to be assigned to an attorney this inexperienced.

Omission from CAP-LA Directory

Upon reviewing the official CAP-LA staff/panel listing (see Attachment 1), I found that Mr. Gelb does not appear as a staff or recognized panel attorney. I respectfully request an explanation of how he was assigned and whether standard CAP-LA procedures have been followed.

Lack of Notice or Communication

For the record, I have never received any official notice, written correspondence, or other communication by mail regarding the appointment or substitution of appellate counsel, relevant deadlines, or any related matters in this case from CAP-LA or the court.

All information I have obtained has come from my own online docket research or direct

inquiry. This highlights a serious breakdown in due process and communication affecting my rights.

CAP-LA Communication (Rick Lennon Email) and Inferred Denial of New Counsel Attachment 2 is an email from Rick Lennon of CAP-LA, dated September 14, 2025. While Mr. Lennon does not expressly deny my request for new counsel, he makes it clear that CAP-LA intends to keep Mr. Gelb on my case despite my repeated, written objections. The substance of the email disregards my concerns about conflict of interest, the importance of habeas expertise, and procedural fairness.

Case Docket Irregularities

Attachment 3 contains screenshots of the state court docket showing a “replace appointed counsel” notice dated 10/15/2025. I was never contacted by a new attorney, no

substitution took place, and there are proofs of service filed with dates set in the future (see Attachment 4). This raises further concerns about transparency, accuracy, and

reliability in my case record.

Systemic Pattern and History in Prior Cases

This is not the first time I have experienced such issues in Los Angeles County. I have had two prior criminal cases—Case No. 3PY03498 and Case No. 7VW04099—where similar problems occurred. Lawyers with community or religious ties, or a disposition toward prejudice or coordinated adverse action, resulted in unfair or ineffective representation. I respectfully submit that these repeated problems indicate a broader, systemic issue with how representation is being assigned and overseen in my matters. (See Attachment 5 for detailed summary.)

Comprehensive Record of Documented Complaints and Habeas Petition

In addition, please see:

• Attachment 6: My initial written request for new counsel (August 4, 2025), which has not been addressed, and a record that an opening statement was filed on 10/13/2025 instead.
• Attachment 7: Statement of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, summarizing my legal arguments and supporting evidence.
• Attachment 8: Ineffective Assistance, Misconduct C Corruption Statement – Trial Judicial Misconduct – Notes, providing additional detail on courtroom and systemic misconduct.

Request for Immediate Action

For all these reasons, I respectfully and urgently request:

• Immediate appointment of new appellate counsel, independent from prior

attorneys, fully vetted, and with no close community or religious ties to previous defenders.

• Written clarification of CAP-LA’s process for assigning Mr. Gelb to my case, why his name does not appear on your staff/panel directory, and what supervisor-level

review (if any) has been conducted.

• Assurance that no actions are taken in my appellate matter until impartial, conflict- free, and sufficiently experienced counsel has been assigned, and a supervisor has confirmed full review and corrective action in my file.

Thank you for your immediate attention. Please ensure this letter and all supporting attachments are made part of my official appellate file. I respectfully request a formal, written response as soon as practicable.

Attachments:

1. CAP-LA Attorney/Staff Directory, October 2025 printout
2. Email from Rick Lennon (CAP-LA), September 14, 2025
3. Appellate court docket screenshots (“replace appointed counsel”)
4. Proof of Service Date 10/20/2025 instead of 10/15/2025 inconsistencies
5. Criminal cases (now including 3PY03498 and 7VW04099)
6. Prior request for reassignment of appellate counsel (August 4, 2025)
7. Statement of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
8. Ineffective Assistance, Misconduct C Corruption Statement – Trial Judicial Misconduct – Notes

Sincerely,

Kevin Perelman

Attachment 2

CAP-LA Attorney/Staff Directory, October 2025 printout

Attachment 3

Email from Rick Lennon (CAP-LA), September 14, 2025

Attachment 4

Appellate court docket screenshots (“replace appointed counsel”)

Attachment 5

Proof of Service Date 10/20/2025 instead of 10/15/2025 inconsistencies

Attachment 6

criminal cases (now including 3PY03498 and 7VW04099)

Van Nuys Courthouse Cases with Judicial Misconduct: criminal cases:

3PY03498

7VW04099

Attachment 7

Prior request for reassignment of appellate counsel (August 4, 2025)

To

California Appellate Project

Phone: Phone: (213) 243-0300

Fax: (213) 243-0303

August 4, 2025

Email:Capdocs@lacap.com AppellateBranch@pubdef.lacounty.gov

Adress: 520 South Grand Avenue, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

To Whom It May Concern:

The People v. Kevin Perelman, Case No. B343120 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four

Dear Supervising Attorney,

I am writing to formally request the reassignment of new appellate counsel in my case, The People v. Kevin Perelman, Case No. B343120, currently before the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four.

I have serious concerns about a potential conflict of interest that could affect my representation. While my current appointed appellate attorney has not acknowledged any conflict, I feel there is a strong likelihood of one due to community affiliations and the circumstances of my case. Both my previous trial attorney and the current appellate attorney are members of the same small, close- knit community (the Jewish community), and my current appellate attorney is also a Rabbi. I am concerned these community connections may create both the appearance and reality of divided loyalty, and possibly an unwillingness to fully pursue claims involving another member of the same community.

Additionally, I am concerned about my appointed appellate attorney’s limited experience (approximately two years since passing the bar), which I believe is insufficient for a case of this seriousness and complexity. As an inexperienced lawyer, he may not possess the necessary knowledge or familiarity with habeas corpus proceedings. He has told me directly that he believes he is limited to what is included in the trial transcripts and docket, even though filing a writ of habeas corpus is often necessary to address ineffective assistance of counsel based on facts outside the transcript and docket.

It is especially important to note that my case may also involve significant judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. My concerns include, but are not limited to, fraudulent police reports, improper investigative practices, potential bias or unfair treatment from both the prosecution and the trial court, and witnesses conspiring with police in illegal operations. I am deeply concerned that these issues have substantially impacted the integrity and fairness of my trial, and that they warrant careful and impartial review on appeal. I believe my current appellate counsel is not adequately positioned, either in terms of experience or independence, to thoroughly investigate and argue these matters, especially where those issues involve or are intertwined with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that a new appellate attorney —one with no prior professional or personal association with my previous legal counsel, not a member of the same religious or social network, and who is highly experienced with both direct appeals and habeas corpus claims—be assigned to handle my appeal. It is critically important to me that my appellate representation is impartial and fully qualified to pursue all necessary legal remedies, including direct challenges to judicial or prosecutorial misconduct and the involvement of witnesses in illegal conduct.

I trust that you will carefully review my concerns and take timely action to ensure fair representation as required by law. Thank you for your attention to this urgent and sensitive matter.

Sincerely, Kevin Perelman

Kevin Perelman

Appellant

26500 Agoura Rd, STE 102

Calabasas, Ca 91302

312-259-3686

Kevin@KevinPerelman.com

Attachment 8

Statement of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

To

California Appellate Project

Phone: Phone: (213) 243-0300

Fax: (213) 243-0303

Email:Capdocs@lacap.com AppellateBranch@pubdef.lacounty.gov Adress: 520 South Grand Avenue, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

To Whom It May Concern:

The People v. Kevin Perelman, Case No. B343120 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Ground: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — Presentation of New and Extrinsic Evidence

1. Petitioner’s Claim: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner, Kevin Perelman, respectfully seeks habeas corpus relief based on egregious ineffective assistance of counsel by Shep Zebberman, as demonstrated by facts both in and outside the trial record. This claim is supported by the following:

1. Legal Standard (Strickland v. Washington) Relief is warranted when:
   1. Counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient;
   2. There is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different.
2. Statement of Facts C New Extrinsic Evidence

Discriminatory and Prejudicial Conduct

• • • Shep Zebberman made prejudiced statements and failed to advocate for me due to personal and community bias, as described in my declaration and corroborated by third-party witnesses and community records.

Failure to Investigate, Prepare and Present Defense

• • • Did not review or present extensive video evidence of mobbing, vandalism, and ongoing harassment in conspiring methods and events with LAPD.
    • Refused to meet with me to discuss my side of events, relying solely on prosecution evidence.

Failure to Investigate or Call Available Witnesses

• • • Never investigated, interviewed, or subpoenaed witnesses who could have testified on my behalf, including:
• Eyewitnesses to harassment, vandalism, and provocation;
• Neighbors and community members familiar with false allegations by Officer Dinse, Terrance Scroggins, Pedram Espinoza, and others;
• Victims of Officer Dinse’s similar misconduct (e.g., federal lawsuit by Rex Schillenberger);
• Experts in police procedure and community mobbing.

Failure to hire or consult with any private investigator who could have

interviewed witnesses, gathered additional exculpatory statements, or tracked social media campaigns against me.

• • Evidence: Declarations from available witnesses, statements from those never

contacted by defense, my own sworn declaration, investigator reports (if available), and a list of potential witnesses with what their testimony would have shown.

• • Failure to introduce events of police harassments, intimidation, as well as witness harassment, intimidation, before and during the trial.

Failure to File Key Motions and Argue Self-Defense

• • • Did not file a Pitchess motion against Officer Dinse, despite his documented history of similar misconduct.
    • Refused to argue self-defense even with documentary/video evidence of years-long provocation by community and police.
    • Did not challenge fabricated restitution claims or expose documented blackmail efforts by prosecution witnesses. Working with their friends in the court house to pose as FBI agents for intimidation.

Conflict of Interest s Coercion Toward Insanity Plea

• • • Prioritized relationships with trial judges over client defense.
    • Pressured me to accept Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGI) without legal/medical basis.

Failure to Seek Change of Venue or Protect Against Community Harassment

• • • Ignored repeated, documented attempts by Officer Dinse and neighborhood watch to incite community bias, including via Facebook and public statements.
    • Did not move to change venue despite mass prejudice, nor did he advise or assist with seeking restraining orders against harassers.

Failure to Impeach Prosecution Witnesses

• • • Did not challenge (impeach) perjured or contradictory testimony from key

witnesses, and did not present readily available impeachment material (videos, letters, reports).

Failure to Protect Defendant from Direct Courtroom Intimidation

• • • Did not object or seek mistrial when individuals impersonating FBI agents appeared in the courtroom with Prosecutor Orbelli to intimidate me in the

presence of the judge and jury—egregious misconduct designed to prejudice my defense, create an unfair environment, and reinforce false government narratives.

• • • Failed to raise the issue of prosecutorial collusion with these individuals and did not seek judicial intervention or police report to expose this unlawful intimidation tactic.
    • Evidence: My declaration, affidavits from anyone who witnessed or heard about the “FBI” presence, court security reports, and any correspondence with court staff about these incidents.

G. Additional Examples of Evidence Outside the Trial Record

• Newly available police records or Bar complaints showing patterns of misconduct not included in trial evidence.
• Social media posts by Officer Dinse or others, including deleted/archived content recovered through subpoenas.
• Expert opinions now available but not sought by defense (e.g., on police procedure, mobbing, prejudice).

1. Prejudice: Strickland Standard Satisfied Because of the above errors:

• The jury never heard or saw critical exculpatory evidence or witness testimony that would have undermined the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of a private investigator, lack of witness interviews, and failure to object to intimidation fundamentally denied me a fair trial.
• The outcome would likely have been different had defense counsel met even minimal professional standards.

1. Prayer for Relief and Request for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner respectfully requests:

• 1. An order to show cause and/or evidentiary hearing to receive this new, extrinsic evidence.
  2. Vacation of conviction and/or outright dismissal due to cumulative constitutional error.

1. Evidence to be Attached (Example)

• Declaration of Kevin Perelman (listing all witnesses I requested or identified, complaints re: FBI impersonators, failure to investigate)
• Declarations/affidavits from uninvestigated witnesses, neighbors, and potential experts
• Affidavit from (or record of attempted contact with) a private investigator, if available
• Videos and audio not introduced at trial
• Screenshots/archived copies of relevant Facebook/social posts
• Security/court incident reports regarding presence of FBI agents or intimidation efforts
• Insurance, restitution, and any financial records relating to blackmail/extortion claims
• Copies of relevant Bar complaints, police records, or civil complaints

Attachment 9

Trial Judicial Misconduct – Notes

To

California Appellate Project

Phone: Phone: (213) 243-0300

Fax: (213) 243-0303

Email:Capdocs@lacap.com AppellateBranch@pubdef.lacounty.gov Adress: 520 South Grand Avenue, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071

To Whom It May Concern:

The People v. Kevin Perelman, Case No. B343120 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and courtroom misconduct – Shep Zebberman Specific Accusations:

• Discriminatory and Prejudicial Comments
• Sheps Statement to me, right before the verdict “You might get away with this” Showing from day one, he was acting as a judge, not a Lawyer. And was never going to represent me fairly and was involved in a conspiracy to lock me away no matter how innocent. No matter how much proof. He wasn’t even going to try to prove my innocence.
• Everything asked he give an opposite answer, and disinformation, showing anger. I asked about change of venue. like change of venue, he lied stating their was not

grounds for. While was friends with a lot of the Judges. Being provoked and harassed by witness Terrance Scroggins during trial. Would not help with filing restraining

orders or use the information to show in the court at any time that Terrance was always the aggressor or impeach the witnesses properly jumping from lawyer to lawyer.

– Penal Code § 147: Willful deprivation of a client’s rights

Failure to Investigate/Prepare/Defend

• Did not review Kevin’s exculpatory video evidence or ask for Kevin’s version of events. – Relied on fabricated reports and prosecution narrative. – Penal Code § 1054.G: Failure to seek or present exculpatory evidence

Failure to File Key Motions

• Judge Dohi, refused to file Pitchess motion for LAPD Officer Charles Sean Dinse, despite Dinse’s federal lawsuits for similar behavior. – Would not request change of venue or move for mistrial, nor file dismissal. Even with the events happening in the court room – Penal

Code § 1054.5: Withholding of motions/evidence

Conflict of Interest

• Admitted being friends with Judge Gregory A. Dohi and Judge Stephen Marcus, failed to zealously advocate for client. – Potentially took $50,000 under false pretenses (with

influence from Arnold Silber, Kevin’s stepfather). – Penal Code § 182(a)(5): Conspiracy to obstruct justice

Coercion Toward Insanity Plea (NGI)

• Tried to pressure client to plead NGI to “get you out of this,” abusing attorney’s

power/trust. Stating “I can get you out of this” I know some Psychology People – Business s Professions Code § 6068: Duty to act with honesty and loyalty

Refusal to Provide Self-Defense Argument

• Refused to present documented mobbing/stalking history; said self-defense not possible for vandalism despite clear evidence of gangstalking and conspiracy amongst mass

stalking groups with LAPD with an Agenda to setup or frame the defendant. – Penal Code § 6G2-6G4: Legitimacy of self-defense argument

Judicial Corruption s Misconduct Specific Accusations:

• • Bias and Prejudice
• Judge Stephen Marcus: “I’ll squeeze you out of your place.”
• Judge Gregory A. Dohi: Fabricated mental health diagnoses, belittled and intimidated

defendant (“Come on down!”) treating court rooms and trials like fun game shows, denied defense motions for Pitchess; colluded in systemic prejudice.

• Penal Code § G6 s G6.5: Judicial officers acting corruptly, maliciously, or with conflict of interest

Van Nuys Court Reporter who owns property adjoining my wall Misconduct – Debbie Wollman

• Spread false rumors about Kevin’s mental health to court staff and judges; owned

property adjoining defendant (conflict of interest). – Omitted critical exculpatory phrases from transcripts (e.g., “Every Miata is modified”). – Penal Code § 134: Preparing false

evidence (tampered transcript) – Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy

Police Corruption – Officer Charles Sean Dinse Specific Accusations:

• • History of Lawsuits and Misconduct
• Used Facebook to incite neighborhood harassment against Kevin; earlier federally sued by Rex Schillenberger.
• Publicly posted “How do we FORCE people into mental facilities,” inciting community intimidation/hate/Stalking groups.
• Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy to violate civil rights
• Penal Code § 135: Destroying/concealing evidence

Fabrication of Claims and Evidence

• Lied about Kevin following him with Prosecutor Orbell to use as amo for increased

sentencing, staged incidents to provoke legal trouble. – Seized art computer (falsely called a “hard drive”), made misleading claims about data. – Penal Code § 118: Perjury – Penal Code § 141: Planting/tampering with evidence

Intimidation and Collusion

• Orchestrated use of “fake FBI agents” to intimidate Kevin in courtroom right before trial day. – Colluded with Prosecutors Lisa Orbelli and Detective Ruiz, and Charles Sean Dinse.
• Penal Code § 136.1: Witness/victim intimidation – Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy

Witness and Community Misconduct

Specific Accusations:

• • Terrance Scroggins (Neighbor/Witness):
• Engaged in continuous harassment/provocation before and during the trial(240+ videos), staged vandalisms with neighbors, Provokings, submitted false restitution claims (colluded with USAA Insurance to repaint entire car, then sought extra $5,000 after USAA paid for

repairs).

• Left blackmail threats in writing demanding DIRECT restitution money.
• Penal Code § 518: Extortion
• Penal Code § 118: Perjury

Pedram Espinoza (Neighbor/Witness):

• Provided knowingly false testimony about his time at the property and his encounters with Kevin. – Penal Code § 118: Perjury. No impeaching the witness with Pedram on video stating I’m not allowed at my townhouse complex. Or that I take pictures of kids. Showing he’s defaming my name and has motive to get rid of me. Shep kept the argument in the

context to make it look like I was loitering around his house, in the common areas of our complex. A Juror had to ask the Judge how long I lived their he picked up one the one sided stories.

Community Members (“Yosi,” Jason Ryan Fishman, etc.):

• Participated in organized surveillance/harassment; repeated slander (“not a real Jew,” “mentally ill”), acted at direction of Officer Dinse and neighborhood watch. – Penal Code §

653.2: Electronic/cyber harassment – Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy to harass. Showing linked events within the Jewish Community.

Prosecutorial Misconduct Specific Accusations:

• Lisa Orbelli s Detective Ruiz (Prosecutors):
• Collaborated with police and witnesses to create “incidents” for prosecution; made false claims and permitted intimidation tactics in and around the courthouse.
• Permitted/introduced false evidence, allowed staged intimidation (fake FBI agents and courthouse staff).
• Penal Code § 118: Subornation of perjury
• Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy
• Penal Code § G6.5: Misconduct by officers of the court

Transcript, Records, and Restitution Tampering Specific Accusations:

• • Omitted or altered evidence/testimony in trial transcripts (Debbie Wollman).
  • Docket/minute orders contained unexplained errors or clerical manipulation (split sentence, “no probation” issues), possibly at the direction of corrupt clerks and neighbor/court reporter Debbie Wollman.
  • Restitution awarded based on fraudulent insurance claims and blackmail tactics (Terrance Scroggins).
  • Penal Code § 134: Preparing false documentary evidence
  • Penal Code § 115: Filing false instruments

Overarching Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations Specific Accusations:

• • Constitutional:
• Denial of due process (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV)
• Denial of effective assistance/counsel (U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Strickland v. Washington)
• Denial of fair trial and equal protection (California Const. Art. I, §§ 7, 15)

Pattern of Systemic Government Abuse:

• Collusion among judges, defense, prosecutors, police, and community.
• Tampering, intimidation, and long-term targeting that makes fair retrial impossible.
• Penal Code § 182: Criminal conspiracy
• Civil Remedies: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (federal civil rights suit for deprivation of rights under color of law)

Judicial Corruption—Grounds for Dismissal Overlooked

• • Repeated Judicial Bias:
• Judge Stephen Marcus made overtly hostile comments toward Defendant (“I’ll squeeze you out of your place”), demonstrating clear personal animosity and prejudice contrary to impartial adjudication required by law.
• Judge Gregory Dohi fabricated “mental illness” labels for Defendant with no clinical basis, belittled Defendant during proceedings, and denied valid defense motions (e.g., Pitchess motion for Officer Dinse), demonstrating pattern of prejudiced rulings.

Legal Basis: Judicial bias and partial are grounds for mistrial or dismissal:

• *Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.*, 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (extreme judicial bias may violate due process).
• Cal. Penal Code § 96, § 96.5 (corrupt conduct by judicial officers).

Court Reporter Misconduct s Transcript Tampering:

• Debbie Wollman, with a direct conflict of interest, fabricated negative mental health rumors about Defendant to judges and staff, and altered the official record (omitting

exculpatory testimony such as “Every Miata is modified”). Legal Basis: Cal. Penal Code § 134 (preparing false evidence), § 182 (conspiracy to pervert justice).

Police Officer Corruption—Grounds for Dismissal Overlooked

• • Officer Charles Sean Dinse’s Documented Corruption:
• Used his Facebook account to incite community mobbing (“How do we FORCE people into mental facilities”), was previously federally sued for similar actions.
• Lied under oath about Defendant following him with Prosecutor Orbelli for increased

sentencing, fabricated incidents, and seized Defendant’s computer misrepresenting both its contents and evidentiary value.

• Regularly engaged in provocation and intimidation designed to escalate Defendant’s legal peril.

Legal Basis:

• Cal. Penal Code § 118 (perjury), § 141 (evidence tampering), § 182 (conspiracy), § 147 (officials depriving rights).
• Cal. Evidence Code § 1043 et seq. (Pitchess motion—officer history of dishonesty/abuse is grounds for discovery, impeachment, and, where egregious, dismissal).

Prosecutorial Misconduct—Compelling Grounds for Dismissal Ignored

• • Fabrication, Coll, and Use of False Evidence:
• Prosecutors Lisa Orbelli and Detective Ruiz collaborated with Dinse, Scroggins and others, knowingly presenting false or uninvestigated claims to the court.
• Prosecutors enabled and facilitated courtroom intimidation—including the appearance of people posing as FBI agents during trial—creating an atmosphere of threat and

unlawfulness.

• Prosecutors injected irrelevant hearsay and prejudicial evidence into the record, repeatedly straying from the charges to paint Defendant as dangerous or unstable, manipulating judicial perception and deliberation.

Legal Basis:

• *People v. Batts* (2003) 30 Cal.4th 660, 693 (dismissal appropriate in egregious government misconduct).
• Cal. Penal Code § 118 (subornation of perjury), § 182 (conspiracy), § 96.5 (prosecutorial misconduct).

Admission of Hearsay/Irrelevant Allegations:

• Prosecutors repeatedly introduced and relied on one sided prejudicial statements and hearsay incidents—statements, rumors, alleged threats, and unrelated community disputes—irrelevant to the charged offenses, used solely to inflame and manipulate the judge and jury. – Defense counsel failed to object or move to strike these prejudicial and

improper references, compounding the miscarriage of justice. Legal Basis: – Cal. Evidence Code § 1200 (hearsay inadmissibility), – *People v. Fuiava* (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622

(admission of repeated, irrelevant misconduct evidence is reversible error).

Cumulative Misconduct Clearly Justified Dismissal

• • Pattern of Collusion:
• Combined judicial, police, and prosecutorial bias, evidenced by intimidation, tampering, and fabrication, destroyed any pretense of fair trial.
• Egregious conduct rises to the constitutional standard where “the only appropriate remedy is dismissal,” as retrial would merely replicate injustice.

Missed Opportunities for Relief:

• At each stage—pretrial (based on evidence fabrication/transcript tampering), during trial (judicial bias, police perjury, prosecutorial hearsay, intimidation), and post-trial (restoration of rights, clerical errors)—counsel declined to move for dismissal.

Grounds for Dismissal (Relief Requested):

• • Cumulative due process violations.
  • Systemic government misconduct and collusion.
  • Prejudice so severe retrial would be unjust and constitutionally insufficient.
  • Legal authorities: US and California Constitution, People v. Batts (2003), Strickland. Washington (4), Caperton v. Massey (2009), Penal Code §§ 96, 96.5, 147, 182.