To:
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
From:
Kevin Perlman
26500 Agoura Rd, Suite 102
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (312) 259-3686
Date: 10/20/2025
Subject:
Formal Complaint and Request for Oversight — Judicial Misconduct, Police Collusion, and Denial of Constitutional Rights
Judicial Council of California
Kevin Perlman
26500 Agoura Rd, Suite 102
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: 312-259-3686
Date: 10/20/2025
To:
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Oversight — Judicial Misconduct, Police Collusion, and Denial of Constitutional Rights
Related Case and Appeal Numbers:
- Appeal: B343120
- Superior Court Case: LA099813
- Associated Cases: 3PY03498, 7VW04099
Dear Members of the Judicial Council of California,
For more than two decades, I have been met with consistent and unwarranted hostility from individuals within law enforcement, the courts, and community-policing networks. Across extremely large social and professional circles, this conduct has not been isolated or coincidental—it has followed a continuous pattern of intimidation, reversed reporting, and retaliation. Despite my repeated efforts to seek help through proper legal and administrative channels, my attempts to report crimes or defend myself have been met not with protection, but with further hostility and prosecution. I can trace this pattern back to early childhood, even as those involved attempt to justify their actions under the guise of “mental illness” narratives.
By 2008, this hostility had become overtly threatening. While peacefully walking at a public park and filming a fire truck roughly one hundred yards away out of curiosity, LAPD officers on scene threatened my life, stating on video, “We’re watching you, Perelman.” This incident demonstrated that the targeting extended directly from law enforcement personnel themselves, well before the later prosecutions and community-based harassment escalated.
This pattern continues wherever I go, as I am routinely met with unwarranted daily anger and hostility. I have been subjected to further unlawful proceedings in which I was again denied proper legal representation and a fair hearing. Despite repeated requests for conflict-free counsel, I was assigned attorneys who ignored exculpatory evidence and refused to raise clear procedural and constitutional violations. These same issues persist in my ongoing appeals, where my filings have been disregarded and my ability to present a full and accurate record continues to be obstructed.
I respectfully request that the Judicial Council exercise its oversight authority to review these matters in light of repeated violations of due process, denial of effective counsel, and patterns of bias and misconduct by judicial officers and law enforcement personnel. Over the past several years, I have been subjected to three unlawful trials and multiple appeal obstructions, compounded by judicial and police conduct that has fundamentally undermined public trust in the impartiality of the courts.
For more than two decades—since 2001, finding out what was going on—I have faced escalating harassment and intimidation that began with death threats from my former business partner, Michael Patrick Huntley, who befriended me when I was fourteen. Since then, I have endured a sustained pattern of stalking, provocation, defamation, and fabricated accusations. The overall pattern has repeatedly conveyed the message—directly and indirectly—that “We are using the Judicial System Against you” rather than to protect me. The incidents described here represent only a few examples of what I have endured since discovering the pattern in 2001.
Despite hundreds of police reports and extensive video documentation, law-enforcement agencies have consistently refused to investigate or protect me from these angry mobs. Internal Affairs has repeatedly received detailed complaints with evidence over the years, yet either declined to act or issued watered-down findings. Of particular concern are Officer Toro, who made statements interpreted as threats toward me and my studio photography work, stating, “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way,” and Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse of the LAPD Topanga Division, whose conduct was the subject of prior federal civil litigation in Rex Schillenberger v. City of Los Angeles involving similar allegations of misconduct and mobilizing or encouraging community harassment groups against other individuals, including myself.
When I filed a Pitchess motion seeking disclosure of Officer Dinse’s disciplinary and complaint history to demonstrate relevance and pattern, Judge Gregory A. Dohi refused to grant the motion regarding Charles Sean Dinse, preventing access to records that could have established credibility issues and prior misconduct. Public records also show that Chief Michael Moore and Officer Dinse have been named in related actions. I ask that your Office review those records to determine whether any conflict, pattern of behavior, or departmental protection relevant to my situation exists.
One of the many more aggressive events was a month after a prior confrontation in which a man in the surrounding complex, handling a large dog, threatened my life, stating words to the effect of, “You’d better accept what’s going on or it’s going to get a lot worse for you.” They had a problem with me taking walks, getting fresh air, and exercise. On the later occasion, I walked outside my residence and discovered my vehicle had been vandalized, just once out of hundreds of times: the words “Penal Code 187” were written on the car, objects were glued to its surface, and a single glove was left on it while nearby individuals made remarks referencing the O.J. Simpson case. I immediately called the police to report the vandalism and threatening language directed at me and waited outside for officers to arrive. While waiting, the same man emerged with his girlfriend and the same dog, initiated a loaded conversation, and as I was walking away, it appeared the dog was trained to attack on cue, and the girl started punching me from behind and trying to steal the camera that I was using to document the car damage. This caused severe injuries to my leg.
The animal’s behavior suggested formal training, possibly police-level training, although I cannot verify that within this correspondence. These incidents were documented with photographs and video, yet no substantive investigation or protective action followed. The entire incident is on video, like so many others, and was provided to Detective Angela Stewart and Detective Shapiro of the LAPD Topanga Division in Los Angeles, along with hospital reports and photographs documenting my leg injuries. Despite this clear evidence, Detective Shapiro stated that I suffer from mental illness and that the incident had not occurred. Prosecutor Karine T. Phillips later claimed in court that “Kevin is trying to force cards on people,” when in reality, as shown on video, the dialogue was simply: “Would you like a card?” — “Oh, never mind, you already have one.”
In several instances across different reports, I have observed that when I called police to report crimes committed against me, the reporting process appeared to be reversed—resulting in criminal allegations filed against me rather than against those responsible for the underlying acts. Several of the individuals involved appeared connected with neighborhood or “community-policing” activities and acted as though they were empowered by law enforcement to intervene or intimidate. I respectfully request that these events, and the handling of the related police reports and subsequent charges, be reviewed in detail to determine why no proper investigation occurred and whether any link exists between these individuals and community-policing programs operating under the Los Angeles Police Department.
Another serious example occurred around 2017, when Bailey Bernard followed me home from Warner Center Park, a public park where I have repeatedly faced unwarranted hostility and daily provocations from individuals with no legitimate reason to interfere with me—other than participation in organized hate-based mobs expressing animosity through statements such as “Your kind” and we don’t want you here or anywhere else. During that period, I was also subjected to explicit racial threats, including “No relaxing for you, n****r,” and other intimidating remarks clearly intended to provoke confrontation. As I entered the gate to my townhouse complex, Bernard asked, “Is this where you live?” and struck the keys from my hand, physically assaulting me. I immediately called 9-1-1 and later went to the police station to file a report. Instead of investigating the assault, LAPD filed assault charges against me.
During the subsequent trial, Prosecutor Karine T. Phillips falsely stated that I had never called 9-1-1, and Defense Attorney Seymour Amster—who could have easily obtained the 9-1-1 call records proving otherwise—refused to do so. His refusal mirrored his handling of other exculpatory evidence, including the 2017 parking citation personally issued to me by witness and arresting officer Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse of the LAPD Topanga Division, just two weeks before I took the stand in that same trial. Toward the end of those proceedings, Defense Attorney Amster remarked, “You’re brilliant; this is about mental illness,” referencing mental-illness watch lists in a way that appeared intended to frame the situation rather than address the facts. Putting mental illness labeling above law and order, and keeping people safe.
There has never been any legitimate mental-health basis for such statements, other than unverified claims from an angry family attempting to manipulate outcomes. Rather, this language has been used to portray me as mentally ill in order to discredit my testimony and minimize documented misconduct. This tactic, coupled with reversed police reports and suppression of evidence, has contributed to a continuing pattern of institutional retaliation and defamation that persists to this day.
Another area of serious concern involves Court Reporter Debbie Wollman of the Van Nuys Courthouse, who for approximately twenty years owned the townhouse directly adjoining mine—sharing a common wall—but never resided there. This property ownership presents a clear conflict of interest, as Ms. Wollman works at the same courthouse where many of my hearings and trials have taken place. The property has appeared online in connection with “Going Vertical, Inc.”, a corporate name previously proposed by Mike Huntley, which raises additional questions about potential judicial or professional impropriety linked to that location. Notably, Ms. Wollman sold the adjoining property shortly after I was released from custody, a timing that further raises questions regarding possible undisclosed relationships or conflicts connected to that residence and her position at the courthouse.
Ms. Wollman appears in at least three videos: one from 2017, in which she tells me that I am “not allowed at the courthouse,” during my trial, and two later encounters in 2025, shortly after I was released from custody and again within the following month, where she approached me unsolicited—saying “no hard feelings” as if we were in some form of personal competition—and insisting that I “admit” to suffering from “schizophrenia.” These encounters appeared designed to elicit false or coerced statements supporting long-standing defamatory claims about my mental health that go all the way down to early childhood.
Given her employment within the Van Nuys Courthouse, her direct property connection to my residence, and her repeated personal interactions, I believe Ms. Wollman has exerted improper influence over judges, clerks, defense attorneys, and prosecutors through misinformation and professional relationships. This pattern is further supported by online statements attributed to Jay Pilchick, the father of my sister-in-law Jennifer Pilchick-Perelman, himself a court reporter in Florida, and by Jennifer Pilchick Perelman, a political attorney who has twice run for Congress against Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In those posts, she stated to a political colleague that “Kevin needs to be deemed crazy.” Together, these facts demonstrate a larger network of personal and professional conflicts that have materially compromised my right to my freedoms starting at a very young age and a fair and impartial process, and clearly indicate motive.
Because these failures coincide with community-policing outreach programs administered under Chief Michael Moore and Officer Charles Sean Dinse, I request that the Judicial Council examine whether such programs have been misapplied in ways that encouraged or failed to prevent civilian harassment, judicial bias, or manipulation of proceedings.
Requested Actions
- Independent review of case records, transcripts, and judicial conduct in B343120 / LA099813 / 3PY03498 / 7VW04099, with attention to bias, suppression of evidence, and improper judicial influence.
- Examination of the Pitchess motion denials by Judge Gregory A. Dohi concerning Officer Charles Sean Dinse, and related federal records from Rex Schillenberger v. City of Los Angeles.
- Investigation into potential conflicts of interest involving Debbie Wollman, Jennifer Pilchick-Perelman, and related parties.
- Recommendations for referral to appropriate judicial oversight or disciplinary bodies where warranted.
This is not an isolated lapse but a long-term pattern of harassment, retaliation, and denial of constitutional protections, during which I have repeatedly been told that I am “not allowed to tell anyone what is going on.” This began after I started asking questions to Michael Patrick Huntley in 2001, when I began uncovering the coordinated actions taking place around me.
I urge the Judicial Council to review this matter with impartiality, independence, and urgency.
Thank you for your time and attention. Please acknowledge receipt and advise of any next procedural steps.
Respectfully,
Kevin Perlman
Leave a Reply