To:
Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD)
770 L Street, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA 95814

From:
Kevin Perlman
26500 Agoura Rd, Suite 102
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (312) 259-3686

Date: 10/20/2025

Subject:
Formal Request for Intervention — Denial of Effective Counsel, Police & Judicial Misconduct, and Three Unlawful Trials

Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD)

Kevin Perlman
26500 Agoura Rd, Suite 102
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: 312-259-3686

Date: 10/20/2025

To:
Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD)
770 L Street, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Formal Request for Intervention — Denial of Effective Counsel, Police & Judicial Misconduct, and Three Unlawful Trials

Related Case and Appeal Numbers:
– Appeal: B343120
– Superior Court Case: LA099813
– Associated Cases: 3PY03498, 7VW04099

Dear Office of the State Public Defender,

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. In extremely large circles, From the outset, the 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 trace these events down to early childhood.

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 where ever I am, today. As recently as 2025. I have been subjected to further unlawful proceedings in which I was again denied proper legal representation. 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 record continues to be obstructed.

I respectfully request urgent review and intervention in my matters due to repeated violations of my constitutional rights—specifically the right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. Over the past several years I have been subjected to three trials that were unlawful, together with judicial and law-enforcement conduct that has undermined due process and equal protection.

For more than two decades—since 2001—I have faced escalating harassment and intimidation that began with death threats from my former business partner, Mike 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 “the judicial system is being used against me” rather than to protect me. The incidents described here represent only a few examples of what I have endured finding out, in 2001.

Despite hundreds of police reports and extensive video documentation, law-enforcement agencies have consistently refused to investigate or protect me. 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 riling community harassment groups against other victims such as 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 in regards to 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: 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 documenting the car damage with. Causing 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 provided to Detective Angela Stewart and Detective Shapiro, of the LAPD Topanga Division in Los Angeles, California, was provided with hospital reports and photographs documenting my leg injuries. Despite this clear evidence, she 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 angry mobs expressing animosity through statements such as “Your kind isn’t welcome here” 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, Bailey 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 Seymour 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. 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, 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 any review examine whether those initiatives have been misapplied in ways that encouraged or failed to prevent civilian harassment.

Court-appointed counsel across these cases ignored exculpatory evidence and discouraged filings that could have exposed this misconduct. As a result, I have never received conflict-free or effective representation.

Requested actions
1. Comprehensive review of case files and transcripts for B343120 / LA099813 / 3PY03498 / 7VW04099, focusing on ineffective counsel, suppression of evidence, and reversed reporting.
2. Independent inquiry into law-enforcement and Internal-Affairs handling of my complaints and the reversal of charges.
3. Assignment of conflict-free counsel outside local networks potentially influenced by the parties named above.
4. Guidance on filing formal Sixth- and Fourteenth-Amendment claims and pursuing post-conviction relief.

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.” Especially finding out in 2001 and asking questions to Michael Patrick Huntley. I urge your Office to review this matter with impartiality and urgency.

Thank you for your attention. Please acknowledge receipt and advise next steps.

Respectfully,
Kevin Perlman

Evidence Summary & Timeline Overview

Kevin Perelman
26500 Agoura Rd, Suite 102 Calabasas, CA 91302 • (312) 259-3686

Purpose

This summary provides a concise timeline and representative examples of incidents, reports, and filings documenting ongoing harassment, reversed reporting, and denial of effective legal representation.
These entries represent only a small portion of the countless overwhelming events that have occurred since finding out what was going on in 2001. Complete video, photographic, and document archives are available upon request.

Timeline of Representative Events

Supporting Materials (Available Upon Request)

• Certified copies of police reports and Internal Affairs correspondence
• Court transcripts and appeal filings for all listed cases
• Video and photo archives (totaling multiple terabytes)
• Certified mail receipts and complaint acknowledgments
• Federal case records (Rex Schillenberger v. City of Los Angeles)
• Documentation of Debbie Wollman property ownership and related videos

Summary Statement

These entries represent only a small sample of a broader, ongoing pattern of harassment, retaliation, and systemic denial of due process spanning more than two decades. They collectively demonstrate consistent failures by law enforcement, the courts, and public defenders to provide impartial investigation, protection, and representation.