Kevin Perelman
26500 Agoura Rd, STE 102
Calabasas, CA 91302
312-259-3686
Kevin@KevinPerelman.com
Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS)
P.O. Box 980550
West Sacramento, CA 95798-0550
January 12, 2026
Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS)
Enforcement / Complaint Unit
Subject: Complaint Regarding Private Security Guard Conduct – CitiGuard Security (“Mansour”) and others / Woodland Oaks HOA and local area (Los Angeles)
HOAORGANIZERS.COM and community
To BSIS Enforcement,
I am submitting a complaint regarding repeated conduct since 2019 or so, by private security assigned to my residential complex (21520 and 21620 Woodland Oaks, Ca 91367 — both addresses, same property), which is managed through the Woodland Oaks Homeowners Association (HOA) and professionally managed by a third-party property management company Woodland Oaks Organizers, http://www.hoaorganizers.com The guard is known to me as “Mansour” (spelling uncertain; possibly Mansour/Monsour) and is associated with CitiGuard Security with rotating employees and companies, with similar conduct.
This complaint is based on a persistent, near-daily pattern since approximately 2019 of targeted monitoring and reactive security activity at and around my residence, including irregular “patrol” behavior, repeated gate positioning tied to my movements, waiting for me to come home to be in my presence, entering the garage or on foot, escalating confrontations, and inappropriate threshold/doorway contact that appear inconsistent with legitimate residential security duties. In practice, the conduct often appears designed to provoke or elicit a reaction, then recast that reaction into “incident” allegations (including set-up / frame-job style narratives), followed by increased resident pre-meditated reporting and heightened risk of law-enforcement involvement. This pattern has involved recurring resident/community reporting dynamics and has created an ongoing hostile, unsafe environment amongst the community and done with community member in coordination with the security companies.
It is especially concerning in light of prior arrests arising from disputed or mischaracterized incidents linked to the same ongoing Police and Judicial situations(including 2013, 2017, and 2023), and the risk that private-security activity is being used to manufacture or justify enforcement contact by portraying routine lawful behavior as suspicious, dangerous, or mentally unstable (including false “schizophrenia” labeling) and monitoring with the police. I request BSIS review the underlying post orders, incident reports, call logs, and communications sufficient to confirm or refute whether the guard/company is operating outside legitimate security functions.
This complaint also concerns a persistent pattern of targeted monitoring, confrontational escalation, unequal application of security services, and conduct inconsistent with neutral residential security duties.
Expanded Guard and Assignment Summary:
• Guard known as “Mansour” (spelling uncertain)
• Company: CitiGuard Security
• Assigned location: Woodland Oaks HOA
• Frequently positioned near Owensmouth pedestrian gate
• Often stationed in an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows on the public street adjacent to the complex
Most Recent Expanded January 19, 2026 Incident Clarification:
On January 19, 2026, the guard positioned himself directly adjacent to the Owensmouth pedestrian gate I routinely use. As I approached the outside gated entrance to the townhouse complex, he abruptly exited his vehicle, accused me of scratching his car, and repeatedly stated words to the effect of “You’re going to jail.” He appeared to be wearing or activating a body-worn police recording device on his chest.
Given my prior experience with escalatory accusations leading to repetitive, nonstop, law-enforcement involvement with the homeowners association and neighbors which is persistent over 26 years, this threat cannot reasonably be viewed as casual rhetoric. I request BSIS review:
• Incident reports from January 19, 2026, and any other instances which will be based on provocation
• Any body-camera footage
• Post orders governing confrontation and accusation
• Authorization and retention policy for recording devices
Neutrality Concern Clarification:
Residential security personnel are expected to provide neutral, even-handed safety services for all residents. Repeated reactive positioning tied specifically to my movements, combined with accusatory and confrontational engagement, raises concern regarding professional neutrality and possible deviation from authorized residential duties.
Unequal Application Clarification:
On multiple occasions, I contacted CitiGuard seeking assistance as a homeowner and long-term resident (26 years) and received no meaningful response, while complaints about me appear to receive prompt response. I request review of dispatch logs, call records, and incident reports to determine whether services were administered consistently.
Any attempts to define the situations against me with security from others resulted in retaliation, whether it be mental illness labeling, or provoking belittling behaviors to try to illicit reactions.
Common Area Access Clarification:
I have been told I am “not allowed” in certain common areas, despite paying HOA assessments and receiving no written restriction. I request review of any post orders or directives referencing alleged area restrictions involving me that would show discriminatory, territorial and unethical treatment with fabrications to get what they want.
Bias / Selective Enforcement Clarification:
For approximately seven years, the guard has observed repeated hostility toward me without intervention, later escalating into confrontational threats. This creates the appearance of selective enforcement rather than neutral property protection.
Additional context regarding scope (stated conservatively): I also have documentation indicating that more than one private-security company has been involved in similar patterns of contact over time, including earlier periods before 2019. I recognize BSIS’s jurisdiction is limited to licensing and professional conduct; I am providing this context because it may reflect repeat vendor use and potential coordination across licensees. I request BSIS review whether any other licensed security vendors have been utilized for similar monitoring/response patterns relating to me, and obtain any available records reflecting vendor changes, subcontracting, or shared reporting narratives.
Longer-term context: While this complaint focuses on the near-daily conduct at Woodland Oaks since approximately 2019, I have also documented similar patterns involving private-security personnel and rotating vendors in earlier years, and I can provide a structured index of those records upon request.
1) Guard / assignment information (as currently known)
Guard name: “Mansour” (spelling uncertain); additional CitiGuard personnel also appear involved at times and linked in coordination with other security guards, and security companies
Company: CitiGuard Security
West Hills: 22736 Vanowen St, Suite 300, West Hills, CA 91307
States on the door moved: Woodland Hills: 5550 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 310, Woodland Hills, Ca 91367
Los Angeles: 801 S Hope St, Suite 1108, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Northridge: 9301 Corbin Ave, Ste 1800, Northridge, CA 91324
Assigned location: Woodland Oaks HOA / Woodland Oaks complex (Los Angeles)
21520 and 21620 Burbank – same complex
Woodland Hills, Ca 91367
Uniform/ID: He wears a security uniform; “SECURITY” marking is visible in video stills
Typical post behavior: Frequently positioned near complex gate areas (including the Owensmouth pedestrian gate) and, on many nights, stationed in an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows on the public street adjacent to the complex rather than operating from a visible on-property post.
2) Summary of repeated conduct
On many nights, the guard remains near the complex gates for extended periods, and the “patrol” behavior appears irregular and reactive rather than routine. Specifically:
Ongoing gate positioning pattern (Owensmouth pedestrian gate): The guard repeatedly positions his vehicle at or directly adjacent to the pedestrian gate I use (Owensmouth), creating a conspicuous and pressuring presence during my normal entry/exit.
01/19/2026 — Escalation at Owensmouth gate: yelling, threats, and apparent body-worn camera: On January 19, 2026, the CitiGuard security guard known to me as Mansour was positioned directly adjacent to the Owensmouth pedestrian gate I use to enter/exit on foot. As I approached the gate, he abruptly exited his vehicle and began yelling allegations to the effect of “you scratched my car” as I walked by his car to the gate to enter the gate and “you’re going to jail,” repeatedly escalating the encounter and making threatening statements. During this incident he appeared to be wearing a police-style body-worn camera (body cam). Normally he is not wearing a body cam, but on this night he choose to.
Request: I request BSIS obtain and review any incident report/call note/dispatch entry created for this event or all other events; any available body-cam footage or recordings retained by the guard/company; the Woodland Oaks post orders governing confrontations/accusations; and confirmation of whether the guard/company is authorized to use body-worn cameras at this site or is specifically there for me, including recording/retention policies. This was the only time he had a police body camera on.
Escalation into Confrontational, Provocative, and Threat-Based Conduct: The guard’s conduct has escalated over time from visible monitoring or routine patrol posture into direct confrontation, accusatory statements, and adversarial engagement. However, in the past, neighbors were told to be the aggressors to act as proxies for them. This has included yelling allegations at me in common areas, asserting wrongdoing without documented basis, indirect instigations in repetition, and adopting a posture that portrays me as the aggressor while positioning himself and the neighbors, as the victim.
Beyond overt accusations, interactions have increasingly included unsettling or provocative remarks delivered in a manner that appears designed to elicit a reaction rather than address a legitimate security concern. These exchanges do not resemble neutral safety engagement; instead, they create a confrontational atmosphere and suggest preexisting narrative framing.
There have also been instances in which the guard appears to have knowledge of incidents affecting me or my vehicle—such as damage or interference—shortly after I return home, followed by attempts to initiate dialogue or confrontation. The timing of such interactions raises concern that monitoring may be reactive and targeted rather than neutral patrol activity.
Additionally, I have documented prior video-recorded law-enforcement encounters in which statements were made to the effect of “We are watching you, Perelman.”, “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way” by LAPD, and Indirect Police threats that I do not leave my house. While I am not asserting improper coordination, the combination of such law-enforcement messaging and subsequent security guard confrontations—particularly threats such as “you’re going to jail”—creates a cumulative atmosphere of intimidation and heightened escalation risk. When private security personnel adopt accusatory, threat-based language in a context where prior enforcement escalation has occurred, it materially increases the likelihood of conflict and unjustified reporting or enforcement contact.
Residential security personnel are expected to de-escalate tension and provide neutral, even-handed protection to all residents. Engagement that appears designed to provoke, intimidate, or reinforce prior enforcement narratives is inconsistent with that professional role.
Why the “you’re going to jail” threat is especially concerning (pattern-based): The guard’s statement to the effect of “you’re going to jail” wearing a police body camera, is not a casual remark in context. And is based on previous pre-meditated behaviors of doing just this, out of discriminatory behaviors, and empty labeling or personal judgements In my prior experience, escalatory accusations of criminality have been followed by increased third-party reporting, heightened monitoring, and law-enforcement contact arising from disputed or mischaracterized events. For that reason, this type of threat raises concern that the guard’s conduct may be part of an escalation sequence that increases the likelihood of unjustified enforcement involvement. I request BSIS preserve and review any reports, call notes, and communications generated before and after 01/19/2026 that could explain the basis for any “criminal” framing or threatened enforcement action which starts approximately 26 years purchasing the property with the Home Owners Associations personal discriminatory bias towards me.
Apparent resident/community-driven reporting tied to my movements (day or night): When I leave or return to my residence—day or night—security positioning and monitoring near the gates, garage doors, frequently changes shortly afterward. The timing and repetition of these responses is consistent with resident/community reporting (i.e., third parties relaying my movements to security). I request review of resident call-in records, dispatch notes, and any reporting logs identifying what was reported, by whom (if recorded), and what specifically triggered each response.
Rapid “on-cue” appearance during nighttime walks, drives, leaving my house (repeated pattern): On multiple occasions over the years which are consistent, when I go out for an evening walk—particularly on nights when the guard is not already visibly posted—he appears within minutes and positions near the gate/exit route I use in a manner that is conspicuous and intimidating (consistent with overt monitoring rather than routine patrol). This has occurred repeatedly and is not a single isolated event. On some occasions it has appeared other security companies like Allied Universal, Security Specialists, and others have also coordinated at the same time. And on some occasion the local area neighbors in outdated old police cars, and similar looking vehicles, come out in hopes to instigate reactions or intimidate. Several videos of local area civilians posing as police officers in black and white non police cars, and even direct threats claiming I’ve committed a crime in jokingly stages civilians impersonating police officers in hopes to invoke responses that appear to be mental instability that get on video that seem to be coordinated with the security companies, I request review of any related call logs, dispatch notes, or incident reports documenting what prompted his arrival on those nights.
Provocative, non-security interactions: On occasions, the guard attempts to initiate conversation that appears provocative/instigating rather than security-related, and appears designed to draw me into conflict or create a narrative that I am the aggressor.
One of these ongoing situations, BB-gun incident video shown by guard; later similar vandalism directed at me (intimidation context): On one occasion, the guard showed me a video he claimed depicted individuals shooting at him with a BB gun. At a later time, my vehicle was shot with a BB gun (separate incident multiple locations; I am not asserting the same individuals were involved). The sequence is relevant because it suggests the guard may be collecting and introducing “incident narratives” during interactions with me in a way that escalates tension and could be used to imply suspicion or blame without evidence. I request review of any incident reports, call logs, security notes, or communications concerning (1) the guard’s reported BB-gun incident and (2) any reports involving my vehicle, including dates, times, who reported, and the stated basis for any suspicion (3) Any calls that relate to complaints about me leaving my property.
Asian neighbor “I’m Telling Security” I’m guessing about 8 years ago with the neighboring complex in harmless friendly dialogue while screaming at me. Who seemed to always know when I was coming home and coming out walking her dogs on Owensmouth Street, the Warner Center Met, and Security Specialists, Incident and Escalation Pattern (Owensmouth Area): A resident in the Owensmouth area had repeated proximity contacts in the vicinity of my residence over a period of time. On one occasion, after a brief and initially friendly exchange on the public street, she abruptly began shouting words to the effect of, “I’m telling security,” or similar. The statement was made loudly and, in a manner, clearly intended to trigger a response while pretending to be a victim.
They have a google blog stating I’m a violent paranoid schizophrenic, and if you see me call the police. Stating I am unstable. Showing discriminatory motive with fabricated psychological labeling.
Following that incident, I observed a noticeable increase in security presence and monitoring near the pedestrian gate and surrounding areas. The timing of this change in posture, immediately following the resident’s public statement, raises concern that informal resident complaints—rather than documented security violations—are triggering reactive deployment decisions.
This incident is not isolated. In prior years, I experienced similar escalation patterns involving other private security companies operating in the area, including Security Specialists and Allied Universal with others. On multiple occasions while walking on public streets, I was confronted or followed by security personnel who suggested I was trespassing on the public street and sidewalk, or not permitted in areas that were in fact public rights-of-way. In at least one instance, an Allied Universal/Security Specialists guard aggressively deploying mace spray in my eyes on Owensmouth street for trying to get fresh air and exercise. In other instances, security personnel contacted law enforcement when I was lawfully parked on a public street on the side of the road with car idling, briefly stopped to input GPS coordinates, or waiting in a vehicle—ordinary activities commonly performed by members of the public and in the same areas of others who do the same.
In those situations, law enforcement was called based on allegations that portrayed normal behavior as suspicious or threatening while overdramatizing a few minutes into hours of waiting around and on video. I later became aware that statements were circulating within the community labeling me as “violent” or “mentally unstable,” with suggestions that police should be called if I was observed. I am not asking BSIS to adjudicate the truth of those characterizations; rather, I am requesting review of whether private security personnel are relying on unverified resident narratives to justify confrontational or enforcement-oriented responses to lawful conduct.
When routine public behavior—such as walking on a public sidewalk, parking on a public street, getting exercise and fresh air or entering one’s own residential complex—is repeatedly treated as a security incident, it creates a pattern in which normal activity becomes the basis for confrontation and law-enforcement involvement. Residential security personnel are expected to distinguish between legitimate safety concerns and ordinary lawful conduct. Reactive deployment based primarily on resident statements, without objective verification of wrongdoing, risks contributing to unnecessary escalation. And at no point are security to act as the police, or monitor with the police in unconstitutional methods out of personal bias.
3) Documentation of Incidents and Reaction to Recording
In response to repeated confrontational and escalatory encounters, I have at times recorded interactions in order to preserve an accurate record of events. This has included video recording in the local areas when I reasonably believed an interaction might escalate or be mischaracterized.
My purpose in recording has been documentation and self-protection — to ensure that any allegations or reports are evaluated against objective evidence. However, I have observed that the act of recording itself appears to generate heightened hostility or escalation from security personnel, community members, and, at times, law enforcement. Even threats that I had better accept what’s going on or it will a lot worse for me. And multiple events with similar situations. On certain occasions, recording has been met with immediate adversarial posture, accusatory statements, mental illness labels as cover ups or increased efforts to portray the situation as a security incident.
The act of recording in public or common areas is lawful and is frequently used by residents to document interactions for clarity and accountability especially within the guidelines of self defense. A professional residential security response should remain neutral and focused on de-escalation regardless of whether a resident is documenting an encounter. The more information on video that is provided to the police, the more the escalation, especially the mental illness labeling.
I respectfully request that BSIS review whether any incident reports, dispatch notes, or communications reference my act of recording as justification and retaliation for escalation, and whether security personnel have treated documentation itself as suspicious or confrontational conduct rather than a lawful exercise of personal documentation in self-defense.
4) Context and concern regarding purpose of deployment
Woodland Oaks, and Woodland Hills in general, is generally a quiet residential community. The guard’s routine practice of positioning in an unmarked, tinted-window vehicle on the public street adjacent to complex gates with LAPD and Community members—rather than operating from a visible on-property post—appears disproportionate to ordinary residential security needs and inconsistent with routine patrol.
In my experience, this deployment has become a source of disturbance rather than stability. The repeated, conspicuous stakeout posture near the gates with neighbors, community members, and other security companies, has contributed to turmoil and confrontation risk, and appears to generate more disruption than any security benefit it provides.
Based on the recurring timing and reactive nature of this monitoring, and prior incidents involving law-enforcement contact in past years, I am concerned this private-security activity may be used to provoke or manufacture a pretext for unjustified law-enforcement involvement. I cannot confirm law-enforcement coordination with direct proof; however, I request preservation and review of all logs and reports that would confirm or refute this concern, including any communications, call notes, or incident reports referencing me.
5) HOA-triggered responses / manufactured pretext concern
I understand the HOA and property manager have processes for residents to report concerns and contact management/security). Based on repeated incidents over time, I am concerned that the HOA’s reporting process may be used with pre-meditation to trigger security responses tied to my normal presence and lawful activity, sometimes accompanied by shifting or inconsistent justifications (including claims on video implying I do not reside here or do not “belong” in certain areas of the complex).
Concern regarding HOA direction and scope of assignment (stated as a records issue): Based on the duration, targeting, and escalation of the security attention described above, I am concerned that HOA leadership (including the HOA president Steven Bear and/or board) may be directing or funding security services in a manner that goes beyond legitimate residential security needs and results in targeted monitoring or harassment of a specific resident (me). I am not asserting this as a proven fact; I request BSIS obtain and review the Woodland Oaks contract, post orders, scope of assignment, and any billing records/invoices/work orders or written instructions that reflect who requested the guard’s presence, what tasks were authorized (including any gate “post” instructions), and what basis was documented for repeated responses involving me.
In particular, I request review of any written or electronic communications between HOA leadership/property management and CitiGuard that reference me by name or describe monitoring, “watching,” or responding to my movements.
I request BSIS obtain and review all security call logs, dispatch notes, and incident reports reflecting the stated basis for responses involving me at my residence in Woodland Oaks, and determine whether CitiGuard personnel are acting outside legitimate security functions or engaging in harassment/targeted monitoring.
6) Community pre meditated false statements (reputation harm) tied to security responses
I have become aware of repeated statements being circulated in the community and at local public businesses that I am “crazy,” “violent,” “schizophrenic,” a criminal, a public nuisance, or that I “harass” people which appear to change over and over, over the years. I have also encountered claims implying that I “do not live” at my own residence, despite being a long-term resident/owner for 26 years which implies criminal motive to steal what I own.
I am concerned these false statements are being used to justify calls to security and increased monitoring, escalating the risk of confrontation. I request that BSIS obtain and review any security logs, incident reports, call notes, or communications that reference me, including the stated basis for responding and any claims made about my identity, residency, or alleged conduct.
7) Pattern of mischaracterizing normal, lawful activity as “suspicious” or “behavioral”
I have observed an ongoing pattern in which ordinary, lawful activities are treated as suspicious or framed as evidence of instability. Examples include taking an evening or nighttime walk, going to the gym, going to coffee shops, social gathers, sitting at a public park bench, briefly pulling to the side of the road for a few minutes, traveling to ordinary destinations, or leaving my residence at normal hours. These are routine behaviors, yet they repeatedly appear to trigger security attention with certain community members and LAPD, monitoring near the complex gates, and/or resident/community reports.
In addition, normal movement to public areas where others may already “know of me” through community rumor or prior claims has been treated as inherently suspicious, with individuals sometimes presenting themselves as victims of alleged conduct without a clear factual basis. I have also observed that normal expression—such as creating art, wearing humorous clothing, or making jokes, friendly statements to uplift the atmosphere and show warmth—is almost always mischaracterized as “dangerous” or “crazy,” no matter how friendly and kind, and that ordinary emotions or minor disagreements are similarly reframed as evidence of instability. This pattern raises concern that the purpose is not legitimate security, but to build a misleading narrative about my behavior and justify repeated contacts or interventions.
8) Interrogative Encounters in Public Settings Connected to Security Interactions
Following recent security-related discussions at my residence, I have experienced multiple unusual encounters in public settings, including one at a car event approximately 50 minutes from my home. At this gathering, I was approached by an individual I did not initially recognize, who was not part of the hotrod, social venue. He identified himself as my neighbor and began conversing with me. Although the conversation started with references to his own normal passenger car and a recent accident, it quickly shifted to a series of pointed questions focused solely on my living situation, recent security concerns, and neighborhood matters with groups of community members.
The interaction was distinctly one-sided; his approach felt much more like an interrogation than a casual conversation. He did not seem interested in anything that had happened to me or my perspective, nor did he bring a car to show to the crowd while telling me he knows all about cars, focusing only on eliciting information about issues that were already disturbing to me. Later, I recognized this individual’s caravan parked in my local area, confirming he was indeed a neighbor, although I had not previously noticed him or his vehicle.
While I do not wish to speculate regarding motives or coordination, the timing and subject matter of his questioning were unusual—closely mirroring topics I had recently discussed with Security Guard Mansur in regards to me finding out what was going on in 2001 when my business partner had someone befriend me trying to get me to take a trashbag of Police confiscated marijuana regarding security-related matters at my residence. Encounters like this are concerning because when lines of questioning that echo prior security discussions follow me into unrelated social environments, and focus exclusively on allegations or security issues, it increases the risk that any response I make could later be misrepresented or lead to further enforcement or reporting actions.
Example of language repetition following a security interaction:
During an interaction with the CitiGuard security guard known to me as Mansur, he attempted to engage me in conversation. I referenced concerns about past misconduct and improper activity involving law enforcement in a situation they were trying to make me look like a drug dealer with my Gym Manager Rodie Morales, then disengaged and left. As I walked away, the guard addressed me using the nickname “bud” in a belittling or instigating manor. After that encounter, I documented repeated instances where unrelated individuals in nearby businesses addressed me with the same nickname (“bud”) in a noticeably pointed and recurring manner over a short period of time.
Within this same period, the neighbor who followed me to the social event also called me “bud” multiple times in a similar context. The use of this distinctive nickname, especially when paired with a pointed and interrogatory style of questioning and apparent efforts to befriend me, raised concerns about potential attempts to provoke a reaction or create the appearance of instability while wanting to join me weekly to become a friend and pretending, he’s just being humorous with private conversations he should have no knowledge of.
I respectfully request review of any security logs, incident reports, call notes, dispatch records, or communications that reference defaming mental health-related labels (including “Paranoia”, “schizophrenia”, “Anger”) in connection with me, and the basis for any such references.
Additionally, on several occasions, I have observed that third-party contacts in public are accompanied by nonverbal behavior—such as prolonged hostile staring, smirking, or laughter—that is consistent with attempts to provoke. The recurrence of the same unusual nickname, or rotating trigger words by groups in repetition, and questioning based on privacy violations, across multiple unrelated locations within a short timeframe, warrants review of any security reports, call notes, communications, or resident-reporting processes that reference or repeat allegations or labels about me, including any information being generated and shared about my situation. Or trying to tease someone with mental illness mind games, while stating I suffer from mental illness while they claim they are just joking around.
9) Related documentation suggesting broader coordination
I recognize BSIS will focus on licensing and professional conduct. I am not asserting conclusions beyond my evidence. However, my documentation and evidence index reflect repeated security-related encounters over time and include references to more than one security company name appearing in my records. I request BSIS determine whether CitiGuard Security is coordinating with other licensees/subcontractors in a way that is inconsistent with lawful, routine security duties, and/or whether multiple vendors are being utilized to generate repeated responses based on vague or unsupported allegations about my identity, residency, or behavior.
10) Documented public labeling and escalation risk (mental-health claims and “call police” messaging)
I am submitting the following s because they are externally verifiable examples of mental-health labeling and “danger” narratives being circulated about me publicly, in a manner likely to increase resident reporting and escalated security/police contact absent verified misconduct. I am not asking BSIS to evaluate medical claims as they would come from an unofficial source; I am submitting these items to document that such labels (including “schizophrenia”) are being used in connection with security and Police escalation.
Google-hosted public post labeling me “violent” / “paranoid schizophrenic” and instructing others to call police from random citizens who have never met me or taken to time to get to know of me while obtaining the labels for outside parties (documented), with additional commenter referencing LAPD: I have preserved a screenshot of a public Google-hosted post attributed to an individual identified as “Yuka,” from the Warner Center Met complex which labels me using stigmatizing mental-health language (including “violent” / “paranoid schizophrenic”) and instructs others to call the police if they see me. The same Google-hosted page also includes participation by Paul Humphrey, a former friend I grew up with starting around the age 14, who has prior employment/association with the Los Angeles Police Department around 1998, and later on worked with Security companies who I found out had ulterior motives with his fraudulent and forged fabrications about mental illness from personal bias towards me. I am not asking BSIS to adjudicate law-enforcement conduct; I am submitting this because it is an externally verifiable example of the “schizophrenia/violence” narrative being circulated publicly by multiple individuals with clear pre-meditated intent to the largest circles possible.
08/29/2013 public post labeling me with “Paranoid Schizophrenia” and warning others not to approach (documented): I have preserved a screenshot of a public online post dated 08/29/2013 that identifies me by name and asserts that I have “Paranoid Schizophrenia,” on changing labels and criminal accusations, recommends others not approach or speak with me, and suggests I may “react violently.”
Request: I request review of whether any CitiGuard, Allied Universal, Security Specialists security logs, incident reports, call notes, dispatch records, or HOA/resident reporting processes reference or repeat criminal or mental-health labels (including “schizophrenia”) in connection with me, and the stated basis for any such claims.
11) Prior incident involving private security use-of-force (identified guard) – separate from Woodland Oaks
I am also providing a dated prior incident involving private security use-of-force and identification of the involved guard, so BSIS can evaluate licensing/registration status and any related employer incident documentation and complaint history.
04/06/2013 — reported physical assault by identified security officer (Boyd & Associates) at Gateway Plaza Woodland Hills, in Association with Starbucks falsified claims fear mongering and retaliation for speaking out: I reported being physically assaulted by a private security officer identified by the attached employee badge as John Paul Naranjo of Boyd & Associates (Security Officer; Calif. State Lic. #5966; Employee No. 10715). Police were called immediately by me. I request BSIS review this individual’s licensing/registration status and any related employer incident documentation, including any use-of-force reporting, supervisor reports, and prior complaints. This was also met with LAPD threats “If you ever take a picture of a person, I will exercise the law in my own way” from a west valley police officer named Officer Toro linking Police Misconduct and Police Retaliation events to what they have been doing, going down to a very young age.
12) Representative documented incidents supported by video and stills
I can provide full clips upon request. Representative documented incidents include:
Doorway / threshold contact Video stills show a uniformed “SECURITY” employee Mansur at my door area, indicating prolonged presence at my threshold late at night. This is significant because I have documented incidents where security contact at my door is used to prolong interaction at the threshold and attempt to look into my residence.
Approach along exterior walkway carrying a box from fedex or ups delivering it personally (12/05/2020) and (7/2/2021): Video still shows mansur approaching along the exterior walkway carrying a box toward my unit area and placing it by my door while looking in my house windows, consistent with non-routine, targeted contact late at night
These incidents are examples of the type of conduct that, in my view, exceeds routine residential security functions and raises privacy and harassment concerns while trying to collect information to use to create false narrative.
13) Evidence available
I can provide:
Full video clips corresponding to the still images referenced above and a lot more;
A written incident log (dates/times/locations/what happened/evidence reference) on various situations;
The on-site property management notice and contact information which appears to be enabling random neighbors to call and play victim when they see me to try to make the monitoring look acceptable, and
A structured evidence index showing dated entries and categorized folders, with underlying files available upon request.
14) Requested action
I respectfully request that BSIS:
Identify the guard (“Mansour”) of CitiGuard, and other company security guards or agencies working with him and confirm his guard registration status, employer of record, and any related permit details or legitimacy or his behaviors;
Confirm the license status of CitiGuard Security (and any PPO/branch information, if applicable), and whether their practices at this site are consistent with licensed security operations.
Obtain and review the Woodland Oaks account post orders by Steve Bear or Anyone else at the Woodland Oaks HOA / scope of assignment (what the guard is authorized to do) and compare it to the documented conduct (street-side stakeout posture, reactive monitoring with LAPD, confrontational escalation, and threshold/doorway contact);
Obtain and review security logs, incident reports, dispatch notes, and communications concerning contacts or responses involving me at the house I own, Woodland Oaks and the Woodland Oaks HOA, including the stated “basis for suspicion” or alleged justification; and
Determine whether the described conduct constitutes unprofessional or illegal conduct or licensing violations, including inappropriate private-residence threshold contact and misuse of security duties for targeted monitoring/harassment while coordinating with the neighbors and residents in the same complex or local area.
Thank you for your attention. I am available to provide additional documentation and to identify exact gate locations and relevant dates/times from the attached log.
Sincerely,
Kevin Perelman
These are Gangstalking/Gas Lighting operations to setup, frame, and ERADICATE at all costs, now going on 49 years with WORLDWIDE support due to the LAPD worldwide DEFAMATION of CHARACTER and Fear Mongering the masses to KILL or ERADICATE for them
Daily Worldwide Provocations to try to create reactions, to COLLECT to try to create the illusion of INSTABILITY out of HATE. Anything that has to do with a VOICE, and SPEAKING OUT in self defense is met with even more RETALIATION then the ongoing WORLDWIDE mobbings to execute. Dog attacker with LAPD trained K-9 “You had better accept what’s going on or it will get a lot worse for you” with Van Nuys Court House and PAID OFF Judicial Employee’s, Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Attornies. To make 5 year olds, who are now 54 disapear with MENTAL ILLNESS or CRIMINAL cover up labeling
Apparently, they don’t believe that “All Lives Matter” Either!
Some of these DEATH THREATS to me “No relaxing for you nigger” and Anti-Semetic Hatred against the Jewish Community because I kissed a black girl when I was 8 years old in 1980. Doesn’t make much sense but it’s happening and with the Perelman Family behind the original HATE starting the forest fire with PAID OFF Police, Security Companies, Judicial Employees and Judges even Defense Attornies.
Worldwide ONE SIDED arguments to block any aspect of TRUTH by the JUDICIAL SYSTEM with their 49 year HATE mobs
http://www.KevinPerelmanTarget.com
Leave a Reply