The psychological warfare being directed at me, Kevin Perelman, is not random harassment, misunderstanding, ordinary conflict, or isolated misconduct. It is an ongoing, highly strategic, premeditated campaign designed to remove a person from society without having to openly admit that removal is the goal.
In my case, this begins around 1977, when I was approximately five years old. That point matters because the entire operation is built on the exploitation of imperfection. A five-year-old child shows shyness or anxiety, and instead of treating it as ordinary childhood fear, stress, sensitivity, or development, the people around him exploit it. They take a tiny human imperfection and turn it into a lifelong narrative. They do not help the child. They study the vulnerability. They preserve it. They exploit it, they weaponize it.
That is the core tactic: find the smallest flaw, exaggerate it, attach a label to it, and then use that label to justify escalating abuse.
A child has anxiety.
A child is too shy to talk to a girl.
A teenager pulls a few eyebrow hairs under stress.
A person leaves a Coke can on a bench.
A person goes on a date and it does not work out.
A person asks why strange things are happening around him in 2001 to his friend and business partner since 14 met with Judicial Death threats and Worldwide Support to eradicate at all costs.
In normal life, imperfection has a natural ending. If a man goes on a date with a woman and it does not work out, both people move on. Maybe someone was tired. Maybe someone yawned. Maybe the chemistry was not there. Maybe one person was hypersensitive. In a normal society, that becomes nothing more than an ordinary failed date.
But in my case, ordinary imperfections are not allowed to end naturally. They are archived, exaggerated, broadcast, and weaponized. Worldwide groups and mass community circles are told, again and again, “Look what he did now,” until a harmless or minor event becomes part of a manufactured record. A failed date becomes a character attack. A yawn becomes “he is rude,” “he harasses women,” or “he is a womanizer.” A small mistake becomes another entry in a global laundry list of fiction.
That is defamation of character by design.
The purpose is not to understand what happened. The purpose is to build a permanent archive of distorted events, stripped of context, that can be used as a weapon. Each little imperfection is preserved, inflated, and connected to the next one, creating the illusion of a pattern where no honest pattern exists.
That shows premeditation, motive, and intent from day one. The goal is not to let ordinary human situations fizzle out. The goal is to exploit each minor imperfection, provoke more reactions, and then add those reactions to the same fictional archive. Instead of saying, “It just didn’t work out,” or “That was a normal human mistake,” the system escalates. It uses the smallest moments to justify bigger and bigger attacks.
That is the difference between normal life and an organized campaign. Normal people move on. This system collects, distorts, broadcasts, and weaponizes.
The system does not pour water on the fire. It pours gasoline on it and then blames the target for the flames.
That is the brilliance of the tactic — not moral brilliance, but criminal brilliance. It is detailed, patient, layered, and engineered so that every part of the system protects every other part. Family members, community members, police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, psychiatric labels, public rumors, internet-based harassment, and government power all function together to create one manufactured conclusion: that the target is the problem and society is justified in removing him.
This is what makes the tactic so dangerous. It does not simply attack a person directly. It first builds a false identity around the person. It creates a label. It repeats the label. It provokes the target. It watches for reactions. It strips away context. It converts normal self-defense into alleged instability. Then the government, police, courts, and psychology community point to the artificially created pressure and call it evidence.
The Perelman family, police, government actors, and psychology community pretend they do not understand the difference between calming a situation and escalating it. But they do understand. Everyone understands that you do not pour gasoline on a fire to put it out. You pour water on it. When people repeatedly choose gasoline, year after year, decade after decade, the conclusion is obvious: they are not trying to put the fire out. They are trying to make it bigger.
The strategy is not accidental. It is too consistent, too repetitive, too coordinated, and too useful to the people benefiting from it. The entire structure operates like a social and legal trap: manufacture a psychiatric or criminal image, isolate the person, block his ability to defend himself, and then use the blocked defense as further proof that he does not belong in society.
In my case, what begins in 1977 does not remain in the past. It continues through the present, through ongoing legal abuse, police misconduct, psychiatric labeling, courtroom manipulation, public gaslighting, and political exploitation under systems like Governor Gavin Newsom’s CARE Act. The goal remains the same: to make me look dangerous, unstable, defective, or socially unacceptable so that removing me from society appears justified.
The true genius of the operation is that it disguises destruction as concern. It disguises stalking as public safety. It disguises coercion as treatment. It disguises political profit as compassion. It disguises legal corruption as procedure. It disguises hate as social order.
The dated events belong to history, but the machinery is current. What happened in the past explains the pattern; what is happening now shows the pattern is still expanding. Lawyers are refusing meaningful defense. Prosecutors are manufacturing narratives. Judges are allowing misconduct. Police are escalating labels. The psychology community is being used as a weapon. Government policy is moving backward toward forced control. The system is not correcting itself. It is expanding.
A Life Defined by Relentless Orchestration
From early childhood, the pattern is to take ordinary human behavior and twist it into something sinister. If I showed anxiety, it was treated as a defect. If I reacted to stress, it was treated as proof that I was unstable. Around age 12, when I had a nervous habit involving eyebrow pulling — something that could be described as trichotillomania or stress-related hair pulling — that too was treated not as a minor stress response, but as a weaponized label.
In today’s world, people commonly discuss ADHD, anxiety, OCD, trauma, depression, stress habits, and all kinds of manageable psychological or behavioral conditions. None of those things justify stripping a person of rights. None justify stalking someone, framing someone, provoking someone, or trying to lock someone away. But in my case, even the smallest sign of stress was treated as though it were a life sentence.
The message seemed to be: if your name is Kevin Perelman, even ordinary childhood anxiety or a nervous habit can be turned into a reason to destroy your life.
This is never about help. If it were about help, then every attempt I make to live a healthy, productive life would be welcomed. Instead, the opposite happens. The more I try to be healthy, stable, productive, creative, independent, and socially normal, the angrier my family, police, government actors, parts of the psychology community, and mass harassment groups become. That fact alone reveals the motive. People who genuinely want someone healthy do not become enraged when that person improves. People do not try to sabotage another person’s health unless their goal is harm.
One of the nonstop examples from my adolescence probably around the age of 14, still going on today, almost daily shows the level of planning and symbolic manipulation involved.
At age 14, I was taken on a Bahama cruise with Ron Perelman, Jason Perelman my father and brother, with Jason’s friend Darren Moselle. During that cruise, Jason Perelman and Darren Moselle encouraged me to drink as many alcohol shots as possible with them at the bars on the cruise ship — specifically Kamikazes and B-52s. Those names matter. They were not random drinks. They are references tied to war, airplanes, bombing, and World War II imagery. At the same time, Jason Perelman bought a Kershaw pocketknife, handed it to me, and said, “I bought you a knife.” Because he wanted the knife of me to make me look paranoid, with their schizophrenia tactics while trying to invoke reactions to create the illusion of a violent paranoid schitzofrenic.
The setup and frame job were not simply about getting a teenager drunk. They were about creating an image: Kevin Perelman, with a last name sounding like “Pearl Harbor,” drinking Kamikazes and B-52s, being handed a knife, and then being provoked into looking belligerent or dangerous. The attempt was to connect my identity to war symbolism, violence, and supposed mental illness — as though I were conforming to media or historical references in a schizophrenic or delusional way.
Ironically, this also connects to Ron Perelman, my father, taking us to see Wizards by Ralph Bakshi. In that film, Nazi imagery is projected into the sky as part of a good-versus-evil narrative involving wizard brothers and a mutant war. The evil brother, Blackwolf, uses projected Nazi imagery as a weapon against what is left of humanity. At the same time, Jason was hosting his bulletin board service, The Warriors Castle, using 56K dial-up modems and an Atari 800 computer.
That is the kind of manipulation I am talking about. It is not simply one event. It is a pattern of staging, symbolism, provocation, and narrative creation.
Small, ordinary acts are treated the same way. If I leave a Coke can on a park bench, it can be turned into “he is a litterer” or “he does not respect society.” If I yawn on a date because I am tired, it can be turned into “he harasses women,” “he is rude,” or “he is a womanizer.” If I visit a website, send an email, or say something in a conversation, people can later play hinting games — implying they know private details — to destabilize me and force a reaction.
The goal is always the same: take something minor, strip it of context, exaggerate it, broadcast it, then use the public reaction to justify more harassment.
The Dehumanization of the Target
The deeper issue is dehumanization. I am not treated as a person with rights, dignity, emotions, or legal protections. I am treated like an object, a slave, a piece of property, or a disposable target. The campaign against me is not based on law and order. It is based on hierarchy: the idea that Kevin Perelman is somehow inferior, and therefore ordinary laws do not apply when people harm him.
That is why I describe this as hatred. It is not just harassment. It is not just defamation. It is not just legal misconduct. It is a worldview in which one person can be declared beneath the protection of the law, and then everyone else is allowed to participate in his destruction.
That is how atrocities begin. First, a person is labeled. Then the label becomes more important than the person. Then the person’s words no longer matter. Then the person’s rights no longer matter. Then harm against that person becomes justified as “help,” “safety,” “public concern,” or “mental health intervention.”
Historical Playbooks: Gestapo, Stasi, COINTELPRO, NSA, and Vault 7
The tactics being used against me do not come from nowhere. They resemble methods used by repressive states and intelligence operations throughout history.
The Gestapo used informants, dossiers, suspicion, rumor, and fear to isolate and destroy people. The target did not need to commit a real crime. The accusation itself became enough to justify persecution.
The Stasi in East Germany developed psychological warfare tactics known as Zersetzung, or decomposition. The goal was not always to arrest someone immediately. It was to break the target psychologically, socially, professionally, and emotionally. Friends, neighbors, employers, institutions, and officials could be used to make daily life unbearable while maintaining plausible deniability.
COINTELPRO, conducted by the FBI, showed that even in the United States, government agencies have used surveillance, infiltration, false narratives, disruption, and character assassination against citizens and political groups. The public-facing justification was security. The real-world effect was often the destruction of civil rights, dissent, and reputation.
The NSA, or National Security Agency, is critical to this discussion because mass surveillance creates the technical backbone for this kind of abuse. Once communications, browsing, metadata, associations, and private activity can be monitored or inferred, the information can be weaponized. It can be used to intimidate, manipulate, hint, smear, or provoke. The public is told surveillance is for national security, but surveillance systems can become the problem when they are turned against citizens.
Vault 7, involving CIA cyber capabilities revealed to the public, demonstrated the modern scale of digital intrusion and covert technological power. The significance is not merely that tools exist. The significance is that once such tools exist, the public must ask how they can be abused, who controls them, and what happens when secrecy becomes a shield for misconduct.
The common thread is always the same: a system claims to protect society while quietly building tools to monitor, manipulate, discredit, and destroy selected targets.
That is why these historical comparisons matter. They show that psychological destruction, surveillance, rumor campaigns, and institutional cover stories are not imaginary concepts. They are known tools of power.
Van Nuys Courthouse, LAPD, and the Courtroom as a Weapon
In my experience, the Van Nuys Courthouse and the Los Angeles Police Department are central to this campaign. What should be a justice system functions as a machine for manufacturing guilt.
Prosecutors, including Lisa Orbelli in the 2023 case, rely on hearsay, emotional claims, and newly invented accusations rather than evidence. Claims are made that I am following people home, taking pictures, or trying to incite violence — yet Lead Officer Charles Sean did not personally witness these things. Instead of courtroom procedure, evidence, investigation, and cross-examination, these claims are pushed verbally as coercive narratives to judges.
That is not justice. That is narrative manufacturing.
The pattern is to pad the case with newer and newer accusations, often appearing during trial or proceedings, without proper investigation or substantiation. The goal is to overwhelm the record with volume: if enough accusations are thrown into the air, the court begins to treat the smoke as fire.
This is especially dangerous when the defense attorney refuses to do the job of defense.
Defense attorneys are supposed to speak on behalf of the accused. They are supposed to cross-examine witnesses, expose motive, reveal bias, impeach false testimony, challenge hearsay, and protect the defendant’s constitutional rights. In a case involving alleged provocation, harassment, and staged reactions, the defense attorney’s job is even more important: to show intent, malice, premeditation, and motive to instigate.
But in my cases, I allege that defense attorneys are refusing to defend me at all costs.
Jonathan Franklin allegedly stated in 2013, “I’m not going to say anything bad about a police officer,” while still taking money and failing to provide a fair defense. That statement, if accurately remembered, summarizes the entire failure: a defense attorney who refuses to challenge police misconduct is not defending the client. He is protecting the system.
Shep Zeberman allegedly told me, in substance, that we could “get out of this” because he knew the appropriate psychology people and could get the right labels for me. That is not a defense strategy. That is a path toward psychiatric destruction. Instead of proving innocence or exposing misconduct, the attorney’s solution was to move me toward the very labeling system being weaponized against me.
In three cases, I allege that defense attorneys refuse to cross-examine properly, refuse to impeach witnesses, refuse to file meaningful motions, refuse to challenge false police reports, and refuse to build a real defense.
Judges, including Judge Dohey at Van Nuys Courthouse, allow these abuses to continue. If judges know that prosecutors are relying on hearsay, that police are fabricating or exaggerating, and that defense attorneys are refusing to defend, then the judge is no longer a neutral referee. The judge becomes part of the machinery.
I also allege that court personnel and related individuals are part of the intimidation environment, including Debbie Woolman, a court reporter who allegedly purchased property adjoining my wall but did not live there. In the context of everything else, even acts like this appear less like coincidence and more like psychological pressure.
Appeals, Ineffective Assistance, and the Protection of Judicial Corruption
The appellate process continues the same pattern. The appeal does not meaningfully bring in the core issue: intent, malice, judicial corruption, prosecutorial misconduct, police fabrication, and the refusal of defense attorneys to expose any of it. Instead, the system narrows the case, sanitizes it, and avoids the real misconduct that makes the trial unfair in the first place.
A trial cannot be fair when defense counsel refuses, at all costs, to expose judicial corruption, police misconduct, prosecutorial fabrication, and the motives behind the accusations. That is ineffective assistance of counsel in its most damaging form. It is not merely a missed objection or a weak strategy. It is the abandonment of the central defense.
When the defense refuses to show that witnesses have motive, intent, malice, and a reason to provoke or frame the defendant, the jury never sees the real case. When the defense refuses to cross-examine witnesses on corruption, bias, fabrication, and coordinated misconduct, the trial becomes theater. The prosecution presents a manufactured story, the defense refuses to dismantle it, and the judge allows the false structure to stand.
On appeal, the same concealment continues. The appellate process avoids the judicial corruption itself, even though exposing corruption is the only way to strengthen the legal system. Hiding corruption does not protect the courts. It weakens them. It allows judges, prosecutors, police officers, and attorneys to operate on private agendas instead of law and order.
If appellate judges and appellate attorneys refuse to confront the corruption beneath the conviction, they are not preserving justice. They are preserving the machinery that produced the injustice. They are protecting the appearance of the system while sacrificing the integrity of the system.
A functioning appellate court should expose legal rot so the courts can correct themselves. Instead, the process is being used to bury the rot, protect the trial court, and prevent accountability. That is why the appeal becomes part of the same campaign: no self-defense, no transparency, no accountability, and no admission that the original trial was structurally unfair.
The result is not law. It is damage control for judicial misconduct.
Weaponizing Psychiatry and Labels
The campaign depends on psychiatric labeling because psychiatric labels can be used to bypass ordinary legal and moral safeguards. If a person is accused of a crime, evidence is supposed to matter. But if a person is labeled “mentally ill,” suddenly officials can pretend coercion is care.
That is the danger.
The system first creates the pressure, then labels the reaction. It stalks, provokes, isolates, humiliates, and threatens — then, if the target reacts, the reaction is called proof of illness. That is not diagnosis. That is entrapment.
If officials have to stalk someone, provoke someone, frame someone, and manipulate someone to make that person appear mentally ill, then they already know the label is false or insufficient. A truly dangerous person does not require a global theater production to appear dangerous. The fact that the appearance has to be manufactured proves the fraud.
This is where the legal history becomes extremely important.
The Suppression of Self-Defense: Turning Questions Into “Symptoms”
One of the most brilliant and malicious features of this operation is the suppression of every form of self-defense — even verbal self-defense. The strategy is not only to harm the target, but to make it impossible for the target to describe the harm without the description itself being twisted into alleged evidence of mental illness, paranoia, hostility, or violence.
That is the calculated genius of gaslighting. The perpetrators create the conditions, hide the source, provoke the reactions, violate privacy, threaten the target, and then wait for the inevitable moment when the target begins asking questions. The moment the target says, “Something is wrong,” the system turns around and says, “See, he is paranoid.”
That is not an accident. That is the intended destination.
In my case — and probably in many cases like this — the pressure is pushed nonstop and daily, with groups locally and worldwide attempting to provoke reactions, fear, anger, and ultimately violence. But based on the entire pattern, they know the target is not violent. That is the point. If the target were naturally violent, they would not need decades of gaslighting, stalking, privacy violations, staged provocations, false accusations, and social pressure to create the appearance of violence.
They know the target is not violent.
They want the target to look violent.
That distinction exposes the agenda.
Around 2001, after decades of daily provocations, privacy violations, strange social manipulation, and computer-related intrusions designed to invoke reactions that had been exponentially growing since 1977, I began to recognize that something larger was happening. I began asking my friend and business partner, Michael Patrick Huntley, what exactly was going on. Instead of concern, honesty, or reassurance, I was met with threats and intimidation. The responses included statements and messages in substance such as: “world of paranoia,” “have a good life now,” “we are using the judicial system against you,” and “you better live a careful life.”
These were not the responses of a friend concerned about confusion or distress. They were the responses of someone participating in coercion.
Around that same period, Michael Patrick Huntley, Ron Perelman, my father, and LAPD-connected actors were involved in trying to set me up with Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse, Officer Jenson, Detective Shapiro, Detective Angela Stewart, and many others. Most importantly, another friend I had known since I was 14 years old, Paul Humphrey, also became heavily involved in these operations. Around the same time Michael Patrick Huntley latched onto me and began stalking me, Paul Humphrey was also involved. In 1998, Paul worked for LAPD and later used security-company resources to stalk me.
After my family, along with Michael Patrick Huntley, lured me back from the University of Colorado by pitching an internet hosting provider Huntley wanted to start called Signet-e Services, the setup, as I understood it, involved trying to get me to take a trash bag full of LAPD-confiscated marijuana in order to create the appearance that I was a drug dealer. At the same time, my father was trying to create the appearance that I had guns or weapons in my house in order to make me look dangerous.
As my family was luring me back from Colorado, Ron Perelman, my father, was marrying a Cuban woman he had met named Janet Nordet. She went from a “Suzy Homemaker” image into what appeared to be paranoia. Eventually, he had a child with her, and she later ended up in jail for three years. I was told it was for solicitation to commit murder. Ironically, the same patterns that were used against her appear to have been used against me by my own father and his office employees, following an almost identical template.
While I cannot vouch for her actions, I can vouch for my own. The pattern suggests that my father may have married her, in part, to pin his narratives on me — accusing me of doing things to her in order to cover up what he was doing to her and to me. The timing was too perfect: he called me and told me I should move back, offering to let me live in his house for a year. At the same time, he was trying to rile me up against his wife by taking me out to dinner every Sunday night, pretending it was about bonding with his child.
The cruelty of the tactic is that it was presented under the language of help. It was framed as, “I want to help you have a good life,” while every meaningful part of my life — my name, reputation, relationships, privacy, business, credibility, and standing in society — was being damaged or destroyed worldwide.
That is not help. That is a setup.
It is the same strategy again and again: create the appearance of danger, create the appearance of criminality, create the appearance of instability, and then use the manufactured appearance to justify state intervention. The trash bag of LAPD-confiscated marijuana setup, involving Mike Huntley and Rodie Morales, while they were taking me to strip clubs across Los Angeles, Colorado, and Oregon, was part of creating the image of an obsessed drug dealer. At the same time, I allege they were paying off strippers and porn stars to stalk me, cry wolf, and play the victim.
The drug narrative would create the image of an obsessed drug dealer. The gun and weapon narrative would create the image of a dangerous person. The psychiatric labeling would create the image of someone who should not be believed. Together, the combined narrative becomes a pretext to remove someone from society.
This reflects an extreme amount of hatred from the Perelman family against their own child — beginning when I was five years old and obsessively growing over 49 years.
Around the same time, my own mother angrily told me to “go to a psychiatrist and tell them everything,” while having a prepared list of phone numbers ready to give me at the exact moment I began realizing something was wrong. That detail matters because it shows preparation. It was not spontaneous concern. It appeared staged for the moment I reached the point they had been pushing me toward.
This is how the trap works. If I say, “Leave me alone,” they can call it hostility. If I walk away from any of the nonstop situations, they call it paranoia, If I say, “You people are sick,” or react to any aspect of it, on any level, they will call it instability. If I say, “Why are you doing this?” they can call it paranoia. If I describe the pattern, they can claim I am seeing things that are not there. If I give them video of direct or indirect proof of provokings, death threats, physical attacks, they will refuse to look or acknowledge it. Every normal response to abuse is converted into a psychiatric talking point no matter how blatantly obvious the situation is. LAPD even refused to acknowledge of take video of a girl trying to slice me up with a knife. They also took video of a person who intentionally unleashed a dog which could attack on que that they had shred my leg, stating the event never happened. Even though the video of a lot of this is on youtube.com or the internet for the world to see due to the fact they won’t write any police reports on my behalf on any level. Or at least the ones they do, they bury and modularize, so it is never looked at as ongoing daily attacks and situations of setups and frame jobs, and defamation of character.
That is the brilliance of suppressing self-defense. The target is abused with attacks until he asks questions, and then the questions are treated as symptoms.
The operation is premeditated, calculated, and designed to push the target to a specific psychological checkpoint: the moment of recognition. The perpetrators know that after enough gaslighting, privacy violations, threats, staged evidence, and staged provocations, any rational person will eventually begin asking what is happening. That moment is then weaponized. It becomes the scripted “proof” they were waiting for.
This is especially important because the campaign does not begin with the internet. It begins around 1977, long before ordinary public internet use. By the time the internet becomes publicly available in the 1990s, the underlying campaign is already decades old. The internet does not create the operation; it expands it. It gives the operation speed, reach, coordination, and the ability to broadcast defamatory narratives worldwide.
By 2001, when I begin to recognize the pattern and ask questions, the system has a new tool: internet-based communication. Suddenly, the act of asking questions can be broadcast and distorted instantly. Worldwide groups can be told, “He is crazy,” “He is paranoid,” “He thinks people are after him,” “He has guns,” “He is dangerous,” “He is involved with drugs,” or “He needs to be locked away.” But that does not happen by itself. Someone has to spread that narrative. Someone has to broadcast it. Someone has to coordinate the interpretation before the public ever hears my side. However when Jason Perelman wanted me to see the Internet in 1994, this is really when the defamation of character, and worldwide attacks, setups, frame jobs really got bad while I was at University of Colorado, Teachers, Classmates, Social Groups off of Internet Related Chat. It was always going on, all the way down to around 5 years old. And some of Jason Perelman’s friends he introduced me to, from University of Colorado, that he was friends with before he graduated, like Jason Baum, and Mike Wexler.
That is why the psychiatric label is fraudulent. It is not arising naturally from reality. It is being manufactured through fictional defamation of character. A false narrative is created, repeated, and distributed until people react to the narrative instead of the person. Example, Anita Perelman claims I hit the neighbor kid Josh Burnum in the head with a golf club, right around the time the movie Happy Gilmore came out when I was 16. However it wasn’t directed stated this way. She simply asked me if I had hit Josh Burnum in the head with a Golf Club to try to invoke a reaction, and say I conform to media. Obviously, this event never happened like all the other countless events.
The same pattern appears in the alleged attempts to plant or push drugs and weapons into the narrative around me. Whether through staged evidence, threats, privacy violations, psychological pressure, or LAPD-connected setups, the goal is the same: create a situation where I either remain silent and defenseless or speak up and get labeled. Both situations involve labeling to remove from society.
That is not concern,
That is not mental health.
That is not law enforcement.
That is not public safety.
That is a strategic operation.
That has nothing to do with wanting the person to have a good life, it is about what the obsessed psychotic wants for themselves.
The target is placed in an impossible position. If he says nothing, the abuse continues. If he speaks, his words are turned into evidence against him. If he asks for help, he is directed toward psychiatry. If he refuses the label, that refusal becomes part of the label. If he identifies the abuse, he is accused of paranoia or other changing psychological and criminal labels. If he identifies the people involved, he is accused of delusion.
This is why the operation is so dangerous. It does not merely attack the body, reputation, or legal status of the target. It attacks the target’s ability to explain reality with refusal to communicate to the target and victim such as myself what is even going on. Why they are so angry.
2001 at Signet-e Services with Michael Patrick Huntley is a perfect defining point of 50 years of my life. Mass angry mobs of anonymous strangers worldwide are mad at me since I was 5 years old, lashing out in anger and rage, but I’m not allowed to know what’s going on or why. While told I need to give coerce false confessions which are going to reinforce their lies and agenda to eradicate at all costs. Then stating well, he’s a violent paranoid schizophrenic, it’s not his fault, and we needed to help him by removing him from society. Or weird random statements that it’s because he’s weird or misunderstood. However when it comes to direct reasoning, on any of these vague statements, no one is actually capable of a factual argument based on specifics. Which explains why these changing statements are mimicked from anonymous stranger to stranger worldwide who I’ve never met. And refuse to admit they know of me while lashing out in anger and rage at me by design.
At its core, this is about hatred, profit, and control. The goal is not truth. The goal is not safety. The goal is not treatment. The goal is to push someone to the point of recognition, punish them for recognizing it, and then use the punishment to justify a larger political and financial machine.
It is a system of fictional defamation designed to let perpetrators get what they want while making the victim’s self-defense look like the problem.
That is the cruelty.
That is the strategy.
That is the trap.
I was born in 1972 on Castle Airforce base in Merced California
The Legal Backdrop: O’Connor, Roulet, Susan T., Guerrero, and Wendland
In O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a state cannot constitutionally confine a person merely because of mental illness if that person is not dangerous and can survive safely in freedom. This case matters because it marked a movement away from arbitrary confinement based on empty labels.
The principle was simple: the government cannot lock someone away simply because officials, family members, neighbors, or institutions dislike them or consider them abnormal, weird, different, crazy, are afraid of them, misunderstood.
California also moved in a more rights-protective direction. In Conservatorship of Roulet (1979), the California Supreme Court strengthened due process protections in conservatorship proceedings. The state could not simply remove a person’s liberty based on weak proof or vague claims.
Later California cases, including Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland, further emphasized autonomy, evidentiary standards, and limits on forced control. These cases matter because they show a legal movement toward protecting people who are not violent, not dangerous, and not properly subject to confinement based on empty labels or even mental illness.
That legal movement represents progress. It recognizes that psychiatric labels can be abused. It recognizes that the state must be restrained. It recognizes that liberty cannot be destroyed by rumor, family pressure, police opinion, or courtroom convenience.
And that a Mental Illness labels can be synonyms with racial bigotry. Labeling others as different, and punishing for it over the label itself. The person is not being attacked and punished because they did anything wrong, they are being attacked and punished for the mere label put on them. Just like the color of someone’s skin.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s direction in California moves backward.
Newsom, the CARE Act, and California’s Regression
Governor Newsom’s CARE Act is not merely a past policy decision. It is an active and expanding system. It is currently pushing California backward from the due-process protections created by cases like O’Connor v. Donaldson, Conservatorship of Roulet, Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland. Instead of moving toward liberty, evidence, rehabilitation, and autonomy, California is moving toward broader state control, psychiatric labeling, court-ordered treatment, institutional supervision, and institutional profit.
The danger is not historical. It is happening now, and it is getting worse.
The CARE Act is presented as compassion. It is marketed as mental health reform, public safety, and help for vulnerable people. But in the wrong hands, it becomes a Trojan horse: a way to force people into court-controlled treatment pipelines based on labels, allegations, and state power.
The concern is not merely theoretical. In my case, the same machinery already exists: police labeling, prosecutorial exaggeration, defense attorney refusal, judicial cooperation, and public rumor campaigns. CARE Act-style systems give those same actors another pathway to achieve what they cannot prove through ordinary law.
Instead of proving a crime, they can imply illness.
Instead of proving danger, they can claim concern.
Instead of offering evidence, they can offer labels.
Instead of due process, they can offer “help.”
That is why Newsom’s direction is so dangerous. It reverses the humanity of O’Connor, Roulet, and other rights-protective cases. It moves back toward a world where the state can use psychiatric language to remove inconvenient people from society.
This pattern also proves something larger: California’s current political direction does not truly respect the legal principles behind the Supreme Court and California cases that restrict arbitrary psychiatric confinement. Those cases protect people who are not violent, not dangerous, and not properly subject to confinement based on empty labels. Newsom’s California moves in the opposite direction by creating new ways to pressure, label, process, and control people through courts and mental-health systems.
That reinforces the reason officials need to create the appearance of violence. If the target is not violent, then the state lacks the moral and legal justification to remove him. So the system manufactures danger. It creates staged narratives involving weapons, drugs, threats, instability, paranoia, schizophrenia, obsession, trauma, or public fear. It does this to bypass law and order and reach the desired result anyway.
That is not justice.
That is not treatment.
That is not public safety.
That is the crime underneath all the other crimes: manufacturing the justification to erase a person from society.
Just like Adolf Hitler himself
Why would California de-evolve in humanity unless there is another motive?
The obvious motives are power, money, political gain, institutional expansion, and control.
In my view, Newsom’s policies are not merely about helping people. They are about building a political kingdom of control. Good people, innocent people, poor people, traumatized people, disliked people, and scapegoated people can be sacrificed so politicians can claim they are solving homelessness, crime, public disorder, or mental illness.
That is not compassion. That is public relations wrapped around coercion.
Profit Over People: California Jails, Inmate Costs, and the Incentive to Cage
The financial incentive is enormous. California spends roughly around $133,000 per inmate per year. Even if the exact number varies by year or category, the point is the same: incarceration is a massive financial system. When 80 people are housed in one dorm, the amount of money attached to those bodies is staggering.
With that much money, California could provide real rehabilitation. It could teach web design, coding, electrical work, plumbing, automotive repair, construction, welding, digital media, business skills, accounting, logistics, and countless other trades. It could create structured environments where people leave jail or prison with actual tools to live lawful, productive lives.
Instead, the system provides little that is meaningful.
There are a few rehabilitation programs, but many are more appearance than substance. Some programs may shorten a sentence or create the impression of reform by offering basic GED-style education. But a GED in a hostile dorm environment is not the same as serious education. It does not provide hands-on trade skills. It does not build a career. It does not create dignity. It does not meaningfully prepare people to support themselves and give the means to those who thought they never had the opportunity to learn.
Real rehabilitation would require an environment designed for learning.
The current system is designed for containment.
Real rehabilitation would give people tools.
The current system gives people labels.
Real rehabilitation would reduce recidivism.
The current system profits when people come back.
That is the contradiction. If the state truly wanted fewer people in jail, it would invest heavily in skills, education, housing stability, mental health support, and reentry. Instead, the incentives point the other way. Keep people trapped. Keep people unskilled. Keep people labeled. Keep people cycling through courts, jails, probation, treatment programs, and institutional supervision.
Police then have an incentive to pad charges. A minor event can be inflated into something far more serious. A small infraction can become a narrative of danger. A person who jaywalks, argues, reacts, or appears inconvenient can be written into a much larger story. The longer the person is held, the more money flows through the system. I have witnessed it over and over. To others as well as with myself.
That is why I view the CARE Act, mental illness labeling, police scanner chatter, courtroom hearsay, and incarceration policy as part of the same structure. They are all packaged as safety or help, just as NSA surveillance is packaged as national security, COINTELPRO was packaged as protection, and Vault 7-style cyber power is packaged as intelligence capability.
The label says help.
The function is control.
The result is profit.
The Sham of Rehabilitation
California’s so-called rehabilitation programs reveal the fraud. If California can spend roughly six figures per inmate per year, there is no excuse for failing to teach real skills. For that amount of money, inmates could receive structured education, practical training, apprenticeships, technology access, and reentry support.
Instead, many are pushed deeper down the hole.
The system does not appear to want people to become healthy and independent. It appears to want them dependent, broken, labeled, and profitable. A person who learns a trade, gets a job, supports a family, builds a business, or becomes stable is no longer useful to the incarceration economy. A person who fails, relapses, violates probation, or gets arrested again is financially useful.
That is the moral inversion. The state claims to rehabilitate while benefiting from failure.
Legal and Ethical Violations against me
The conduct I describe implicates numerous legal and constitutional protections.
Relevant federal laws include:
18 U.S.C. § 241 — conspiracy against rights.
18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law.
Potentially relevant California laws include:
California Penal Code § 646.9 — stalking.
California Penal Code § 422 — criminal threats.
California Penal Code § 182 — criminal conspiracy.
California Civil Code § 52.1, the Bane Act — interference with rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion.
Attorney conduct may implicate:
California Business and Professions Code § 6068 — duties of attorneys.
California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1 — competence.
Rule 1.3 — diligence.
Constitutional protections implicated include:
The First Amendment, protecting speech and expression.
The Fourth Amendment, protecting privacy and security against unreasonable intrusion.
The Sixth Amendment, protecting the right to counsel and a fair trial.
The Fourteenth Amendment, protecting due process and equal protection.
The overall picture is not law and order. It is law being inverted into a weapon.
The Role of Hate, Power, and Scapegoating
At the root of this campaign is hate. The message is that Kevin Perelman is inferior and therefore does not deserve the protection of law. That is why people can justify stalking, lying, provoking, gaslighting, labeling, and courtroom misconduct. They do not see the target as a full citizen.
This is also about scapegoating. A political system can use a target like me as an example. It can manufacture a crisis, create a label, claim intervention is necessary, and then use that story to justify new laws, new budgets, new powers, and new political capital.
In that sense, my life becomes a political tool. Destroy Kevin Perelman, make him look crazy or like it’s his personality or like it’s his fault, claim the system works, then use the manufactured example to justify CARE Act expansion, mental health courts, forced treatment, more funding, more police power, more judicial power, and more institutional control.
That is why this is bigger than one person. My case exposes a model.
Punishing Health and Productivity
One of the strongest proofs of malicious intent is the reaction to my attempts to improve. If I were truly the problem, then my becoming healthier, calmer, more productive, and more independent should reduce concern. But the opposite happens.
The more I try to live like everyone else, the more anger I see from family members, police, government actors, psychological authorities, and organized harassment groups. That means they are not responding to danger. They are responding to the failure of their narrative.
A healthy Kevin Perelman disproves the label.
A productive Kevin Perelman disproves the story.
A stable Kevin Perelman threatens the entire operation.
That is why they need provocation. They need reaction. They need stress. They need isolation. They need humiliation. They need to make life unlivable, then point to the effects of that abuse as proof that the abuse is justified.
This is circular cruelty.
Conclusion: The Only Real Defense Is Exposure
The dark genius of this system is its ability to make abuse look like concern. It makes surveillance look like safety. It makes coercion look like care. It makes legal abandonment look like procedure. It makes psychiatric labeling look like science. It makes profit look like rehabilitation. It makes hate look like public order.
But once the pattern is visible, the disguise begins to fail.
If the state has to provoke a person to make him look unstable, then the state has no real case.
If police have to fabricate or exaggerate, then the evidence is not there.
If prosecutors have to rely on hearsay and emotional coercion, then the facts are weak.
If defense attorneys refuse to defend, then the trial is not fair.
If judges ignore the misconduct, then the court is not neutral.
If mental health laws are used to bypass due process, then they are not compassion.
If incarceration money is not reinvested into real rehabilitation, then the system is not trying to solve crime. It is feeding on it.
The legal progress represented by O’Connor v. Donaldson, Conservatorship of Roulet, Conservatorship of Susan T., Conservatorship of Guerrero, and Conservatorship of Wendland must not be reversed by modern political opportunism. Those cases recognize that labels are dangerous when combined with government power. They recognize that liberty matters. They recognize that due process matters. They recognize that a human being cannot be erased by accusation alone.
California now stands at a crossroads. It can continue moving toward dignity, evidence, rehabilitation, autonomy, and rights — or it can regress into a system where psychiatric labels, police narratives, court coercion, and political profit decide who gets to remain free.
My case is a warning.
When a society allows one person to be dehumanized, stalked, labeled, silenced, and financially exploited, it creates the machinery to do the same to anyone. Especially with a WORLDWIDE operation across 49 years to eradicate at all costs investing insane amounts of government dollars over lack of a few eyebrow hairs or some 5 year old anxiety.
The only real defense is exposure: sunlight, documentation, legal accountability, public awareness, and a refusal to let “help” become the mask worn by hate, profit, and control.
Is this the Government You want in the LAND OF THE FREE? To take away all the FREEDOMS?
Only you can make this world safe for your children
We the people for the people, And anyone who supports this what is going on, IS NOT AMERICAN