Relevance to Kevin Perelman’s 2017 Van Nuys Matter (7VW04099) and Illegal Arrests and Trials with community and federal hate mobs and police stalking operations

How to Read This Dossier

The central value of this material is not that every allegation is proved. It is that several independently documented facts intersect in a way that justifies targeted investigation of communications, database access, social-media activity, witness relationships, and prosecutorial knowledge surrounding the 2017 matter.

Label	Meaning
VERIFIED / OFFICIAL	Supported by an official government record, licensing record, or undisputed institutional record.
REPORTED / ALLEGED	Contained in a court filing, civil-rights complaint, or reputable/identified publication; not necessarily adjudicated as true.
CLIENT-SUPPLIED	Information stated by Kevin Perelman or contained in his materials; should be corroborated with primary records where possible.
OPEN QUESTION	A factual issue that the current public record does not resolve and that should be tested through records, discovery, testimony, or authentication.
NEGATIVE FINDING	A searched-for fact that was not located in the public record; absence of a hit is not proof the event never occurred.

Executive Summary

The strongest public evidence presently supports a narrower—and potentially more useful—investigative theory than a generalized accusation of conspiracy. Karine T. Philips was formally assigned as the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Neighborhood Prosecutor for LAPD Topanga Division by 2014 and publicly described her role as improving neighborhood “quality of life” and preventing public-safety problems. Sean Dinse was and remains publicly listed as a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. These roles placed them inside the same Topanga community-policing / quality-of-life enforcement structure.^[2]

Separately, private West Valley Facebook groups—principally “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley”—became the subject of a 2018 complaint to the California Attorney General and 2019 reporting by Knock LA, Los Angeles Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times. The materials described LAPD participation, individualized tracking of homeless people, circulation of personal information, and rhetoric advocating harassment or violence. Dinse was repeatedly identified as an active officer participant. A 2019 KTown for All investigation, preserved in a surviving reproduction and later cited by the ACLU of Southern California, also listed Deputy City Attorney Karine Philips among group members.^[7]

Most important to Kevin Perelman, the surviving reproduction of the 2018 Attorney General complaint describes an August 2017 Crimebusters post accusing “Mr. Perelman” of littering, displaying his belongings and automobile, and directing members to “notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate.” The same reproduced complaint appears to cross-reference that littering incident (Figure 12) to an allegation that Dinse responded to a member’s complaint by posting a screenshot from a law-enforcement database containing personal information (Figure 7). Because the original high-resolution appendix has not yet been authenticated in this research, counsel should treat the Figure 7/Figure 12 connection as a high-priority lead rather than a final factual conclusion.^[8]

Perelman states that the vehicle’s personalized plate read TARGETD and that the plate reflected what he regarded as preexisting targeting by Dinse and others; he rejects any inference that the plate itself created a legitimate basis to monitor him. Whatever the motivation for the plate, the legal and evidentiary question is what government personnel and private participants actually did. A personalized plate does not itself confer authority to circulate law-enforcement information, falsify evidence, organize harassment, or retaliate against protected speech.

The most independently documented example of Dinse using a mental-illness/addiction characterization toward a particular individual is Rex Schellenberg. Schellenberg filed a federal civil-rights action against Dinse and the City of Los Angeles in 2020. The Los Angeles Times reported allegations that Dinse publicized Schellenberg’s location so residents would call police, allegedly creating a “pretextual basis” to move him or seize property, and that Dinse had attributed Schellenberg’s housing loss to “drug addiction/mental illness.” Those allegations were not located as a final adjudicated misconduct finding, but they establish a concrete comparator for counsel to evaluate against Perelman’s evidence.^[12]

No public appellate decision or State Bar disciplinary record was located establishing prosecutorial misconduct by Philips. Her State Bar profile currently lists her license as Active and shows no public discipline entry. That negative finding should remain in any attorney-facing version of the dossier. The potentially significant question is case-specific: whether Philips knew of, participated in, received information from, or failed to disclose Topanga/Crimebusters activity bearing on Perelman’s 2017 prosecution.^[1]

The CARE Act / CARE Court does not provide a causal explanation for the 2017 case. Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1338 on September 14, 2022—five years after the events at issue—and Los Angeles County implemented CARE Court later. No evidence located links Philips personally to Newsom or the creation of CARE Court. Later City and County records show only an institutional, post-2022 relationship between local government, mental-health services, first responders, and CARE Court.^[17]

Key Findings at a Glance

Issue	Current Evidence	Strength	Next Step
Philips–Topanga assignment	Official records place Philips as Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor by 2014; she said so herself in 2015.	High	Obtain 2017 City Attorney assignment/case records.
Dinse–Topanga role	Current LAPD directory lists Dinse as Topanga SLO; contemporary reporting identifies him in Woodland Hills.	High	Obtain 2017 assignment and activity logs.
Crimebusters police involvement	Multiple reports and ACLU-cited materials document LAPD participation in private Facebook groups.	High / contextual	Authenticate screenshots and membership logs.
Philips in Crimebusters ecosystem	2019 KTown for All material, preserved by a mirror and cited by ACLU, lists Philips as a member.	Medium	Recover original KTown article/screenshots and Facebook member data.
Perelman post, Aug. 2017	Surviving complaint text describes “Mr. Perelman,” alleged littering, vehicle photos, and direction to notice his plate.	High lead; appendix needed	Recover original Figure 12.
Dinse database link	Surviving complaint text appears to cross-reference Dinse database screenshot (Fig. 7) to Perelman littering post (Fig. 12).	Potentially very high; not yet authenticated	Recover Figures 7/12 and audit/query logs.
Mental-health labeling comparator	Schellenberg suit/reporting alleges Dinse used “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization and location-sharing.	High as evidence of allegation; not adjudication	Obtain complaint/exhibits and disposition.
Philips misconduct history	No public discipline/appellate misconduct finding located.	Negative finding	Do not overstate; inspect trial-level and internal records.
CARE Act / Newsom	CARE Act enacted in 2022, so cannot explain 2017 events.	High	Keep separate unless later evidence specifically connects actors.

Chronology: Institutional Roles, Facebook Activity, Perelman Matter, and Later Corroborating Events

Date	Event	Evidence Type	Source
Dec. 10, 1996	Karine T. Philips admitted to the State Bar of California. Current public profile shows Active status and no listed public discipline.	Official	[1]
June 2014	Neighborhood Prosecutor assignment list identifies Karine Philips for Topanga Division; Tamar Galatzan is separately listed for Van Nuys/North Hollywood.	Official	[2]
2014	West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes identify Philips as the new Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to LAPD Topanga Area and record her presentation on Neighborhood Justice alternatives for low-level offenses.	Official	[5]
May 4, 2015	Philips publicly identifies herself as “your Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to the LAPD’s Topanga division” and describes a quality-of-life/public-safety mission.	Official / self-statement	[3]
2016	Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills is reported to have begun. Later investigations identify LAPD volunteers/officers among administrators and members.	Reported	[9]
2017	A homelessness-focused subgroup is reported to have been created; Dinse is reported as participating in Crimebusters-related activity.	Reported	[9]
July 12, 2017	CBS Los Angeles reports Dinse helping a homeless mother and daughter and using social media/community contacts to obtain assistance. This is relevant countervailing evidence.	Independent news	[15]
Aug. 2017	Surviving 2018 complaint text describes a Crimebusters post about “Mr. Perelman,” alleged littering, photos of belongings/car, and instruction to notice his license plate. The same reproduced complaint appears to link the littering complaint to a Dinse law-enforcement-database screenshot.	Complaint allegation / high-priority lead	[8]
2017	Perelman identifies Philips as prosecutor in Van Nuys case 7VW04099. This should be verified against certified docket/transcripts/case file.	Client-supplied	—
Aug. 1, 2018; updated Nov. 20, 2018	Coalition of homelessness/civil-rights organizations submits complaint to California Attorney General concerning the Facebook groups and government participation.	Advocacy complaint; provenance corroborated by ACLU	[7]
May–Aug. 2019	Los Angeles Times, Knock LA, KTown for All, and Los Angeles Magazine publish material about the groups, Dinse, anti-homeless rhetoric, tracking, and police participation. KTown-derived material lists Philips among group members.	Independent / advocacy reporting	[9]
Feb. 10, 2020	Rex Schellenberg files federal civil-rights lawsuit naming Dinse and City of Los Angeles.	Court docket	[13]
Feb. 11, 2020	Los Angeles Times reports Schellenberg allegations of location sharing, pretextual removal, towing, and Dinse’s “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization.	Independent news	[12]
Sept. 14, 2022	Governor Newsom signs SB 1338 / CARE Act. This postdates the 2017 case by five years.	Official	[17]
Jan. 10, 2023	Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda identifies Philips as City Attorney representative on park-hours issues alongside LAMC §41.18 discussion.	Official local record	[16]
Apr. 25, 2023	Los Angeles City Council motion asks City Administrative Officer, with City Attorney assistance, to examine City role in CARE Court.	Official	[19]
2026	Current LAPD Topanga directory lists Sean Dinse as SLO assignment 21A43; State Bar lists Philips as Active.	Official	[14]

I. Charles “Sean” Dinse: Documented Role, Public Positions, and Allegations

A. Official Topanga Role

VERIFIED / OFFICIAL: LAPD’s current Topanga Community Police Station page identifies Sean Dinse as a Senior Lead Officer, assignment 21A43. Topanga serves Canoga Park, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

A Senior Lead Officer is a community-policing position. The relevance here is structural: the role is built around recurring neighborhood problems, community contacts, neighborhood-watch information, and communication between residents and police. That creates legitimate reasons for frequent contact with community groups, but it also makes boundaries concerning private intelligence, social-media participation, confidential records, and targeting of particular individuals especially important.^[14]

B. Documented Homelessness / Mental-Illness Framing

During his 2019 City Council campaign, Dinse publicly argued that housing alone could not solve homelessness and that authorities had to “stabilize the irrational behavior caused by drug addiction and potential mental illness before a person can accept housing or keep it.” This is a direct public statement by Dinse, reported by the Los Angeles Times. It does not show illegality. It does show that mental illness and addiction were part of his stated framework for understanding and responding to homelessness.^[11]

A separate Los Angeles Times article from September 2019 reported Dinse supporting restrictions on sleeping in “sensitive areas” and raising concerns about children encountering people with mental illness or addiction issues. Together, these public comments show that Dinse’s enforcement philosophy expressly linked some public-space problems to behavioral-health and addiction concerns.

CAUTION: A policy view that some homelessness involves mental illness is not proof that any particular person was mentally ill, nor proof that Dinse fabricated a diagnosis. Individualized labeling must be evaluated person by person.

C. Crimebusters / Facebook Participation

Los Angeles Magazine reported that Dinse regularly used the West Valley Facebook groups to source information about encampments and track specific homeless individuals. The same article reported leaked screenshots containing suggestions of Airsoft guns, bleach, and other tactics to deter homeless people, while noting that the group administrator disputed characterizing the groups as anti-homeless vigilante organizations and said such behavior was discouraged. LAPD told the publication it would address misconduct and would not tolerate hate speech or encouragement of violence.^[10]

Knock LA reported that the Crimebusters groups were administered by current or former LAPD personnel/volunteers and that Dinse and former SLO Brent Rygh had longstanding community-policing roles in Woodland Hills and West Hills. Knock LA further alleged that Dinse and Rygh provided privileged background information concerning persons in residential rehabilitation or wellness homes and that residents used the information in complaints. This is an allegation from advocacy journalism, not a judicial finding, and should be presented that way.^[9]

The significance is not merely offensive speech by private Facebook users. The potentially material issue is the alleged integration of a private group with official police functions: community members identifying people, officers obtaining or supplying information, repeated reporting, and enforcement activity directed at the same individuals.

D. The 2018 Attorney General Complaint and Alleged Database Disclosure

The ACLU of Southern California’s 2021 report cites the 2018 California Attorney General complaint, the KTown for All article, Knock LA, and Los Angeles Magazine as source material concerning West Valley anti-homeless enforcement. The original KTown-hosted complaint is no longer readily accessible through ordinary web search, but a surviving reproduction preserves extensive text from the complaint.^[7]

The surviving reproduced complaint alleges that members circulated names, criminal histories, mental-health status or treatment histories, and drug/alcohol information. It then alleges that Dinse repeatedly used his position to obtain and publicize sensitive information, including a screenshot from a law-enforcement database in response to a member’s complaint about alleged littering. Critically, the reproduced text identifies that littering complaint as Figure 12.^[8]

OPEN QUESTION: The original complaint PDF and full-resolution appendix must be obtained. Counsel should not rely solely on the mirror for litigation-grade authentication.

E. Rex Schellenberg: Comparator for Location Tracking and Mental-Health Labeling

On February 10, 2020, Rex Schellenberg filed a federal civil-rights action in the Central District of California against Sean Dinse and the City of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The docket confirms Dinse was individually named as a defendant.^[13]

The Los Angeles Times reported that Schellenberg alleged Dinse posted where he was staying so residents would contact police, allegedly creating a “pretextual basis” to force him to move or seize property. The Times also reported that Dinse had said Schellenberg was probably evicted because of “drug addiction/mental illness”; Schellenberg disputed both labels and alleged repeated improper towing activity involving his van.^[12]

The evidentiary value of Schellenberg is comparative, not dispositive. It demonstrates that another identifiable individual independently alleged a sequence involving Dinse, Facebook-based location dissemination, community reporting, vehicle enforcement, displacement, and mental-illness/addiction characterization. A lawyer can compare that alleged sequence to the Perelman chronology without assuming they are identical.

F. Countervailing Evidence Regarding Dinse

A balanced dossier must also include evidence inconsistent with a claim that every Dinse interaction with homeless people was hostile. CBS Los Angeles reported in July 2017 that Dinse responded to a call involving a homeless mother and daughter, concluded they needed help, publicized their story, and facilitated community assistance and motel lodging.^[15]

This does not negate the later allegations. It means the defensible issue is not “Dinse hated every homeless person.” The narrower issue is whether he used police authority or private community networks improperly against selected individuals, and whether such conduct affected Perelman.

II. Karine T. Philips: Official Role, Crimebusters Connection, and Misconduct Inquiry

A. Licensing and Career Status

Karine T. Philips, State Bar No. 186645, was admitted to the California Bar on December 10, 1996. The State Bar currently lists her as Active, employed by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, with USC Law School identified as her law school. The public disciplinary/history table shows no disciplinary entry.^[1]

NEGATIVE FINDING: This research did not locate a published appellate finding of prosecutorial misconduct, a public Brady/Giglio sanction, a civil-rights judgment against Philips, or a public State Bar disciplinary action. That absence must not be converted into a claim that misconduct is impossible; it means the issue has to be proved from the specific case record.

B. Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor Assignment

A June 2014 Neighborhood Prosecutor assignment list placed Philips at Topanga Division. The same list assigned Tamar Galatzan to Van Nuys and North Hollywood. This is important because it shows Philips’s Topanga relationship was formal and predated Perelman’s 2017 case; it was not a role created specifically for him.^[2]

“Hi, my name is Karine Philips and I am your Neighborhood Prosecutor assigned to the LAPD’s Topanga division.” ^[3]

In that 2015 message, Philips described herself as focused on improving neighborhood quality of life and preventing public-safety problems. LAist described the Neighborhood Prosecutor program as addressing “broken windows” or quality-of-life offenses such as vandalism, loitering, trespassing, graffiti, prostitution, illegal dumping, and code violations.^[3]

Thus, if a misdemeanor case originated from Topanga-area community complaints, an ordinary institutional explanation exists for Philips to become involved. The legally significant question is not simply why she was there, but whether she had undisclosed relationships, off-record information, group participation, or retaliatory reasons affecting the handling of a particular defendant.^[4]

C. Neighborhood Justice / Alternative Enforcement

West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes from 2014 record Philips presenting the Neighborhood Justice Program, described as an alternative approach to low-level offenses intended to keep offenders out of the conventional justice system. This is meaningful counterevidence to any claim that her public mission was categorically to institutionalize or incarcerate people.^[5]

D. Philips and the Crimebusters Ecosystem

A 2019 KTown for All investigation, preserved in a surviving reproduction and cited by the ACLU, listed Deputy City Attorney Karine Philips among members of the West Valley Facebook-group environment together with numerous LAPD personnel, including Sean Dinse. The public materials located here do not establish that Philips authored the violent or demeaning posts described by other publications.^[7]

This distinction is critical. Membership can be relevant—especially for a prosecutor assigned to the same police division—but membership alone does not prove knowledge of every post, agreement with other members, receipt of confidential information, or participation in a conspiracy. The factual questions are whether Philips was a member during the precise 2017 prosecution period, what she could see, whether she posted or communicated, and whether group-derived information entered the prosecution file.^[8]

OPEN QUESTION: Recover the original member list, platform records, screenshots, or archived page showing Philips’s membership date, account identity, activity, and access.

E. Later Public-Space / §41.18 Context

A January 2023 Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda identifies Philips as a City Attorney representative providing input on park-hours issues in a section that also references Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.18 and public-right-of-way determinations. This supports a continuing professional connection to quality-of-life/public-space enforcement, but it does not establish misconduct or prove a 2017 mental-health agenda.^[16]

III. The Crimebusters Network and the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” Material

A. What the Groups Were

The principal groups were reported as “Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills” and “Homeless Transient Encampments of our West Valley.” Investigations described them as private Facebook forums used by residents to report suspected crime, nuisance activity, encampments, vehicles, and particular people. LAPD officers and volunteers participated to varying degrees.^[9]

The public controversy arose because leaked screenshots and advocacy reports described some members advocating harassment, threats, property interference, or violent tactics against homeless people. Independent Los Angeles Magazine reporting confirmed the existence of disturbing screenshots and active law-enforcement participation, while also reporting the administrator’s denial that the groups endorsed vigilante behavior.^[10]

B. The Perelman Post

The most important Perelman-specific public material is the surviving reproduction of the 2018 Attorney General complaint. It describes an August 2017 Crimebusters post accusing a “homeless individual” of littering, publishing photographs of the individual’s belongings and vehicle, and directing members to “Notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate.” The complaint states that distributing identifying information could expose the person to targeted abuse.^[8]

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Kevin Perelman states that this “Mr. Perelman” was him and that his personalized license plate read TARGETD. He also states that he was a homeowner living in an HOA community, not homeless.

The convergence of surname, geographic area, time period, littering allegation, vehicle, and distinctive plate makes identification as Kevin Perelman a strong lead, but litigation-grade use should still be anchored to the original Figure 12 image and underlying Facebook post.

C. Figure 7 / Figure 12: The Potential Dinse–Perelman Database Connection

The reproduced complaint contains a potentially crucial internal cross-reference. It alleges that Dinse responded to a Facebook member complaining about a person allegedly littering by posting a screenshot from a law-enforcement database containing personal information; that underlying littering complaint is identified as Figure 12. The same reproduced complaint later describes Figure 12 as the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” vehicle/license-plate post.^[8]

If the original figures confirm the reproduced text, the connection could establish a specific sequence: a private community post identifies Perelman and his vehicle; a Topanga SLO accesses or posts law-enforcement information; and the activity occurs in the same period as a prosecution that Perelman says was handled by Topanga’s assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor. That would not by itself prove a conspiracy, but it would make database purpose, dissemination, prosecutorial knowledge, and disclosure obligations highly material.

HIGHEST-PRIORITY AUTHENTICATION TASK: Obtain the original 2018 complaint PDF and full appendix. Compare Figure 7 and Figure 12 visually, determine whose record appears in Figure 7, identify the data system, and obtain any audit trail showing query user/date/time/purpose.

D. The “Homeless” Characterization Versus Perelman’s Homeowner Status

The reproduced complaint describes the Figure 12 subject as homeless. Perelman states that this was false and that he was a homeowner living in an HOA townhouse complex. The source of that discrepancy should be investigated rather than assumed. The Facebook poster may have called him homeless/transient; alternatively, the advocacy authors may have inferred homelessness because they were analyzing anti-homeless groups.

If property, HOA, utility, or residency records establish that Perelman was a resident homeowner in August 2017, counsel should preserve that evidence. The point is not merely semantic. Misclassification could be relevant if it shows that a person was placed into an anti-homeless enforcement framework regardless of actual housing status.

E. TARGETD Plate: Evidentiary Framing

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman states that he used the TARGETD plate because he already believed Dinse and others were targeting or harassing him. In his account, the plate was a reaction to prior events, not the cause of later attention.

For legal presentation, the safest formulation is causal neutrality: the plate proves what the plate said, not why it was chosen and not whether the underlying belief was correct. The reason should be established through contemporaneous records—DMV issuance date, earlier reports, video, communications, or documented encounters. Regardless of motive, the wording TARGETD would not authorize misuse of confidential databases, fabrication of charges, retaliatory prosecution, or private harassment.

A particularly useful chronology would place the date the plate was ordered/issued next to every documented Dinse/Topanga incident predating it. If objectively documented police/community activity preceded the plate, that evidence would directly address any suggestion that the plate itself generated the attention.

IV. Potential Relevance to Case 7VW04099

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman identifies 7VW04099 as his 2017 Van Nuys criminal matter and identifies Karine Philips as the prosecutor. The certified docket, complaint, transcripts, police reports, and City Attorney file should be used to establish the exact charges, dates, witnesses, rulings, and Philips’s role.

A. Why Philips Could Have Been Involved Without a Special Targeting Assignment

Because Philips had been Topanga’s assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor since at least 2014, a Topanga-origin misdemeanor prosecution could naturally fall within her institutional portfolio. This fact should be acknowledged. It prevents a weak inference—“Philips prosecuted me, therefore she was specially selected”—from obscuring the more important factual questions.

B. What Would Make Her Involvement Legally Significant

• Philips was a member of the same Facebook group while the defendant, his car, plate, speech, location, or alleged conduct were being discussed.
• Philips saw or received group posts about Perelman before charging, plea negotiations, trial, sentencing, or probation proceedings.
• Dinse or another officer supplied information obtained from a law-enforcement database to Philips outside normal discoverable channels.
• Prosecution witnesses were members of the same group, coordinated complaints, shared evidence, or monitored Perelman outside ordinary witness activity.
• Philips knew of witness/officer coordination but the defense was not informed.
• Mental-health or dangerousness descriptions appeared in the prosecution despite lacking a legitimate clinical or evidentiary source, and the source can be traced to police/community communications.
• Enforcement escalated in response to Perelman’s criticism of Dinse, LAPD, Crimebusters participants, or other government actors.

Each proposition is testable. None should be treated as established solely from group membership or geographic overlap.

C. Speech, Cards, Website, and Retaliation Theory

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman states that his cards and websites criticized Sean Dinse, LAPD, and people he believed were participating in harassment against him.

If the 2017 case involved distributing cards or literature that directed readers to criticism of police/community actors, counsel should distinguish the alleged physical offense (for example, littering or trespass) from the content of the speech. The key question is whether enforcement was content-neutral or whether criticism of police/community participants became a reason to investigate, charge, pressure, characterize, or punish the defendant.

The Facebook material may be especially probative if posts discuss Perelman’s speech, website, court appearances, or desired removal from an area. A First Amendment retaliation theory generally depends on protected activity, adverse action, causation, and the absence or insufficiency of legitimate independent reasons; counsel should evaluate the precise record rather than relying on rhetoric.

D. Fabricated Evidence / False-Charge Theory

CLIENT-SUPPLIED: Perelman alleges that Philips falsified charges or relied on false community statements and that people were encouraged to assault/batter or follow him. Those are serious claims and are not established by the public sources reviewed here.

The way to make this claim legally useful is to decompose it into documentable subquestions: What did each witness say first? When did that account change? What objective video or physical evidence exists? Which officer contacted each witness? What did Philips know and when? Did a social-media discussion precede a police report? Were inconsistent witness statements disclosed? Did any official state a fact contradicted by contemporaneous video or records?

A lawyer can then build a contradiction chart rather than asking a court to accept a global conclusion. That approach is substantially more persuasive.

E. Brady / Giglio / Disclosure Questions

If police officers, prosecutors, and civilian witnesses were simultaneously participating in a private group discussing the defendant or coordinating complaints, the relationships and communications could be relevant impeachment or exculpatory evidence depending on their content and materiality. Counsel should evaluate federal due-process disclosure principles, California criminal-discovery obligations, and prosecutor ethics rules against the actual 2017 record.

The important factual questions include whether the prosecution team knew of group activity, whether officers’ credibility could be impeached by database misuse or undisclosed relationships, whether witnesses coordinated accounts, and whether any favorable evidence was suppressed. The mere existence of a Facebook group does not establish a Brady violation; suppressed materiality and prosecution-team knowledge matter.

V. Motive and Operational-Theory Analysis

“Motive” should be divided into documented institutional objectives and hypotheses requiring proof. This prevents speculation from obscuring the strongest evidence.

Proposed Objective / Motive	Evidence Supporting It	Limits / Alternative Explanation	Status
Neighborhood “quality of life” / nuisance abatement	Philips’s own Neighborhood Prosecutor description; LAist broken-windows description; Dinse community-policing role.	Ordinary lawful government purpose unless methods become unlawful or retaliatory.	Documented
Use community reporting to identify recurring targets / locations	LA Magazine and Knock LA report officers using groups to source information and track individuals.	Community tips are not inherently unlawful; key is privacy, accuracy, selective enforcement, and official action.	Reported
Displace persons viewed as nuisance activity	Schellenberg alleges location posting to generate calls and a pretextual basis to move him; Knock LA reports “remove nuisance activity” framing.	Allegations not final adjudications; legitimate code enforcement may also exist.	Alleged / comparator
Mental-illness/addiction framing to justify intervention	Dinse publicly linked some homelessness to mental illness/addiction; Schellenberg alleges individualized “drug addiction/mental illness” label.	Does not prove false diagnosis or forced treatment in Perelman matter.	Documented framing; specific misuse unproved
Retaliation for criticism / speech	Perelman says he criticized Dinse/LAPD and was prosecuted/targeted.	Requires proof of causal link, protected speech, adverse action, and improper motive.	Client theory / open
Force psychiatric institutionalization	Perelman expresses this concern and says he has evidence of unlawful confinement/false mental-health representations.	No public source located proving Philips or Dinse orchestrated psychiatric commitment of Perelman.	Open / unproved
CARE Court / Newsom policy as cause of 2017 events	No chronological support. CARE Act enacted in 2022.	Impossible as a causal legal mechanism for 2017.	Rejected by chronology

A. Most Defensible Operational Theory to Test

The best-supported hypothesis is not that a hidden statewide psychiatric program caused the 2017 case. It is that Topanga’s community-policing / neighborhood-prosecution structure may have allowed a feedback loop in which residents identified an individual, private-group discussion amplified the issue, officers supplied or acted on information, repeated complaints generated enforcement, and prosecutors handled the resulting case. The legality of that loop depends on what information was shared, whether reports were truthful, whether enforcement had a lawful basis, whether protected speech drove the action, and whether the defense received material impeachment/exculpatory information.

The Figure 7/Figure 12 lead matters because it could move this from an abstract system description to a person-specific chain involving Perelman. Authentication is therefore more valuable than adding broader theories.

VI. Mental-Health Labels, Involuntary Treatment, and CARE Court

A. What the Public Record Actually Shows

The public record supports several limited propositions: the 2018 complaint alleged circulation of mental-health information; Dinse publicly used mental illness/addiction as part of his homelessness framework; Schellenberg alleged Dinse applied a “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization to him; and private/community groups tracked particular individuals. Those facts justify investigating whether mental-health characterizations were transmitted about Perelman.^[8]

The public record reviewed here does not establish that Philips personally fabricated a diagnosis, ordered a §5150 detention, arranged involuntary medication, or possessed unilateral power to institutionalize Perelman. Perelman states that he has evidence of illegal confinement and false mental-health representations; those materials should be reviewed separately and matched to named actors, dates, orders, declarations, and medical/legal authority.

B. CARE Court Is Chronologically Separate

Governor Newsom signed the CARE Act, SB 1338, on September 14, 2022. The statute therefore cannot explain a 2017 prosecution. Los Angeles County describes CARE Court as a civil program for adults with specified severe psychotic disorders; it states that participation is voluntary, participants receive legal representation, they cannot be forced to take medication through CARE Court, and there are no civil or criminal penalties for leaving the program.^[17]

A 2023 Los Angeles City Council motion asked the City Administrative Officer, with City Attorney assistance, to investigate the City’s role in CARE Court. This creates a later institutional connection between the City Attorney’s Office and CARE implementation, not evidence that Philips personally designed CARE Court or that Newsom was connected to the 2017 Perelman case.^[19]

CONCLUSION ON CARE: For 2017 analysis, CARE Court should be treated as background on later California mental-health policy, not as evidence of motive. Using it as a causal theory would weaken the more concrete Topanga/Crimebusters evidence.

VII. Misconduct Research: What Was Found and What Was Not

A. Karine Philips

Searches of Philips’s name with terms including prosecutorial misconduct, Brady, Giglio, sanctions, discipline, false evidence, malicious prosecution, civil rights, and defendant complaints did not produce a published appellate misconduct finding or public State Bar discipline. Her State Bar page lists Active status and no public disciplinary entry.^[1]

This is a negative public-record finding, not an endorsement of any specific prosecution. Many trial-level disputes, personnel investigations, complaints that do not result in discipline, and unpublished matters are not visible through general web research.

B. Sean Dinse

Dinse’s public controversy is materially more developed. The 2018 advocacy complaint alleged misuse of official access and dissemination of sensitive personal information; 2019 reporting described his active role in Facebook-based tracking; and a 2020 federal civil-rights complaint named him personally. The sources reviewed do not establish a final judicial finding that he committed the alleged civil-rights violations.^[8]

A later LAPD Topanga statement from June 2023 concerning a different SLO’s inappropriate homelessness-related email declared that enforcement should not be used as a quick fix and should not be based solely on homeless status. This is not evidence about Dinse or Philips personally, but it is useful institutional context regarding what LAPD says proper Topanga enforcement should look like.^[20]

VIII. Legal Issue Map for Counsel (Issue-Spotting, Not Conclusions)

The following issues may become relevant only if the underlying facts are proved. They are included to help counsel organize discovery and analysis, not to state that any element has been satisfied.

Potential Issue	Fact Questions That Matter
Due process / fabricated evidence	Whether officers or prosecutors knowingly created, adopted, or presented materially false evidence; whether contradictions were known; whether false evidence caused prosecution or deprivation.
Brady / Giglio / criminal discovery	Whether prosecution-team members possessed material exculpatory or impeachment information involving group membership, witness coordination, database access, inconsistent statements, bias, or officer credibility.
First Amendment retaliation	Whether protected criticism or publication about police/community actors was a substantial causal factor in enforcement, prosecution, probation conditions, or other adverse action.
42 U.S.C. §1983 / state action	Whether government officials violated federal rights; whether private participants were acting jointly with officials; whether municipal policy/custom or failure to supervise is implicated.
Privacy / misuse of law-enforcement information	Whether a police database was accessed for an authorized purpose, what information was disclosed, to whom, and under what policy/statutory authority.
Witness bias / coordination / impeachment	Whether complaining witnesses were communicating with officers/prosecutor or one another through private groups and whether those relationships affected testimony.
Selective or retaliatory enforcement	Whether similarly situated conduct was treated differently because of identity, speech, association, or hostility; requires careful comparator and causation evidence.
Malicious prosecution / state tort theories	Potentially relevant depending on disposition, probable cause, malice, immunities, accrual, and limitations. Counsel should evaluate separately.
Limitations / tolling / claim-presentation rules	The events are old. Any civil theory must be evaluated for accrual, tolling, delayed discovery, continuing violation doctrines where applicable, and government-claim requirements.

IX. Priority Evidence and Records Plan

Priority 1 — Authenticate the Perelman / Dinse Facebook Evidence

• Original “Los-Angeles-AG-Complaint-update-20181.pdf” as submitted/hosted in 2018, including the complete appendix.
• Original high-resolution Figures 7, 12, 13, and surrounding figures referenced in the complaint.
• Native Facebook post data for the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” post: author, timestamp, comments, reactions, edits, group name, member visibility, attached photographs, and metadata.
• Native or archived post containing the alleged Dinse law-enforcement-database screenshot.
• Proof identifying whose information appears in the alleged database screenshot; if Perelman, identify the data fields and source system.
• Facebook membership and administrator logs for Sean Dinse, Karine Philips, relevant Topanga officers, volunteers, complaining witnesses, and named community participants during 2016–2019.

Priority 2 — Reconstruct 7VW04099 from Primary Records

• Certified register of actions / docket and charging document.
• All police reports, supplemental reports, citations, field interview cards, photographs, body-worn video if any, dispatch/CAD records, and property/evidence logs.
• Every transcript: arraignment, motions, trial/plea, sentencing, probation, and any mental-health-related discussion.
• City Attorney prosecution file: intake notes, charging worksheet, witness list, investigator notes, emails, text messages, discovery logs, plea notes, and sentencing recommendations.
• Defense file and discovery received, including Brady/Giglio disclosures and any Pitchess-related materials.
• Exact identification of all complaining witnesses and whether any were members of Crimebusters/related groups.
• Copies of the cards, flyers, website material, or other speech alleged to constitute or relate to the offense.

Priority 3 — Audit Dinse / LAPD Information Access

• Any available audit trail for law-enforcement database queries of Kevin Perelman, his license plate TARGETD, vehicle VIN, address, or identifiers during the relevant period.
• Official purpose associated with each query and whether the query was linked to a report, call for service, investigation, citation, or case number.
• Communications in which query results were transmitted to private residents, Facebook groups, volunteers, witnesses, or prosecutors.
• LAPD social-media policies in force in 2017–2019 and records of training/orders issued after the 2018 complaint.
• Internal Affairs / Professional Standards / command review materials specifically concerning Crimebusters, Dinse, Rygh, or Topanga officers’ Facebook participation, subject to lawful discovery and privacy limitations.

Priority 4 — Philips / City Attorney Communications

• Emails and case-management entries containing “Perelman,” “TARGETD,” 7VW04099, Dinse, Crimebusters, Scroggins, the relevant address/location, or names of prosecution witnesses.
• Communications between Philips and Dinse, Topanga SLOs, Fern Peskin-White, Crimebusters administrators, HOA/community participants, or witnesses during the relevant prosecution period.
• Any saved social-media screenshots or neighborhood complaints used in charging, plea negotiation, or sentencing.
• Records showing Philips’s Facebook-group membership date, account identity, posts/comments, and whether she received notifications or direct messages concerning Perelman.
• Any mental-health characterization, dangerousness allegation, psychiatric reference, or request for evaluation associated with the file—together with its source.

Priority 5 — Establish Perelman’s Housing and Plate Chronology

• DMV documentation showing when the TARGETD personalized plate was requested, issued, and placed on the vehicle.
• Property title, mortgage/HOA, tax, utility, insurance, or other records establishing residence/homeownership in August 2017.
• Any contemporaneous records predating the TARGETD plate that objectively document Dinse/Topanga contacts or alleged monitoring; these are critical to testing the claimed cause-and-effect sequence.
• Original photographs showing the vehicle/plate during the period and matching the Figure 12 image if recovered.

X. Evidence Matrix: What Each Piece Would Prove or Not Prove

Evidence	Potential Probative Value	Limit / Caution
Original Figure 12	Identity of “Mr. Perelman,” actual plate, author, wording, date, context.	Does not alone prove Dinse/Philips directed the post.
Original Figure 7	Whose law-enforcement information was displayed; what data was disclosed.	Does not alone prove improper purpose; audit/policy needed.
Database audit log	Who queried Perelman/plate, when, and potentially system/purpose.	Does not alone prove dissemination to civilians.
Philips group membership log	Whether and when Philips had access to the group.	Membership alone does not prove she read or endorsed specific posts.
Philips–Dinse communications	Can establish knowledge, coordination, source of information, or lawful case purpose.	Neutral communications may also explain legitimate prosecution activity.
Witness membership/posts	Can establish bias, coordination, common source, prior inconsistent statements.	Membership alone does not make testimony false.
DMV plate issuance	Tests whether claimed targeting incidents predated TARGETD plate.	Does not prove the earlier incidents were unlawful.
Property/HOA records	Can rebut a claim that Perelman was homeless at the time.	Does not identify who originated the “homeless” label.
Certified 7VW04099 transcript	Establishes what Philips actually said, requested, represented, or knew in court.	Does not reveal off-record communications without discovery.
Schellenberg complaint/exhibits	Comparator evidence concerning Dinse methods and mental-health labeling.	Does not prove same method was used against Perelman.

XI. Targeted Questions for Depositions, Interviews, or Records Review

Questions for Sean Dinse

1. Were you a member or administrator of Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills or its homeless-encampment subgroup in August 2017? Identify the account(s) used.
2. Did you view or respond to a post concerning Kevin Perelman, a person named Perelman, an alleged littering incident, or a vehicle bearing TARGETD?
3. Did you access any LAPD/CLETS/DMV or other law-enforcement database in response to that post? If so, identify the purpose, system, query terms, and case/report number.
4. Did you post, transmit, display, or describe the result to any private Facebook group or community member?
5. Did you communicate with Karine Philips concerning Perelman before or during case 7VW04099?
6. Did you communicate with any complaining witness or HOA/community participant concerning Perelman outside ordinary police-report channels?
7. Did you characterize Perelman as homeless, mentally ill, paranoid, addicted, dangerous, or in need of psychiatric intervention? If so, identify the factual/clinical source.
8. Were you aware of any instruction or policy limiting officer participation in the Facebook groups after complaints were made?

Questions for Karine T. Philips

• Confirm your role and assignment to LAPD Topanga Division during 2017 and your precise role in 7VW04099.
• Were you a member of Crimebusters of West Hills and Woodland Hills or a related Facebook group? On what dates and under what account?
• Did you view any post concerning Kevin Perelman, his vehicle, TARGETD plate, cards, website, alleged littering, residence, or court case?
• Did Sean Dinse or another officer provide you information about Perelman that originated from Facebook or a law-enforcement database?
• Did you know that prosecution witnesses or complainants were communicating with police or one another in a private Facebook group about Perelman?
• What disclosures were made to defense counsel concerning those relationships or communications?
• What was the source of any mental-health, dangerousness, paranoia, psychiatric, or competency characterization appearing in the prosecution?
• Did criticism of Dinse/LAPD or Perelman’s website/cards play any role in charging, plea, sentencing, or probation positions?

Questions for Civilian Witnesses / Group Administrators

1. Who authored the August 2017 “Mr. Perelman” post, and why was the group told to notice his plate?
2. Was Perelman’s location or court schedule posted or discussed? By whom?
3. Who supplied any criminal-history, address, DMV, mental-health, or other nonpublic information?
4. Did any officer or prosecutor ask members to photograph, follow, report, confront, or repeatedly call police about Perelman?
5. Did members coordinate narratives before making police reports or giving testimony?
6. Was Perelman referred to as homeless/transient despite having a residence? Who originated that characterization?
7. Were members aware that Perelman’s materials criticized Dinse or LAPD, and did that criticism affect how members treated him?

XII. Statements That Should Not Be Overstated

For credibility with civil-rights counsel, courts, and journalists, the following propositions should not be stated as established unless additional evidence is obtained:

• “Karine Philips is a criminal.” The current public record reviewed here does not establish a criminal conviction or public professional discipline.
• “Philips ordered Crimebusters members to stalk or assault Perelman.” No Philips-authored instruction of that kind was located.
• “Philips and Dinse conspired to force Perelman into a mental institution.” The public sources do not establish that proposition.
• “CARE Court explains what happened in 2017.” CARE Court did not exist until 2022/2023.
• “Every Crimebusters member endorsed violent rhetoric.” Group membership does not prove agreement with all posts.
• “The Dinse database screenshot definitely contains Perelman’s record.” The surviving complaint text strongly suggests that connection through figure cross-references, but the original figures must be authenticated.
• “The 2018 complaint proves every allegation it contains.” It is evidence that serious allegations were made contemporaneously by identified civil-rights organizations; allegations still require proof.

Using precise language—“documents show,” “the complaint alleged,” “the Times reported,” “Perelman states,” “the figure cross-reference appears to show,” and “counsel should authenticate”—makes the dossier stronger and more publishable.

XIII. Attorney-Facing Assessment

The public evidence already establishes a nontrivial reason to investigate the relationship among Perelman’s 2017 case, Sean Dinse, Karine Philips, and the Crimebusters network. Philips was Topanga’s officially assigned Neighborhood Prosecutor. Dinse was a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. Private Facebook groups with active/retired LAPD participation tracked specific people and became the subject of a multi-organization California Attorney General complaint. Independent reporting later documented Dinse’s use of those groups and a federal civil-rights lawsuit accusing him of location sharing, pretextual removal, vehicle enforcement, and mental-illness/addiction labeling.^[2]

The Perelman-specific material is what elevates the matter beyond general contextual similarity. A contemporaneous complaint describes a “Mr. Perelman” in August 2017, an alleged littering event, photos of his belongings and vehicle, and an instruction to notice his license plate. The reproduced complaint then appears to connect that littering complaint to an allegation that Dinse posted information from a law-enforcement database. If the original appendix confirms that Figure 7 displayed Kevin Perelman’s information, the result would be a direct, contemporaneous public-record allegation tying Dinse’s official information access to a private-group discussion of Perelman during the same year as 7VW04099.^[8]

The next legal question is therefore concrete: Did information generated or circulated through Dinse, Crimebusters members, Topanga personnel, or complaining witnesses reach Philips or otherwise affect charging, evidence, witnesses, mental-health characterizations, plea positions, or court representations in 7VW04099? That question can be investigated through primary records and does not require acceptance of any broader theory.

If the answer is no, the records should demonstrate that separation. If the answer is yes, counsel can then determine whether the communications were lawful and disclosed, whether they reveal witness bias or fabrication, whether protected speech played a role, and whether any constitutional, discovery, ethical, or civil-rights issue follows.

XIV. Publication-Safe Capsule Summary

Public records place Deputy City Attorney Karine T. Philips as LAPD Topanga Division’s Neighborhood Prosecutor years before Kevin Perelman’s 2017 case, while Sean Dinse served as a Topanga Senior Lead Officer. In 2018, homelessness and civil-rights organizations complained to the California Attorney General about private West Valley Facebook groups involving LAPD personnel, alleging that the groups tracked people, circulated sensitive information, and facilitated harassment. A surviving copy of that complaint specifically describes an August 2017 post telling members to “notice Mr. Perelman’s license plate” after accusing him of littering, and it appears to cross-reference the same incident to an allegation that Dinse posted law-enforcement database information. The original appendix should be authenticated before treating that cross-reference as conclusive.^[8]

Later independent reporting and a federal civil-rights lawsuit documented similar allegations concerning Dinse and another man, Rex Schellenberg, including location sharing, repeated vehicle enforcement, and a disputed “drug addiction/mental illness” label. Philips was later reported as a member of the same Facebook-group environment, but no public evidence located here proves that she authored threatening posts, fabricated psychiatric information, or conspired with Dinse. The central unanswered question is whether group activity or police-supplied information crossed into Perelman’s 2017 prosecution and whether any such relationship was disclosed to the defense.

Source Notes and Reliability Guide

URLs were accessed or re-verified on October 4, 2026. Primary/official sources should be preferred for courtroom use. Advocacy and mirrored materials are useful investigative leads but should be authenticated through originals, archived copies, custodians, or discovery where possible.

[1] State Bar of California, Attorney Profile: Karine T. Philips #186645. Official licensing record; current status and public discipline history. Source link

[2] Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, “Neighborhood Prosecutors” (June 2014). Contemporaneous list assigning Karine Philips to LAPD Topanga Division and a different prosecutor to Van Nuys/North Hollywood. Source link

[3] Office of the L.A. City Attorney / Nextdoor, “Welcome Message from the Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor” (May 4, 2015). Philips’s own description of herself as Topanga Neighborhood Prosecutor and of her quality-of-life/public-safety mission. Source link

[4] LAist/KPCC, “LA neighborhoods get prosecutors for graffiti, prostitution, other ‘broken windows’ crimes” (2014). Contemporaneous description of Neighborhood Prosecutor program and its quality-of-life / broken-windows focus. Source link

[5] West Hills Neighborhood Council minutes (2014). Records Philips presenting the Neighborhood Justice Program as an alternative for low-level offenses. Source link

[6] Canoga Park Neighborhood Council minutes (Jan. 28, 2015). Identifies Philips as Deputy City Attorney and Neighborhood Prosecutor at LAPD Topanga Station. Source link

[7] ACLU of Southern California, Outside the Law: The Legal War Against Unhoused People (2021), endnotes 105–108. Independent provenance for the Knock LA, KTown for All, LA Magazine, and 2018 California Attorney General complaint materials. Source link

[8] Surviving reproduction of KTown for All article and 2018 California Attorney General complaint materials. Secondary/mirrored source. Important for the text describing “Mr. Perelman,” Figure 12, and alleged Dinse law-enforcement database disclosure; original appendix should be authenticated before litigation use. Source link

[9] Knock LA, “West San Fernando Valley Residents Take to Facebook To Stalk, Harass and Terrorize the Homeless…” (Aug. 12, 2019). Advocacy journalism concerning Crimebusters groups, Dinse/Rygh, alleged privileged information, tracking, and group administration. Source link

[10] Los Angeles Magazine, “Homeless Advocates Criticize Cops for Being Members of Private Facebook Groups” (Aug. 14, 2019). Independent reporting on leaked screenshots, violent/harassing rhetoric in groups, Dinse’s use of the groups, and LAPD response. Source link

[11] Los Angeles Times, “Homelessness isn’t huge in this part of L.A. — but it’s a huge campaign issue” (May 6, 2019). Reports Dinse’s public mental-illness/addiction framing and the existence of the Attorney General complaint. Source link

[12] Los Angeles Times, “Homeless man sues L.A. over police’s use of Facebook pages” (Feb. 11, 2020). Reports Rex Schellenberg’s civil-rights allegations against Dinse, including location sharing, pretextual removal, towing, and “drug addiction/mental illness” characterization. Source link

[13] Schellenberg v. City of Los Angeles et al., No. 2:20-cv-01313 (C.D. Cal.), Justia docket. Confirms filing date, Dinse as named defendant, civil-rights nature, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 cause of action. Source link

[14] LAPD, Topanga Community Police Station. Current LAPD page identifying Topanga communities and Sean Dinse as a Senior Lead Officer. Source link

[15] CBS Los Angeles, “Officer Helps Homeless Mom And Daughter” (July 12, 2017). Countervailing evidence showing Dinse assisting a homeless mother and daughter and using social media to obtain help. Source link

[16] Winnetka Neighborhood Council agenda (Jan. 10, 2023). Shows Philips later providing City Attorney input on park-hours issues adjacent to discussion of LAMC §41.18 public-right-of-way enforcement. Source link

[17] Governor of California, “Governor Newsom Signs CARE Court Into Law…” (Sept. 14, 2022). Official enactment chronology for SB 1338 / CARE Act. Source link

[18] Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health, CARE Court Information and Resources. Current LA County description of eligibility, voluntary participation, legal representation, and distinction from LPS conservatorship. Source link

[19] Los Angeles City Council Motion 23-0447 (Apr. 25, 2023). Official city motion directing investigation of the City’s role in CARE Court with City Attorney assistance. Source link

[20] LAPD, “Statement On Email Related To The ‘Care Plus’ Clean-Up” (June 28, 2023). Later Topanga institutional statement that enforcement should not be based solely on homeless status; not evidence about Dinse or Philips personally. Source link