Table of Contents

Introduction

1. The Original Purpose of Judicial Power
2. How Systemic Abuse Thrives—Every Actor, Every Level
3. Context Erasure: How the Judicial System Turns the Plural Into the Singular
4. Defense Attorneys: Oath, Duty, and Systemic Betrayal
5. Corruption in the Courts—Construction of Impunity
6. Mental Illness Labels: The Ultimate Smokescreen
7. Legal Gray Area—Group Stalking C Judicial Escapism
8. Historical and Modern Case Studies
9. Why All This Defies the Judiciary’s Reason for Being
10. Conclusion
11. Appendix—Specific Examples, Penal Codes, and Legal Accountability

Introduction

There was a time when the American courtroom was seen as our system’s last bastion of hope—a place the preyed-upon could turn in extremity, protected by the neutrality of law and the human decency of judges and clerks. Self-defense was supposed to mean more than reacting to crimes against you; it was the promise that if you were attacked, cornered, or tormented, put in a situation that no one was going to help you, especially the police.

And your life was in danger; the law would shield you from further harm.

But today, the concept of “danger” has mutated. In the modern United States—especially in cases of coordinated, mass harassment—danger is not a single moment of threat but an ongoing state: the result of deliberate, orchestrated psychological, social, and legal campaigns. These are not carried out in darkness but in daylight, often with the open approval of officials—like Chief Michael Moore of the LAPD and Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinsey—who actively indoctrinate and unleash mass stalking mobs and civilian armies against people such as myself. (CA Penal Code § 182: Criminal conspiracy) These officials are not just tolerating, but actively orchestrating vigilante groups and mass civilian armies, turning ordinary community members, neighborhood watch networks, and private security into invisible proxies for the police and judicial system. (CA Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 241: Conspiracy against rights) This results in a sprawling network that terrorizes, harasses, intimidates, and isolates targets under a cloak of

pseudo-legality with clear and obvious intent to hunt, kill, or eradicate at all costs, with the full complicity of security firms and the tacit (or explicit) consent of the very judiciary meant to stop such abuse.

1.  The Original Purpose of Judicial Power

The judiciary was established as a bulwark—a check against mob violence, political vendetta, and abuse of power. Its entire reason for being is to ensure that *every person*, not just the powerful, receives the protections of due process and the substance of justice. When the courts become tools of conspiracy, vengeance, or institutionalized apathy, they invert their whole purpose; the walls built to shelter the weak instead of keeping them trapped.

> The judiciary is not for officials’ convenience or as a shield for the strong. Its sole mission is justice, proportionality, and the defense of the individual against every abuse—including those perpetrated by the state and its “private” partners.

2.  How Systemic Abuse Thrives—Every Actor, Every Level The Futility s Weaponization of Restraining Orders

For victims of group, organized, or “gang” stalking, the “remedy” most offered is the

restraining order:

• Designed for single antagonists, not organized mobs or complex networks. (CA Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6: Applies to individuals)

• Judicial clerks accept stacks of paperwork mainly to create the illusion of a process, knowing it will never adequately shield the target.

Even if granted, orders only ever block one at a time; participants simply rotate or evade naming.

• Victims may try to file hundreds of restraining orders per year, but the system is neither equipped nor willing to protect. Legal employees urge “try again,” even when they’ve witnessed the campaign’s scale. (Judicial inaction—CA Penal Code § G6:

Judicial officer’s dereliction of duty)

Specific Scenarios: Targeted Threats by Perpetrators

• Mike Huntley (Our company the Mike manipulated me to start with him, Signet E Services)

2001 – Mike Huntley manipulating me to sign up at the gym by my house with him, as Gym Manager Rodie Morales working in coordination with LAPD and Dr. Ron Perelman. As setup and frame job attempts to lock away

They attempted to manipulate me into taking a trash bag of LAPD-confiscated marijuana to get it into my house. While taking me to strip clubs all across Los Angeles. In setup and frame job operations. (CA Penal Code § 182: Conspiracy; § 653f: Solicitation to commit a crime)

(This was an illegal police operation to set up and frame me, clearly motivated by criminal intent under the pretense that I supposedly did something in the past. It involved bypassing all law, order, and proper procedure meant to protect the innocent—giving power to those with their own ideologies about life to act as executioners.)

·        “World of Paranoia”

(Repeated “singing”/references, meant to create a hostile workpsychological environment, intended to and frame methe target as delusional and defame my— while letting the target know they’ve defamed his name worldwide. (CA Penal Code

§ 422: Criminal threat/harassment)

• “It’s your behavior”

(Victim-blaming, (Blaming the victim, setting up the narrative of justification for the ongoing campaign)

·          “We are using the judicial system against you.”

(Direct threat—weaponizingannouncing the intent to weaponize courts/ and law enforcement as tools of persecution,. Notably, this was said as while I noticed enraged worldwide stalking groups using lashing out at me with mental illness terror tactics. (CA Penal Code § G6: Abuse of judicial process; § 422: Threats).

·        “Have a good life now.

(Implicit exclusion, (A dismissal with implied malice—signaling exclusion or exile from normal social exile. (CA Penal Code § 422) and professional life. A jail sentence, outside of jail.)

·          “You had better live a careful life.”

(Blatant threat, intimidation to ensure—demanding hypervigilance, warning of through intimidation, with the consequence of increased daily attacks anytime ideology not approved. CA Penal Code § 422: Threats to personal safety)any time anyone doesn’t approve of anything on any level based on their own ideologies.)

·        “I’ve given you enough rope to hang yourself with.”

(Language of provocation and set-up; provoke; intending entrapment, destruction.

CA Penal Code § 182: Criminal conspiracy)

• “You are too out of control for California.”

(Labeling/, shaming for, and promoting social exclusion on a federal exclusion

level.)

·          Crocodile Dundee movie quotes:

“Nah Back there, if you got a problem, you tell Wally. And he tells everyone in town.

Brings it out in the open. No more problem.” (Encourages group “An explicit

reference to mobilizing an entire community or “town” to quietly “do away with” a problem-solving” by—here, a metaphor for coordinated ostracism, defamation, libel, and, in effect, a conspiracy to “remove someone. CA Penal Code § 653.22: Loitering/conspiracy)” the person.) However combined with “World of paranoia”, showing remove them from the world.

·        Physically placing psychological warfare materials on my desk:

(“How to make people in South Korea mentally ill and control or kill them.”) (Intimidation,(A true act of intimidation, showing direct engagement in the planning/encouragement of and psychological assaulttactics of international harassment, control, and eradication. CA Penal Code § 422: Threats; § 653f: Solicitation) campaigns.)

Garrett (Starbucks Employee, Topanga s Ventura)

• “It’s your transgressions.”
  • (Basically stating, “You got away with a crime—we’re hunting you.” CA Penal Code § 646.G: Stalking; § 422: Threats)

Family and Law Enforcement

Dr. Ronald Barry Perelman:

“You know what you did.”

And when questioned, “People aren’t told what they did because they can lie.” (Executioner behavior, pure hate/rage for nonconformity, bypassing all legal process. CA Penal Code § 422: Threats; § 31: Aiding and abetting)(The act of your executioner, out of pure hate and rage for not being like them. With no actual reasoning. Bypassing the entire judicial system.)

·        Anita Perelman:

“Your past caught up with you.” And of course, when questioned, “I never said that.”

(Gaslighting, contributing to ongoing harm.)

·        Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinsey (LAPD):

Using Facebook as a rallying point, posting to his vigilante cults on FACEBOOK about: “How do we force people into mental facilities?” (Intolerance of imperfection/difference; Conspiracy to violate rights—CA Penal Code § 182; 18

U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of rights; CA Penal Code § 236: False imprisonment) or anything different than him.) Especially to me.

3.  Context Erasure: How the Judicial System Turns the Plural into the Singular

A defining trait of illegal judicial operations in mass harassment and gang stalking is the systemic erasure of context. By design or intent, courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement steadfastly refuse to look at the “big picture.” Every complaint, act, and incident—no matter how obviously part of a larger pattern—is isolated, stripped of its true context, and treated as if it occurred in a vacuum.

How It Works:

Reducing Plural to Singular:

When someone is mobbed and stalked by hundreds or thousands over months or years— even. Even per day—, the system deliberately breaks it into isolated “events.”

“Where’s the proof it was the same person?” or “This is just one incident, not a pattern”

becomes the refrain.

·        Case Example:

Multiple property destruction events, physical attacks, endless death threats, and daily provocations and harassment from the masses—all occurring over years—are

treated by the system as unrelated incidents. In reality, the entire scenario is a single, ongoing crime, with everyone involved aiding and abetting the larger operation. (CA Penal Code § 182: Criminal conspiracy; § 422: Threats) If the target ever responds—or even acts in self-defense—the system focuses solely on that response, completely ignoring the lifelong, coordinated context of provocation and abuse that led up to it.

• Because it is inevitable that there will eventually be a response—if someone is worked on their entire life, day after day—any reaction should clearly be recognized as self-defense, simply because it is unavoidable under those conditions. (CA Penal Code § 6G3-6G4: Self-defense) This is exactly why it is the police’s job to protect and serve: to prevent such abuse from ever reaching this point, and to do their due diligence to expose it publicly if it has reached this level—normalizing awareness and taking action to stop it.

Courtroom Mechanics:

Judges bar evidence about broader harassment as “irrelevant” or “prejudicial,” and

attorneys are discouraged from presenting full background.

Defense is Neutralized:

Targets are told, “we can only address this one incident.” All pattern and conspiracy—the real crime—vanishes from record and argument.

Why They Do It:

·        Ease of Dismissal:

Singular events are easily dismissed as minor or “paranoia.”

·        Shielding the System:

Admitting the context would force the system to recognize and address its own failure or complicity.

·        Legal Loophole:

Statutes punish individual, not group, organized acts; context-erasure is thus both strategy and shield.

Impact:

> This context erasure is not an accident or inefficiency—it is the very mechanism of

judicial corruption. Plural becomes singular; lived terror becomes “minor disputes;” and

real, organized crime is scrubbed from the record.

4.  Defense Attorneys: Oath, Duty, and Systemic Betrayal

Many public defenders and private defense attorneys—especially in cases involving systemic abuse, group stalking, or coordinated community targeting—fail at their most basic professional duties and violate their oath to the Bar:

Oath to the Bar s Core Duty:

Defense attorneys are sworn officers of the court. Upon admission (CA Bus. C Prof. Code § 6068; ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 8.4), they solemnly swear to uphold the law and the Constitution, to provide competent and diligent representation, and never to aid in, turn a blind eye to, or tolerate fraud or conspiracy. Their obligation is not only to their client, but to the integrity of the justice system itself.

Upholding Law and Challenging Injustice:

Their duty is not simply to process cases, but to actively challenge prosecutions where due process, fair trial rights, or constitutional protections have been compromised—especially when confronted with mass harassment, judicial/prosecutorial conspiracy, or coordinated witness intimidation (CA Bus. s Prof. Code § 6068; Rule 1.1; 18 USC § 242; 6th Amendment).

Duty topeach and Present Context:

Competent representation requires that defense attorneys impeach prosecution witnesses when there is clear evidence of dishonesty, perjury, group collusion, or provocation (CA Penal Code § 132 – offering false evidence; § 127 – suborning perjury; CA Evidence Code § 780 – impeachment; CA Penal Code § 118 – perjury for knowingly allowing false testimony). Especially in cases of group harassment, they must expose broader patterns and systemic abuse—not isolate events as the prosecution prefers.

Obligation to Move for Dismissal in Cases of Conspiracy or Unfair Trial:

Ethical defense means aggressively pursuing dismissal when:

• There is evidence of governmental or private conspiracy against the accused (CA Penal Code § 182 – conspiracy; CA Penal Code § 1385 – dismissal in the interest of justice; 18 USC § 241 – conspiracy against rights).
• The defendant faces an unfair trial due to judicial bias, prosecutorial collusion, group intimidation, or overwhelming systemic harassment (14th Amendment Due Process; CA Penal Code § GG5 – set aside indictment; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668).

Failure Constitutes Betrayal and Complicity:

Far too often, defense attorneys frame the defendant as simply trying to “get away with something on a technicality,” rather than their innocence and exposing the organized

abuse. Many accept the prosecution’s narrative without question, passing judgment ahead of the facts—motivated by judicial peer pressure, professional or political alliances, career advancement, or the powerful social club mentality prevailing in the courthouse culture (CA Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 – competence; Rule 1.3 – diligence; CA Rule 8.4 – misconduct; 6th Amendment – right to effective counsel).

Their refusal to argue for context, contest procedure, challenge evidence, or impeach hostile witnesses is not mere negligence—it is a willful and systemic avoidance of their responsibility. In effect, these attorneys “throw their client under the bus,” trading individual rights and ethical duty for social acceptance, professional convenience, or because they fear the repercussions of opposing entrenched judicial and prosecutorial

networks (CA Penal Code § 182 – conspiracy; 18 USC § 242 – deprivation of rights under color of law).

**Bar and Judicial Oversight

Attorneys who aid in or ignore such miscarriages of justice risk discipline, ineffective assistance claims (People v. Pope, 23 Cal. 3d 412), and even disbarment. Judges, likewise, have a legal and ethical obligation to recognize ineffective counsel and grant motions for dismissal where there is an impossibility of a fair trial or evidence of systemic conspiracy (CA Penal Code § 1385 – interests of justice; 18 USC § 242).

Summary of Applicable Law and Ethics:

• CA Bus. C Prof. Code § 6068 (attorney oath and duty)
• ABA Model Rules (1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 8.4) (competent, diligent, honest practice)
• CA Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 8.4
• CA Penal Code §§ 132, 127, 118, 182, 1385, 995
• CA Evidence Code § 780
• 18 USC §§ 241, 242 (federal civil rights)
• 6th C 14th Amendments, U.S. Constitution

5.  Corruption in the Courts—Construction of Impunity

Corruption is not just cash bribes. It is:

• Suppression of context (CA Penal Code § G6: Judicial officer’s failure of duty);
  • Prosecutorial indifference (CA Penal Code § G6; § 182: Conspiracy);
  • Defense passivity (ineffective counsel, ABA violation);
  • Administrative sabotage (CA Penal Code § 135: Destruction/concealment of evidence)

Judges refuse to look beyond isolated “incidents;” prosecutors ignore mass harassment as “not fitting the code;” and defense attorneys refuse to impeach the witnesses, knowing systems are stacked. Evidence is “lost”—intentional or by neglect.

6.  Mental Illness Labels: The Ultimate Smokescreen Mental Illness Labels: The Ultimate Smokescreen

• Police, courts, and hired “experts” call the victim “delusional” when the evidence is strongest (CA Penal Code § 148.5: False report of a crime; § 132: Malicious prosecution).
• Psychiatric labeling becomes a coordinated tool for further social erasure (CA Penal Code § 236: False imprisonment; 18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of rights).

When victims persist, the system invokes mental illness.

• Police, courts, and hired “experts” call the victim “delusional” when the evidence is

strongest.

• Psychiatric labeling becomes a coordinated tool for further social erasure.

7.  Legal Gray Area—Group Stalking s Judicial Escapism

• No law addresses gang/group stalking.

·        A Penal Code § 646.G: Only individual stalking applies

• CA Penal Code § 182 applies to conspiracy but only with direct proof.

By slicing group conduct into one-off acts, the system hides behind the legal gray area— allowing mass harassment to continue while keeping “clean hands.” Even when direct proof of coordinated group abuse can be obtained, officials often claim it is “too much

information to deal with,” using the volume and complexity as an excuse to avoid investigation, refuse accountability, and perpetuate the abuse (CA Penal Code § G6; 18 U.S.C. § 242: Neglect/deprivation of rights).

8.  Historical and Modern Case Studies

COINTELPRO

FBI’s program infiltrated and destroyed civil rights/antiwar groups by “gray area” law,

unchecked by courts for decades (18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation of rights). Case Study: Rex Schellenberger v. City of Los Angeles

Another Charles Sean Dinse Victim, Such as myself. Three illegal arrests, and he’s working on more until I’m incarcerated for life or dead. No matter what it takes with his WORLDWIDE Judicial Extermination operations (CA Penal Code § 236: False imprisonment; 18 U.S.C. § 242: Civil rights violation).

A landmark federal case underscoring the deep collusion among police, the City of Los Angeles, and community groups in the use of digital and traditional harassment tactics:

• Confiscation/Destruction of Property: (CA Penal Code § 484/§ 487: Theft)
  • Removal of Encampments: (Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments, § 1G83: Civil rights)
  • Weaponized Social Media, Community Watch: (42 U.S.C. § 1G83, § 241/§ 242: Civil rights conspiracy)

M.K. Background:

Rex Schellenberger, a homeless Los Angeles resident, was systematically targeted by the LAPD and city officials through both traditional means and LAPD-run Facebook groups. These digital platforms were used to encourage mass community reporting, public shaming, and harassment against him and others experiencing homelessness.

·        Tactics and Conduct:

• Confiscation and Destruction of Property: LAPD and city work crews repeatedly

confiscated and destroyed Schellenberger’s personal belongings without warning or due process. – Removal of Encampments: His living spaces were repeatedly cleared and dismantled, often without any meaningful opportunity to contest or retrieve his property. – Weaponized Social Media: Police-led Facebook pages and “community policing” groups publicly identified Schellenberger, encouraged residents to report, shame, and pressure him, and created an ongoing atmosphere of hostility and intimidation. – Enabling of

Community Watch: LAPD and city officials openly collaborated with “community watch” groups to surveil, file complaints, and escalate enforcement actions, often amplifying harassment by thousands rather than isolated individuals.

·        Legal Challenges:

• Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Violations: Alleged unlawful search, seizure, and destruction of property; denial of due process and equal protection. – First Amendment Violations: Censorship, intimidation, and retaliation for protected speech. – Civil Rights Claims (42 U.S.C. § 1G83): Abuse of power and deprivation of constitutional rights by state actors in concert with private citizens. – Chilling of Free Speech: Police and city agents’ use of public digital forums created an environment where Schellenberger and others felt persecuted and unable to exercise basic constitutional rights.

·        Outcomes and Impact:

• National Media Coverage: The lawsuit brought national attention to the growing phenomenon of law enforcement leveraging social media and “community policing” to incite digital mobbing and real-world harm against targets. – Policy Reform Pressure: The litigation and related advocacy contributed to local and national calls for oversight over police use of digital harassment tools and greater protection for homeless communities against collective punishment. – Legal Precedent: This case established the real-world harms created when official actors enable, organize, and incite mass harassment via both traditional police power and new digital networks.

References:

• [Police1: Homeless man sues city over Facebook pages used by police](https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/homeless-man-sues-city-over- facebook-pages-used-by-police-alleging-harassment-7zzqMYxtDY3V87En/)
  • [Justia: Full Case Docket](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2018cv07670/7218 41)
  • [CourtListener: Docket History](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8039897/rex-schellenberger-v-the- city-of-los-angeles/)
  • [Archive.org: Legal Filing Archive](https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cacd.721841)

• [MichaelKohlhaas.org Commentary](https://michaelkohlhaas.org/2018/10/17/rex- schellenberg-v-city-of-los-angeles-in-september-2018-carol-sobel-filed-yet- another-federal-suit-against-the-city-of-los-angeles-alleging-summary- confiscation-and-destruction-of-th/)

M. v. City of San Diego (2016)

In this pivotal Southern California federal lawsuit, the plaintiff, “M.K.” (pseudonym/initials to maintain privacy in court documents), exposed longstanding, city-sanctioned harassment campaigns:

• Personal Encounter—San Diego Police Department:

I personally brought video and photographic evidence of coordinated attacks— proof from both San Diego and Los Angeles—directly to file a police report in San Diego. When I presented this evidence, Officer Niger responded with extreme hostility. He stated: “People are allowed to kill people if not physically touched.” When I attempted to reason with Officer Niger, he escalated his aggression,

threatening my life and declaring he would “drag me out of there, himself.” (CA Penal Code § G6: Neglect of Duty; § 422: Threats; 18 U.S.C. § 242: Civil rights violation)

Significant damages to plaintiff for § 1983 violations; official review ordered of there himself.” This exchange revealed that, far from protecting and serving, the San Diego Police Department supports the stalking and killing of U.S. citizens out of pure hatred. Their responses show they are driven by larger agendas and open knowledge of my case. Officer Niger knew of me the moment I entered—evidence that I am the target of a worldwide federal crime to execute and eradicate me since five years old, not even for any real reason, but simply due to empty labels and groupthink.

·        Background:

M.K., a resident of San Diego, was subjected to years of coordinated harassment and targeted group actions involving not just individuals, but city employees, law enforcement, and “neighborhood watch” participants. These included constant surveillance, repeated police “wellness checks” at odd hours, slander, property interference, and public shaming.

·        How It Worked:

Testimony revealed city workers and police coordinated with local community members and private security companies to monitor, report on, and ostracize the target. This led to a pervasive environment where the victim’s day-to-day activities— including entering or leaving their home—were surveilled, commented on, and sometimes openly threatened by incorporated actors of the community and city.

·        Key Findings:

The court found this was not a series of isolated disputes but a pattern—effectively, a systematic campaign enabled and at times urged by the City of San Diego and its employees.

·        Outcomes:

The court awarded significant damages to the plaintiff for violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1G83, and ordered the City to conduct an official review of its community policing, neighborhood watch, and anti-harassment policies. The case is now cited as a model for demonstrating municipality-level civil liability for orchestrated group stalking and psychological harassment.

Targeted Justice Class Actions (Ongoing Nationwide) Alleging )

·        Background:

In federal courts across the United States, *Targeted Justice* and allied plaintiffs— including private citizens, homeless advocates, and civil rights organizations—have filed large-scale class action lawsuits against various government agencies, police departments, private security firms, and corporate actors.

·        Allegations:

The lawsuits allege “organized stalking,” electronic harassment, illegal surveillance, coordinated defamation, and psychological operations (targeting individuals deemed “difficult,” whistleblowers, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

·        Legal Theories:

• Reliance on federal RICO—18 U.S.C. § 1G62; Civil rights—§ 1G83). Pattern statutes (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), which require proof of a pattern of racketeering/coordinated illegal activity. – Use of 42 U.S.C. § 1G83 to seek redress for constitutional rights violations by state actors and their private proxies. – Many suits stress “pattern and practice,,” not isolated violationsevents, dominating their pleading and evidentiary strategy.

·        Significance:

These cases put “organized stalking” and systemic abuse on the radar of federal courts, creating a record for future reform and judicial recognition of group-based, rather than singular, civil rights violations.Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978, Supreme Court)

Municipalities

• Key Precedent:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in *Monell v. Dept. of Social Services* (436 U.S. 658) holds that municipalities and local governments can be held civilly liable for constitutional rights violations when those violations are caused by “official policy or custom” (§ 1983: Municipal liability).(not just by rogue employees).

·        Legal Impact:

• Allowed lawsuits that do not simply name individual bad actors, but challenge and seek reform of policies, collective practices, or systemic failures leading to mass harm.
• Established new legal standards for suing cities, counties, and agency heads for enabling, ignoring, or encouraging civil rights abuses. – Lifetime significance: Frequently referenced in lawsuits on group stalking, police misconduct, and institutional failure to intervene.

Nuremberg Trials, Soviet Psychiatry, Tuskegee Syphilis Study — Historic Lessons

Nuremberg: Judges/ (1G45–1G46)

·        Background:

After World War II, judges, medical doctors held criminally liable for group-based, and public officials involved with Nazi Germany’s crimes—including genocide and psychiatric persecution. —were prosecuted by an international tribunal in Nuremberg.

·        Precedent:

Personal Criminal Responsibility:

“Following orders” is not a defense (Universal principle; 18 U.S.C. § 242).

. Officials who direct, excuse, or facilitate group-based persecution—whether through law, medicine, or judicial edict—are individually criminally liable, even if their actions were “legal” under their own regime.

For example, Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse, in relation to the targeting of Rex Schellenberger: , stated:

“I was under orders by Chief Michael Moore.” (CA Penal Code § G6; 18 U.S.C. § 242)

He made this statement just before carrying out his third illegal stalking and arrest operation against me in 2023, using his mass stalking cult mobs in their ongoing setup and frame job operations which is now a 48 year operation started with the Perelman Family and Psychology community and Illegal Police Monitoring.

Soviet Psychiatry: Legal/ (1G60s–1G80s)

·        Background:

The Soviet government used psychiatric diagnosis as a means of silencing dissidents and political opponents. Courts and public hospitals, at the behest of the KGB and party leaders, would institutionalize the “unfit,” label them insane, and forcibly medicate them.

·        Precedent:

Demonstrates how the legal and mental health systems used to institutionalize dissenters (CA Penal Code § 236; 18 U.S.C. § 242).

, in alliance, can become instruments of political and social extermination through “legalized” abuse—*precisely because context and pattern were always ignored or hidden.*

Tuskegee: Systemic abuse and judicial  Syphilis Study (1G32–1G72, USA)

·        Background:

For forty years, public health officials and doctors deliberately withheld treatment from African-American men suffering from syphilis to study disease progression. The study’s existence was denied and minimized for decades; judicial systems ignored complaints and protected bureaucratic actors.

·        Precedent:

Embodies the consequences of administrative inertia and institutional cover-up (CA Penal Code § G6).—where “systems” ignore individual and collective suffering until external outrage forces reckoning.

Each of these cases and precedents—legal and historical—directly inform the analysis of modern mass harassment, context erasure, and judicial complicity. They

serve as warnings and roadmaps for legal responses to collective, orchestrated, and system-excused abuse.

G. Why All This Defies the Judiciary’s Reason for Being

Justice is supposed to protect the few from the many, the powerless from the powerful. When the legal system’s central tool is to erase context—to reduce plural to singular—it becomes a machine for abuse, not a shield.

Conclusion

This nightmare did not begin in the shadows or with strangers. It began with my own family—doctors and psychologists, deeply embedded in the medical and mental health professions, each with influence and connections shaped by their careers. I was born in 1972 on Castle Air Force Base in Merced, California. My father was a doctor on that airbase, which connected him to the highest levels of both military and medical power. From the very beginning, those with authority and insider knowledge had a direct role—and a direct line—to the systems that would one day be weaponized to destroy me.

What’s unfolding now is not merely a series of local betrayals, but a total reversal of the American promise. The Constitution of the United States was written as the only true safeguard for the people—meant to protect against the excesses, abuses, and crimes of unchecked government, and against the tyranny of the majority or the powerful. Its existence is both a literal and symbolic shield for those who are vulnerable, targeted, or “different.”

But today, most people—especially those who “have it well in life”—either no longer understand or no longer care about the Constitution or the civil rights it was meant to protect. Why? Because for the fortunate and the comfortable—for the spoiled brats whose lives are untouched by this machinery—it is always someone else, someone weaker, who pays the price. Indifference and complicity thrive among those shielded by privilege; their silence is as deadly as any mob action because it leaves the system’s cruelty completely unchecked.

Let’s not forget: America’s entire foundation is the story of a people fleeing government tyranny for something better—a nation built on the principle that the law’s purpose is to keep people safe from government, not empower it to perpetrate the very crimes it was created to prevent.

The Cycle of Lies, Labeling, and Cult Guilt

Compounding all of this, the unethical family psychological labeling and lies originated by my own family have poisoned the well for generations. Because of these labels, I have never met a single human being who actually believed this was wrong or who would break from the pattern to intervene. Instead, each person I encounter—whether out of fear, brainwashing, or the need to be accepted—enables and protects what has gone on for nearly half a century. What began as rumors, false reports, or private medical and psychological labels became a global, self-protecting cult—a mass conspiracy, in effect, to erase and ultimately murder one individual, to eradicate at all costs.

This system is held together by a terrible emotional logic: everyone protects everyone else, not just to perpetuate harm, but to avoid confronting their own guilt and complicity for the original injustice, stretching back 48 years.

If anyone provoking me is asked how they know of me, the answer is always, “I don’t.” After

that, the attacks only increase—both from that person and from others.

The police monitoring wasn’t random; it began at the direction of my own family—doctors and officials—when I was around five years old on a military base. No one is willing to step forward to admit fault—because after so many decades, taking responsibility would mean facing the reality of unthinkable, unbearable guilt. This is true especially among those in the judicial system.

The crime is not just a worldwide conspiracy to commit murder, harassment or daily minute by minute provokings or harassment, but a mass abdication of ethical and moral responsibility cult-like conspiracy to protect the original lie and the harm it seeded.

A Global, Networked Terror Cell—Minimized by the System

What I am experiencing is not persecution by a few or by officials alone. It is:

• Almost every single human being I interact with since I was 5 years old, globally, taking part—by commission, omission, or coercion—in coordinated acts with neighborhood watch groups and worldwide conspiracies. Endless provokings, setup attempts, and frame jobs.
• This network is a globally organized terror cell, with the explicit aim of erasing a single human being—myself—since childhood.

> This is so unheard of that any attempt to explain it is dismissed, minimized, or pathologized by every layer of the system. What is a global attempt at execution is written off as “a tiny little tease.” This alone shows motive and premeditation.

This denial is proof of organized complicity: when all of society “dumbs down” the endless 48-year attacks but maintains it, the system has truly inverted its purpose—protecting not the victim, but the very mechanism of abuse and extermination itself.

This is something the government will kill to cover up—and at this point, they are actively hunting me to kill me in order to bury forever what they started decades ago. They justify it by labeling me as mentally ill, or simply as “different” or someone who “thinks differently,” to excuse and continue what they have always been doing.

11. Appendix—Specific Examples, Penal Codes, and Legal Accountability

Actor/Action	Quotes/Behavior	Penal Code(s) (with short description)	Factual Crime/Offense
Judge (and Referees)	Suppression of evidence, refusal to allow impeachment or context, dismissing harassment campaigns	CA Penal Code § G6 (judicial officer corruption or misconduct); CA Penal Code § 182 (conspiracy); 18 USC § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law); Judicial Conduct Act	Felony judicial misconduct, deprivation of rights, conspiracy against rights
Mike Huntley (Busineess Partner, and friend sent after me when I was 14 years old)	“We are using the judicial system against you.” “Have a good life now.” “You had better live a careful	CA Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats); CA Penal Code § 182 (conspiracy); CA Penal Code § 646.G (stalking, if conduct is persistent); 18	Felony criminal threats, conspiracy, stalking, aggravated psychological

Actor/Action	Quotes/Behavior	Penal Code(s) (with short description)	Factual Crime/Offense
	life.” Dropping guides on “how to make people in South Korea mentally ill and control or kill them.”	USC § 241 (conspiracy against rights); 18 USC § 2261A (stalking across state/international lines, if applicable)	harassment
Garrett (Starbucks Employee with Starbuck and Coffee Shops Worldwide)	“It’s your transgressions.” “You got away with a crime—we’re hunting you.”	CA Penal Code § 646.G (stalking); CA Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats); CA Penal Code § 653m (harassing communication, if applicable)	Stalking, criminal threats, organized harassment
Charles Sean Dinsey (LAPD)	Lead Officer Charles Sean Dinse is involved in 3 illegal arrests to incarcerate me for life to cover up their mass worldwide mobbings and eradication operations which they started when I was 5 years old from predecessor to predecessor. Involved in local community watch groups Using the Internet,	CA Penal Code § 422.6 (interference with civil rights); CA Penal Code § 182 (conspiracy); CA Penal Code § 236 (false imprisonment, if institutionalization is threatened or attempted); 18 USC § 241/242 (conspiracy/deprivation of rights)	Interference with civil rights, conspiracy, organized group harassment, false imprisonment

Actor/Action	Quotes/Behavior	Penal Code(s) (with short description)	Factual Crime/Offense
	and his Facebook account as a weapon to build worldwide stalking armies to silence me about what they started when I was 5 years old
Chief Michael Moore (LAPD)	Implementing and condoning “community policing” policies including “forced” mental institutionalization , allowing mobbing under color of law. As well as Police Monitoring of children	CA Penal Code § 236 (false imprisonment); CA Penal Code § 182 (conspiracy); CA Penal Code § G6 (misconduct in public office); 18 USC § 241/242 (conspiracy/deprivation of rights); RICO 18 USC § 1G62 (if part of broader enterprise)	Conspiracy, deprivation of rights, abuse of authority/office , false imprisonment
Neighborhood/Communit y Groups/Security Companies Worldwide	Stalking, surveillance, intimidation, working in concert with police	RICO (18 USC § 1G62) (racketeering/institutiona l criminal enterprise); CA Penal Code § 182 (conspiracy); CA Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats); CA Penal Code § 646.G (stalking)	Organized criminal enterprise, conspiracy, psychological assault, threats
Dr. Ronald Barry Perelman / Anita Perelman	“You know what you did.” “Your past caught up with you.” Persistent	CA Penal Code § 646.G (stalking); CA Penal Code § 368 (elder/dependent adult abuse, if victim in those	Psychological harassment, aiding and abetting, emotional

Actor/Action	Quotes/Behavior	Penal Code(s) (with short description)	Factual Crime/Offense
	gaslighting and participation in harassment	classes); CA Penal Code § 422 (criminal threats); CA Civil Code § 1708 (invasion of privacy by psychological harassment), if applicable	abuse, stalking

Actor/Action	Quotes/Behavior	Penal Code(s) (with short description)	Factual Crime/Offense
Defense Attorney (Public/Private)	Refusal to impeach witnesses, denial of context, passing judgment before proof, “throwing client under the bus” for peer/political pressure	CA Bus. C Prof. Code § 6068; CA Penal Code §§ 182, 132, 127, 118, 1385; CA Rules Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 8.4; 18 USC §§ 241, 242; 6th Amendment	Ineffective assistance, legal malpractice, professional misconduct, deprivation of rights, conspiracy, bar/disciplinary violations

Final Excerpt:

> The judiciary, in ignoring or enabling mass harassment and conspiracy, has abandoned its mission. The law was not born to defend the powerful, but to shield the one against the mob. Every clerk, officer, judge, or civilian colluder who knowingly “processes” organized abuse helps turn the law from salvation to scourge. True reform—true justice—means holding each accountable, by the letter and the spirit of the codes they now betray.