Please Do Not Associate Me With The Selfish Decisions That Caused Others Damage, I'm A Peaceful Person That Was Brutalized By A Serial Killer and The Rich Families That Helped Her

 

I've had several attempts on my life reported to law enforcement.  It became clear that Lori Jean LaFond and her brother, Brian were behind both of those attempts.  When the police broke the law and stopped investigating, possibly because of the Crimes Against Person's Captain was the "four year ex-boyfriend" of the suspect and her former neighbor, Lori made visible and audible plans to stalk me to Arizona.  Whether Jonathan and Anthony were involved with her or not, she contacted them while we were in Arizona.  In person they both were in her presence.  This was obviously against the law and stalking on a federal level.  If you don't believe me, read below.

How could Benjamin Katzenberg and his mother be there with Lori's co-conspirator in an attempted murder case without knowing that Lori was in violation of the federal law on stalking?  It's impossible.  Stalking me across state lines was something that both Anthony and Jonathan knew about.  They were contacted before I even got there.  It was a huge mistake bringing them along.  While there they both witnessed and collected evidence of Lori's presence and her activities with two young boys.  Neither reported the crime to the authorities and neither has told authorities who was there and what they were doing.  This is in furtherance of the stalking charges that should have been brought there.  They weren't.  This was due to the obstruction that was entered into by three trusted friends one of which was the other police informant.  It appears that there were financial or property wrangling either by Alice Mendenhall or Jeffrey Katzenberg that gagged the witnesses or obstructed the prosecutions of Brian LaFond and his scumbag sister Lori.  This prosecution should have included child porn manufacturing, child abuse, drug manufacturing, drug transportation, and stalking.  They didn't.  In fact nobody did anything but lie for the criminals.  The boys were at least appointed to a prosecutor.  Which is a far cry better than what the PSPD ever did for me.

This is a case of betrayal, murder, attempted murder, elderly abuse, fraud, obstruction and witness tampering.  For who?  Well, who benefitted?

To this day Jeffrey and Marilyn Katzenberg have done nothing more than lie to my sister, steal from my mother, and separate the police informants so that they could commit a crime.  The other benefits of not telling the truth come from property holdings of the Mendenhall family and others in exchange for silence.

The case against Lori and Brian involves two minors, "Bound and Gagged Billy", Jonathan once wrote about the pair.  He even referenced Lori's rape costume, "Junior's Jockstrap" and the instrument used to rape the boys, "Uncle Phil's Dildo".  Then he "died" literally or figuratively, so if he's alive isn't he negligent?  Isn't anyone hiding him in the same boat?  Isn't anyone that is an informant that says nothing about it in violation too?

Upon returning to our area as fugitives and a perjured surety, the stalkers then proceeded to rob my elderly mother of a bank account with my name on it.  A sum of $35,000 or more, money that Marilyn Katzenberg was well aware was for the informants' attorney was stolen and given to Jeffrey who then hid the money so it could not be used to help the boys prosecute Lori Jean LaFond and her friends.  This isn't just an obstruction folks, it is the complete cover up of an attempted murder.  Read, learn, and understand that the law doesn't know friendships, feelings, emotions, or good intentions...or bad ones, all it knows is the law.  The Monti's, Katzenberg's, Mendenhall's and Lori's organized criminals all committed this crime then proceeded for 12 years to continue to mentally destroy all of the things that I used to keep myself out of fear for my life.

The rich protect their own.  The poor still have to suffer the brutal rapes and attempted murders without any kind of protection from anyone.  Jeffrey's biggest coup, turning my own family against me.  He's done nothing but hold evidence over my head and the other informant over my heart.  That's all gone now.  This case can be proven without rich people and the horrible things that they do to the poor.

Jeffrey is so PROUD of not helping me that he actually brags about it.  It's like some kind of trophy in his cabinet.  "I didn't do a thing for Kevin or his family," he says...but he said he would and now, he and his family can fuck off.  I don't want your help.  I don't work with people that hurt kids.  I don't work with people that use a "relationship" as a weapon.  Both Jeffrey and Christopher conspired to hurt me and my family, to put us in danger and fear for our lives.  This was accomplished by a corrupt persuasion by the operators of this system (Barbara and Jonathan) as well as Jeffrey and his wife, boo hoo-ing about all the problems that they could suffer.  Forget the boys, forget the broken skulled informant...Jeffrey could get in trouble.  Yeah?  Fuck him.

In the 12 years since Sedona, where has Jeffrey been to report this crime?  Who did he talk to about it?  Why didn't he talk to someone?  Where the fuck was Christopher?  Where the fuck was Jonathan?  Where was Jonathan's father/mother/sister?  In those 12 years they were all playing rich people...without a care in the universe.  Meanwhile Jeffrey was taking everything he could get his hands on.  Money, information, crime lab reports, MRI's, evidence, witnesses...everything...and he did nothing!  Not one single fucking thing for the boys or me.  In fact, he hurt more than anyone.  He belongs in jail but he isn't the only person.

As far as I'm concerned this whole trip proves the trafficking of persons for financial gain.  Drugs were manufactured on the property without anyone saying anything.  It was far more important to help the girls that tried to murder me.  That is a serious crime.  Missy Erickson is the former nursing student at the hospital who stole my MRI's twice after going to the emergency room.  My head was so badly smashed that her friend, Leah Fauntleroy, another former nursing student saw the MRI's and knew it was serious.  The second visit to the emergency room was the same...I was in dire pain and the girls stole the MRI's from radiology.  That is an accomplice in the attempted murder.  So not only did the rapist show up in Arizona to "finish the job" she brought her accomplice from Palm Springs.  Or should I say Jeffrey sent her.  Whose side is he on?  I think it's clearer than ever it isn't mine or the boys.

I know what you are thinking..."Where is your police contact?"  Hey the agreement was that Benjamin would tell him because I couldn't get through on the cell (Lori forwards) and through emails (Lori logs into police email accounts), even the Chief of Police has fallen victim to emails that he didn't send from his account.  He's an idiot.

What is Stalking?

Under U.S. federal law, someone commits the felony of stalking if that person:

• places another person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to him- or herself, his or her immediate family member, or spouse or intimate partner
• causes, attempts to cause, or could reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress to the target of their conduct, or
• acts with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place the victim under surveillance in order to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate that person.

(18 USC § 2261A.)

In order to violate the federal, as opposed to a state, anti-stalking law, a person must either travel across state lines, into or out of tribal land, or engage in interstate commerce in the commission of the crime. Most people charged with the federal crime of stalking have engaged in interstate commerce by simply using a telephone, the Internet, or the U.S. postal service. The federal anti-stalking law expressly includes the use of an electronic communications system as a means of violating the federal anti-stalking law.

Definitions

Several of the terms used in the federal anti-stalking law have been defined by courts in cases challenging the law.

"Course of conduct"

In general, a single act will not amount to "stalking," as that term is defined by federal law. Stalking requires a "course of conduct," which courts have held means a pattern of conduct made up of two or more acts intended to accomplish a particular purpose (such as intimidation).

"Harass"

Courts have defined harassment as it is commonly understood: repeated words, conduct, or action that serve no legitimate purpose and are directed at a specific person to annoy, alarm, or distress that person.

"Substantial emotional distress"

Substantial emotional distress, as that term is used in the federal anti-stalking statute, is mental distress, suffering, or anguish, including depression, shame, humiliation, shock, embarrassment, grief, anxiety, or fear.

Intent

In order to convict a person under the federal anti-stalking statute, a U.S. attorney must prove that a stalking defendant acted with the intent to cause death, injury, fear of injury or death, or substantial emotional distress to the victim. Often, intent is proven by introducing the defendant's own threatening voicemail messages, emails, texts, and/or Facebook page postings.

State Laws Also Prohibit Stalking

Every state has some version of an anti-stalking law that makes it a crime to engage in the conduct that is prohibited under the federal law. So, if a person stalks another individual but does not do so in a way that falls under the federal law (for example, the stalker does not use the phone, Internet, or mail, and does not travel across state lines to engage in the conduct), that person may still be chargedunder state anti-stalking law.

First Amendment Issues

Several federal appellate courts have rejected challenges to the anti-stalking statute, when the challenges were based on free speech as protected by the First Amendment. The reason given by the courts for rejecting this challenge, in general, is that the statute bars conduct and is not addressed primarily to speech. This was the reasoning used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a June 2014 decision, U.S. v. Osinger, No. 11-50338, upholding the anti-stalking statute. And, where communications by a stalking defendant are "integral" to the crime of stalking (such as verbal or written threats), the defendant cannot successfully challenge the law based on the First Amendment.