July 30, 2022
To the Office of the Inspector General Hotline, Investigations Division:
On the chance you are able to speak to some of the physicians to whom I have provided permissions, I would like to share a few details that may assist questioning.
1. Why did I mention the existence of my stalker to Dr. DL?
One day, while checking out of Dr. L’s Office, one of the receptionists appeared to be making an appointment with a new patient over the phone. She asked the patient to spell his name, after which she repeated the spelling: X-X-X-N-D-A-N. This is an unusual spelling of the name – and the spelling of the first name of my stalker. At the time, I was concerned that my stalker may be aware of who my doctor was, where his office was, etc. I was genuinely worried for the safety of the office staff and physicians, so I expressed my concerns to Dr. L and Dr. P. I told them in general terms that I did have a stalker with the first name of an apparent new patient of theirs – and recounted what happened in the lobby of their practice. I refused to share my stalker’s last name for liability reasons. (My stalker is reported to be a malignant narcissist who is apparently gratified by accusing his victims of his own crimes. I did not intend to be accused by him of slander and defamation, so I refused to share his last name.)
In retrospect, I can see that this was a fairly cynical set-up in which my benevolence and good faith were used against me. I was trying to protect the very physician who was preying upon me for pay from Infragard – at my stalker’s direction.
Dr. L asked whether I had reported my stalker to the authorities, and I told him I had.
But I never mentioned the details of that reporting, the name of Sheriff’s Deputy Rick Chaput, or the contents of my complaint. I shared no specifics.
Likewise, with Sheriff’s Deputy Rick Chaput, I never mentioned my doctor DL.
The only way in which Dr. L would have been able to add a falsified contribution to Case Report #19-11840 is through the coordination of the FBI. This particular doctor and this particular Sheriff’s Deputy would never have known each other otherwise.
2. How did Dr. L attempt to explain the harm he caused me during surgery on December 26, 2019? He told other physicians that I had an A-frame deformity prior to surgery – a blatant falsehood. Then he altered my in-office photos to add shadowing indicating this asymmetry.
I include a photo herewith for OIG Hotline investigators to show that I had no such deformity prior to surgery:
The attempt of the surgeon to lie in this manner is stunning, in my opinion. The cynicism and premeditation involved in these acts – the contempt for his patient – the group predation – all of it. Suffice it to say that these acts do not represent the professional and ethical standards we expect all physicians to be upholding. Many laws were broken by this man. Many laws were broken by his partner, Dr. P, who attempted to cover Dr. L’s malfeasance.
It is difficult to view such “gang stalking” as acceptable on any level.
3. Why was there the effort to communicate a more serious pathogen through Dr. WV, and, more recently, the medical personnel at PAMF?
My stalker describes himself as possessing a sadistic drive. In other words, he finds it gratifying to cause harm to good and innocent people.
He has expressed to me that he has engaged repeatedly and extensively in the intentional transmission of his HIV virus to otherwise healthy people. (My husband and I did report this allegation, among others, to the FBI agent to whom we spoke at Oakland, CA FBI Headquarters on February 21, 2020 – but this agent is reported to have falsified the resulting report and suppressed the investigation of my stalker.)
Perhaps my stalker believed that his false assertions that I had had many intimate partners would be bolstered by an HIV diagnosis.
Honestly, it is extremely difficult to grasp the psychological illness that would lead someone to prey upon others in this manner.
To imagine complicity on the part of local and federal law enforcement officers with someone like my stalker is – a far reach.
Most reasonable people are simply not going to give credence to the idea that such malevolence exists.
I’m one of those reasonable people. It took me a long time to accept that certain employees and affiliates of the FBI are preying upon “targets of interest” in the medical realm.
4. On September 15, 2019, I spontaneously stopped by the medical office of Dr. Ian Kroes, because I realized that my own physician, Yumi Ando, was not appropriately meeting my medical needs due to professional compromise through the FBI/Infragard.
I sought to replace her as my concierge physician. The office staff told me that Dr. Kroes was accepting new patients and that the Office Manager, Sabina Schnapek, would be delighted to see me the following day.
The office shared with me Dr. Kroes’ fee structure, which seemed like something I could afford, though I don’t recall the specific dollar amounts now.
The next day, on September 16, 2019, the Office Manager Sabina Schnapek explained to me that she had spoken with Yumi Ando about my being there, and that Yumi Ando had expressed that I was in some manner “troubled” or “dishonest.”
It bears stating that Yumi Ando would have had no means of knowing that I had visited Dr. Kroes’ office without active surveillance and harassment of those acting in a criminal capacity within the FBI/Infragard.
Ms. Schnapek stated that Dr. Kroes was not accepting new patients – a lie. And she mentioned a fee structure that was far outside of my price range, in direct conflict with what I had been told the day before.
Again, this represents predatory gang stalking as perpetrated by the FBI.
I just need to observe that to obstruct a patient’s medical care is dangerous. This type of action opens myriad liability concerns. In a democratic society, citizens should have access to private and safe medical care delivered through a physician in whom they trust. All of these standards were violated in this circumstance when I was prevented from obtaining proper care when I sought to become a patient of Dr. Kroes.
My own physician, Yumi Ando, needed to possess the moral reference frame to tell the FBI to cease and desist. Instead, she took pay to do their bidding by perpetrating unwarranted slander and defamation.
I can personally attest that such failures of character are deeply disheartening.
5. Physician Ben Erickson is reported to have defamed me to myriad physicians, including Judith Nevitt, Tayyeba Ali, Jackson Lau, Ann Jarayam, and Jordan Piluek. It's notable that I never mentioned to Dr. Erickson that I intended to consult with any of the physicians listed above.
Instead, the manner in which Dr. Erickson learned of my consults with these doctors was through direct contact with his FBI handler, who subsequently instructed him in a plan of slander and defamation toward me. And, let's not forget to mention, Dr. Erickson committed these crimes for purported remuneration from Infragard.
Does this sound ethical to anyone? Does it sound lawful? Does it sound Constitutional?
No, my friends.
No, on all counts.
6.. Attorney Nick Heimlich is reported to have slandered and defamed me to Attorneys Peter Schlueter and Christopher Bou-Saeed, as well as many other attorneys I attempted to consult. (The appropriate permissions for the OIG Hotline will be forthcoming.)
Neither Mr. Schlueter nor Mr. Bou-Saeed were willing to answer my email queries about their communications with Mr. Heimlich. Nobody wanted to be disbarred for violating the fundamental requirements of attorney/client privilege.
But I did not mention any of these attorneys to one another. Mr. Heimlich had no way of knowing that I had contacted Mr. Schlueter and Mr. Bou-Saeed except through the FBI/Infragard.
Clearly, for the FBI to obstruct a law-abiding client’s impartial legal advocacy is unconstitutional.
I am told this is a standard element of the FBI’s “target of interest”program, resulting in the fact that “targets of interest” have not yet been able to defend themselves from this type of predation in a court of law.
7. My stalker has sent me numerous quotes recently through the Pegasus hack of my iPhone claiming that “those who did you wrong are telling a different version of the story and claiming to be the victim,” “those who know they wronged you are obsessed with discrediting you,” “when they cannot find anything wrong with you, they create it,” – and more.
I have learned over time that malignant narcissists “project” their own crimes onto their victims. Malignant narcissists who are stalkers accuse their victims of stalking behavior. Then they consciously set out to create behavior in their victims that could be wrongly interpreted in that manner.
As an example, Attorney Lior Zorea repeatedly asked me to “check on” my stalker’s well-being by “making a big public display” of concern for him.
He suggested that I bring food to my stalker’s house, which I would never have done.
He suggested that I send lingerie to my stalker in the mail, which I would never have done.
He explained to me that my stalker, as a gigolo, had two “price ranges” for customers. In other words, he attempted to serve as a pimp for my stalker. I made clear to Mr. Zorea that under no circumstances was I going to be a “customer” of my stalker.
Mr. Zorea committed many other deceits beyond these, but it is possible through this brief list to perceive a concerted attempt at a fairly elaborate set-up.
Clearly, the men involved in gang stalking programs are enjoying certain group aspects of their predation, attempting to derail the lives of virtuous American citizens (“targets”) in a manner that brings them gratification while reassuring themselves of their power over others.
As general commentary, I will just observe that the “target of interest” program is hugely expensive. The payoffs through Infragard appear to be highly motivating to “informants” – and American citizens appear to be easily duped by the sort of disinformation the FBI is peddling. FBI personnel are highly experienced in prevarication. They appear to be able to make innocent American citizens appear to be heinous criminals if they do not comply with the agency’s starkly totalitarian objectives.
In such an environment, the Freedom of Information Act should be liberally, determinedly upheld.
The average citizen has no hope of defending herself against false accusations extended in secret by federal agents. “Targets of interest” have no idea what is being said about them when they are slandered and defamed by those in a position of authority.
All of these actions are clearly unconstitutional.
It is secrecy which allows these crimes to be perpetrated by the FBI, in direct and ongoing subversion of our democracy.
Who will defend law-abiding American citizens in this matter against the clearly anti-democratic predations of the FBI/Infragard in embodying a de facto “secret police” which demands total compliance from the public?
I do not believe that falsified law enforcement reporting should be allowed to remain concealed, either within Case Report #19-11840 or at the federal level.
It’s disconcerting enough that the FBI pays informants for false reporting – but it’s devastating that the agency follows this by further falsifying and notarizing reports within its auspices in a process entirely internal to the agency.
Someone has to have the courage to expose this lawlessness.
If the Freedom of Information Act had been properly upheld, the FBI would never have been able to manifest corruption of the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative and the “target of interest” program.
Now, our entire democracy in under threat from the very men who have vowed to uphold and defend the Constitution.
In response, there should be an assertive commitment to fulfill FOIA requests in nearly all circumstances.
Recently, my stalker has been offering to render me a “kajillionaire” if I will only allow my FOIA request to be fulfilled by accepting redacted materials.
He has also asserted that withholding the fake AI-generated film or films co-opting my likeness, with which the FBI has so liberally and viciously defamed me for the last several years, would be “better for everyone.”
Not for me.
These lies have been disseminated nationally through federal information-sharing programs HSIN, N-DEx and/or LEEP. But it is somehow “better for everyone” if the victim herself does not have access to them?
That does not sound like democracy to me.
That sounds utterly and completely dystopian.
And further, I must ask, is it really in the interests of the United States to allow a human trafficker, the head of a far-right militia, and a ranking member of Russian-affiliated organized crime to be deciding what is “better for everyone” in this country?
Maybe elected officials could be deciding what is “better for everyone” in support of our democracy instead?
Perhaps due process of law could be involved?
Perhaps the Freedom of Information Act could be upheld as part of that due process of law?
These observations are the ABC-song of democracy. They’re not an opera by Verdi. If we don’t know the tune, we must listen to those who do.
Falsified law enforcement reporting cannot persist alongside American democracy. They are incompatible with one another – wholly, completely, resolutely opposed.
Perhaps the FBI has really and truly deconstructed our Constitution, and there’s no going back. Perhaps the lack of fulfillment of my FOIA request bears that out.
The good people within the OIG Hotline make me feel that may not have transpired quite yet.
Their determined investigators make me believe there may be others who are as committed to illuminating the truth of this matter as I.
Most sincerely,
Lane MacWilliams
