Self defense, gang stalking cases and lawsuits: The case of Stephen Reichow, and the police informants

Before you reach for your S&W model 66 snub nosed .357 and blast a few caps into the faces or undersized scrotum’s (or Guernsey cattle sized labias) of the stalkers who have entered your home, thinking that you are not there, or otherwise catch them in a precarious situation where you might get a shot off at them with plausible deniability– keep this cautionary tale below of “The police informants, the baseball bat, and the rigged trial court system.”

Its worth a read.

Here is the news coverage of the story, where Stephen Reichow beat a “likely”police informant to death and got convicted of it despite a very clear self defense claim. The problem? The defense strategy of explicating the facts of that claim, and some clear evidentiary issues where his attorney was not prepared to handle a case with a subsidiary causal agent such as gang stalking.

Keep in mind that I am neither a fan of drugs (each to their own I say) nor a fan of murder–but seriously, who WGAF if some drug informant gets taken out? Certainly not me. Snitches get stitches if the world works right–and let the drug addicts kill themselves for the sake of Darwin (yes I am all for Darwinian eugenics)! But go after CIA/DEA/Hollywood mafia drug importers instead, because they are who are forcing the Darwinian hand–they are in fact the weakest of the weak–but strong because of the fascism of herd mentality and its partner in perimeter trolling, gang stalking.

Indict them–stalk THEM–stalk their children, and families, and relatives–but gang stalking victims seldom do, because it’s an intimidating project that can easily see the target(actual gang stalking victims) jailed, or worse. Indeed, people who get gang stalked often die in the process; or those who do uncover gang stalkers often get framed--as in the case below.

The basic story goes like this: a woman who has since reaped social rewards, and other benefits, Anne Tanninen, has a storage shed–and that woman as much a pawn in the gang stalking gang as her own associates– we see time and time and time again that these stories provide insight and a nexus for gang stalking as a social practice,informant creation schemes by the various agencies- red-lining in real estate, and more–and she invites two of her drug buddies into her little playhouse, whereupon she gets a phone call from a merry “prankster” who just happens to mention “gang stalking,” which not in-coincidentally is what local, state and federal law enforcement agents do.

Anne Tanninen(who is no heroine by any stretch, according to her arrest records online, and other data) then mentions this to her co-drug friends, Stephen Reichow and Brandon Maulding, and then, trouble ensues. Anne Tanninen’ s friend Brandon Maulding picks up an aluminum baseball bat and begins flipping it around in the face of Mr. Reichow, who, fearing for his safety, flees the storage shed and hides under a car.

Anne Tanninen with Brandon Maulding riding shotgun, then drives her car to the place where Mr. Reichow is hiding, likely fearing for his life! And, whereupon he attempts to once again flee from his pursuers, but is menaced–once again, by Brandon Maulding holding that industrial grade aluminum baseball bat–I myself have swung them; they are indeed deadly weapons.

A fight ensues, whereupon Mr. Reichow is able to take control of the weapon, and then soundly beats the man who menaced him with it to death. The judge in his case Judge Suzan Clark (in Clark County of all places) is a white woman who simply cannot fathom such a reaction, because why? Yup–shes a protected species! And her name matches her county! Yaaaaay for the Clark confabulation! Yaaaay for matching! Girl Power!

A white female who made it through law school and was able to find a peg on a judges bench to sit her fat, tighty-whitey hole until further election. Judge Clark sent him away for 24 years, because she cannot fathom why a guy who has been chased by two people wielding a baseball bat would react with such great violence! Make no mistake: many of these types of judges belong to sororal organizations like Eastern Star Fremasonry, and they have no allegiance to the rule of law whatsoever. I urge my readers to investigate her fully.

And because she is white, and female, and under zero threats whatsoever in white society, she just couldn’t wrap her tighty whitey head around the idea of the “amount of brutality” the man inflicted as he beat an acquaintance to death with a baseball bat.”

Sure–maybe Reichow should have thrown a tea party, invited a few of his favorite dollies, and worked it out girl-style, with lots of talk, some crying, a few hugs–and some second opinions from “The View.” But he couldn’t exactly do that, because some asshole and another white female was menacing his very life at the time–with a Louisville Slugger made out of industrial grade aluminum–listen lady–its that dog, or this dog in moments like that. No time for tea parties, ok?

“You didn’t stop; you kept hitting him,” she told Stephen Reichow. “The threat was so far gone, but you kept hitting him.”

Sure, whatever, lady. Oh, the violence of it all! (*Feinting now*)… (such a white female perspective.)

Listen Judge Suzan Clark: turn that vibrating ass peg under your judges seat down a notch, and try to put yourself in that situation–because you can’t. You are a white female! Violence to you is an Emma Sulcowicz rape meme on Twitter!

Yup–gang stalking is a mess, at all times. And so are you–I have seen your picture online, and refuse to post it, for fear that my readers might puke.

While gang stalking is a mess of a situation, with these protected species like Ms. Clark sitting on judges benches and failing to comprehend how one might react to some asshole waving an aluminum bat around in your face, and pursuing you with that bat– self defense law is NOT a mess--its very clear in most states around the US and in so-called civilized nations that if you are being threatened with deadly objects like guns, knives, and so on–you have a right to defend yourself.

And–who can say what form that defense might take–or how much force must be used to neutralize a threat to an unarmed citizen? Hell–cops shoot people every day–EVERY FUCKING DAY–and Mr. Reichow, after the point of fleeing not once but twice as his menacing attacker pursued him–you DO have a right to defend yourself; the only question is “how far can you go to neutralize a life-threat?”

When gang stalkers in police departments, and in the DEA, and who all know each other and sit on the judges benches too–apparently, targeted individuals should just stand down and take an “ass-whuppin’” because….well, because “gang stalking.”Because stupid pig judges like Ms. Clark cannot fathom violence–because protected species like her have never had it directed at them, but fear it in every rape meme on Twitter about women who invite ass-fucking (as Emma Sulcowicz did and continues to do)

I think this case could merit a Supreme court challenge on several grounds, but leave it to the lawyers who stumble upon this “gang stalking cases and lawsuits” post to write the explainers on what is wrong with this case.

Here is a bit from Mr. Reichow’s appeal in 2019, and note that the appeals court did NOT overturn his conviction, despite clear evidence and psychiatric testimony that he had a “belief” that he was being “gang stalked”–and that alongside Anne Tanninen’s vocalized statements about “being gang stalked.”I ask: who EXACTLY is Anne Tanninen, of Clark County Oregon? That seems important, ay?

It’s all an eyeball roller–but that’s what most gang stalking cases are, because this police/other agent “investigation privileged tactic” of organized gag stalking is EXACTLY that absurd and EXACTLY that bizarre.

From State Of Washington, Respondent V Stephen Mark Reichow, Appellant (Majority) (hard link here, because after WordPress’ in house spies manipulate my “free wordpress, links do not link correctly)

Hi Kenya Keenoo*!

https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/court-of-appeals-division-ii/2019/50289-5.html

On August 1, 2015, Reichow killed Brandon Maulding by beating him with a baseball bat. The State charged Reichow with first degree premeditated murder (Count I), second degree intentional murder (Count II), and second degree felony murder (Count III). All the charges included deadly weapon enhancements and aggravating circumstances. Before trial, Reichow was evaluated at Western State Hospital for competence and diminished capacity. The trial court found Reichow competent to stand trial. Then, the State filed a motion to exclude expert testimony regarding diminished capacity. Dr. Nicole Zenger, the forensic psychologist who completed Reichow’s diminished capacity evaluation,testified at the hearing on the motion to exclude. Dr. Zenger diagnosed Reichow with a psychotic disorder characterized by paranoid beliefs about being stalked. Dr. Zenger testified that she did not believe that Reichow acted with premeditation or intent. Dr. Zenger explained,And in ad—in addition when we’re talking about intent according to how my community—professional community would look at that, that’s a consideration of what the mental state was. Now what the act was. And any behavior—ninety-nine point nine percent of the time is going to have some kind of intention.But that does not speak to what the mental state—or for the court’s purposes—menserea (ph) is. That speaks to the act itself so Mr. Reichow—using a bat to strike the victim was inten—was a volitional act.That’s not what I’m asked to address. I’m asked to address what his mental state was and so I do need to consider the context within which this took. And I’m No. 50289-5-II/No. 51212-2-II3asked because of his mental illness and me as a profess—professional in the mental health field to look at how that would have affected the context of his mental state. And so when I’m looking at intent and from what I unde—what I understand outside of needing an attorney and of course I’m going to have some weaknesses there—that when I’m looking at intention I’m looking at the mental state of what someone intends.And that involves cognitive thinking—not a volitional act. And so—I mean—I’m just providing some context of I think there’s some confusion about simply the act of assault—meaning thathe did it with some—I—I don’t want to use the word intention because that’s not—he—it was a volitional act of striking someone—he knew he was striking someone.But that’s not what I’m being asked to address. I’m being asked to address what was the purpose or intention of it. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP)(Jan. 6, 2017)at 63-64. Dr. Zenger also testified that at the time of the incident Reichow’s mental illness caused a state of “fear and believing he was in danger in the situation.” VRP(Jan. 6, 2017)at 66. The trial court also considered Dr. Zenger’s report which concluded,The available evidence is consistent with the conclusion that Mr. Reichow was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offense. Although he knowingly struck the victim, his delusional beliefs were guiding his assessment of the situation and negatively affected his ability to make a rationally informed decision and respond with intentional behavior. There is no reasonable indication that he had the specific intention to commit a crime (unlawful assault), as his claim of self-defense—in response to paranoid delusions—is consistent with his lack of violent history and the behavior of immediately seeking emergency services for the victim. Clerk’sPapers (CP) at 69. The trial court granted the State’s motion to exclude Dr. Zenger’s testimony regarding diminished capacity. The trial court explained,No. 50289-5-II/No. 51212-2-II4This—our Supreme Court said to maintain a diminished capacity defense the Defendant must produceexpert testimony demonstrating that a mental disorder—not [amounting] to insanity—impaired the Defendant’s ability to form the culpable mental state to commit the crime charged.And I looked from that to the culpable mental state here as really set forth under RCW 9A.08.101(1)(a) which is the definition of acting with intent or intentionally. And that’s when a person acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime. And it is concerning reading Dr. Zenger’s report that the gist of this seems to be that this is justifiable homicide or self-defense which certain of those claims are valid but that does not rise to a—a diminished capacity defense on—on any of these facts.We have very much goal directed activity here and based on the totality of it I am going to exclude the evidence under ER 702.VRP(Jan. 6, 2017)at 105-06

Imagine that! A judge claiming that evidence of gang stalking–as a target is stalked by no less than three people–is a “delusion.”

Anyone want to help me write some case law into the records? Contact me for this one case, which can easily be overturned.

*Kenya Keenoo is an inside joke–one of WOrdpress’s associates goes by that name, and in fact is allied with gang stalkers. More on him can be found at http://www.researchorganizedgangstalking.org search term “Keenoo”who is a developer and other things. He lives in Kenya, and his brother is in a similar situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.