This earlier brief uses specific August dates for the hotel observation and residential dispute. The later agency-records chronology preserves an unresolved July/August date discrepancy for the Las Vegas encounter. The exact hotel dates and the residential date must be reconciled against contemporaneous records; the dated headings below are earlier working placements, not newly verified dates.
Read the later source note P6 and the current date-conflict note.
Reading standard
Statements about misconduct, motive, identity, conspiracy, retaliation, information access, or responsibility should be read according to their stated evidence basis. Original sources control over summaries.
Why August 2022 matters
August 2022 is one of the densest periods in the chronology. It combines federal reporting, a firsthand hotel observation during my sister's litigation period, a disputed residential event, and a communication I understood as a threat. The closeness in time is why the period deserves investigation. Temporal proximity alone does not prove a common cause.
August 8: IC3 reporting
On or around August 8, 2022, I submitted a good-faith IC3 complaint reporting suspected federal misconduct. A correction matters: I did not know Amir Ehsaei's identity at the time and did not name him in that complaint. Any later theory involving him is a later attribution question, not something the complaint itself proves.
Earlier working date — August 8–9: Mondrian observation
During the Los Angeles mediation period I met litigation counsel at the Mondrian hotel and posted location or imagery to Instagram. When I returned to the seating area the following day, I observed three people seated across from me whom I believed were federal agents. I allege that I was being physically surveilled and that the encounter was part of a broader stalking and intimidation course.
Evidence split
My observation is firsthand recollection. Original media, hotel CCTV, witnesses, Instagram/provider records, and duty or operational records may corroborate or disprove the identity, timing, method of locating me, and purpose. Those attribution questions remain unresolved.
Earlier working date — August 9–10: Las Vegas residential dispute
During litigation-related travel, my Las Vegas residence became the subject of a disputed lockout or entry event. That event should be reconstructed through property-management communications, service and court records, police contacts, photographs, and the precise authority relied upon by whoever acted. The event should not be folded into a federal surveillance theory merely because it occurred in the same period.
August 20: the reported threat
I received a communication from Idene Ryan Parvizi invoking Seth Rich. I interpreted it as a threat to my safety. The original communication, full context, sender attribution, date, and surrounding exchanges should control its legal characterization.
The separate source-of-knowledge question is whether Idene knew about my federal reporting or other nonpublic facts, and if so, how. A threat can be authenticated without proving the origin of every fact the speaker may have known.
What remains unproved
- The identities and agency affiliation of the people I observed at the Mondrian.
- Whether anyone used provider data or government resources to locate me.
- Whether Amir had access to the IC3 complaint or any related information.
- Whether Amir and Idene communicated about me.
- Whether Idene's statement was made because of federal reporting.
- Whether the Las Vegas residential event was connected to any federal or private surveillance theory.
The records that matter
- IC3/FBI access and dissemination logs.
- Instagram and other provider records relevant to location or account access.
- Hotel CCTV, reservations, access records, and witnesses where still available.
- Federal duty, travel, assignment, and operational records.
- Original communications with native metadata.
- Property-management, court, service, and police records for the Las Vegas event.