Reading Position
This overview is written from the author's account. The repeated point is not that powerful people should be excused because records are missing. The point is that missing records, deleted records, hidden-channel activity, and forced exclusion are themselves central parts of the alleged harm. The author says the situation cannot be judged fairly by isolating his reactions while ignoring the conduct that initiated the conflict, the channel from which he was kept out, and the practical impossibility of defending himself against narratives he was not allowed to see directly.
In these writings, a relay means online content the author interpreted as an indirect response to his private activity, on-screen writing, physical condition, housing situation, or legal danger. Relays explain how he understood communications in a situation where direct access was denied. The author asks that these relays be examined together with platform logs, accounts, timestamps, deleted records, witnesses, and surrounding conduct, rather than dismissed or used against him without reconstructing the context.
The overview therefore focuses on sequence, initiation, control, exclusion, deletion, and framing. It is not centered on promises of money or business development. Those offers matter only because, in the author's account, they were used as inducements while others allegedly benefited from his work, kept him outside the channel, and later used the same exclusion to deny his existence, authorship, and defenses.
Timeline at a Glance
- Approximately 2018: Anna Sharudenko and the exposed channelThe author identifies Anna as a computer-science student and alleges that she compromised his computer and webcam, viewed his screen activity, circulated private images or video, and expanded a public or semi-public audience through spam-like distribution, contacts, and word of mouth while he remained disconnected from the channel.
- Approximately 2019-2020: Adam D'Angelo, Quora, and exclusionThe author says Adam did not begin as a rescuer. He alleges that Adam became part of the humiliation and information-control structure, failed to stop the exposure despite his platform role, and left the author outside a channel where evidence of Anna's conduct could have been confirmed.
- Presentation and ideasThe author says a lawful website presentation was intended privately for Adam but was released publicly through Anna's alleged unauthorized access. He says the later body of ideas crossed many industries and should not be reduced to a few examples, money-offer language, or business framing.
- September 2020-July 2021: Shared-house periodThe author moved into closer physical proximity to Steve Choe and Robert Bulmar. He alleges that Choe later attempted to attach himself to virtually the entire body of ideas, always after the author's work appeared, and that physical proximity was used as a false explanation for idea origin.
- 2021 onward: Expansion and official dangerThe author's account widened after the shared-house period, including his move into an emergency shelter, his continued idea production, the King Charles episode he records, and his belief that public authorities, platform actors, political figures, and others accepted or repeated false narratives while he remained monitored, segregated, and unable to inspect the full accusation record.
- July 2022-June 2026: Preserved journal archive11,885 HTML entries preserve continuing observations, reactions, defenses, design work, emotional condition, and repeated requests for direct access, stable records, and lawful assessment.
- 2025-2026: Subject-specific reportsTwenty PDF reports organize the recent observation collection by person or group while also referencing earlier events that must be reconstructed from surviving records.
The early dates are approximate because the author says part of the early on-screen writing and channel record was lost or deleted. That record loss is not treated here as a reason to blame the author. It is part of the injury being described: he says the deletion of past material allowed others to rewrite the origin of events, conceal initiation, and make him appear unsupported when the evidence had been removed from the environment he could not access.
1. Anna Sharudenko and the Exposed Channel
The author's account begins with Anna Sharudenko, identified by the author as a computer-science student. He says they never met in person. Their interaction occurred through text, Quora activity, posts, upvotes, or content he interpreted as indirect communication. He describes early personal interest from Anna and acknowledges that he sometimes responded immaturely. He says he rejected the prospect because of the age difference, his unemployment, insomnia, social anxiety, and the absence of a realistic offline relationship.
The author's central allegation is that Anna hacked or otherwise compromised his computer and webcam and gained access to what appeared on his screen. He says whatever he saw, she could see. He says she displayed his computer activity publicly and circulated images or video of him during humiliating or vulnerable moments. He further says she obtained a business presentation intended for private delivery to Adam D'Angelo and released it publicly without his consent.
In the author's account, Anna then expanded the audience. He believes she grew the channel through spam-like dissemination, personal contacts, and word of mouth, drawing in people who could see or hear about him while he remained disconnected from the place where his own activity was being shown. He identifies Becky, Becky's husband Robert Puckett, Sean Kernan, and others as part of the early environment. Robert Puckett is Becky's husband and is not Robert Bulmar.
The author says the harm was not merely embarrassment. He describes the channel as a weaponized information imbalance: others allegedly viewed his screen, his circumstances, and his reactions, while he could not see the complete audience, administrator, accusation, or record. This allowed third parties to provoke him, humiliate him, recruit additional observers, and later portray his reactions as if they were the beginning of the conflict rather than responses to imposed harm.
He also says the people who could see the channel held the key to proving its existence. He had difficulty producing evidence from outside the channel, while those inside allegedly knew the channel existed, knew Anna's role, and knew he was being humiliated. In his account, they should not have left him outside while using his reactions and his lack of records against him.
Related report: Anna Sharudenko, 2025-2026 observations. Related early-circle reports: Becky and Sean Kernan. Robert Bulmar's separate report appears under the later housemate dispute.
2. Adam D'Angelo, Quora, and Exclusion
The next major phase concerns Adam D'Angelo. The author does not describe himself as deliberately trying to attract Adam's attention in a wrongful way. He says he was considering whether to contact Adam and therefore viewed Adam's profile several times on his own screen. Because he believes Anna was publicly releasing his on-screen activity, he believes those otherwise private profile visits became visible to Adam and drew Adam's attention.
In the author's reconstruction, Adam initiated the first apparent exchange through Quora upvotes, a form of indirect signaling the author already understood as relay communication. He interpreted one upvote associated with the label “Hoboken” as referring to his unstable housing and financial need, followed by another apparent relay stating, “Don't use my blood!” He says he responded immediately by explaining that he was Anna's victim, that Anna—not he—was using the platform and circulating his activity, and that the situation was outside his control.
The author states that Adam should not be described as a helper. His corrected position is that Adam became part of the people who humiliated him, failed to stop the exposure despite being connected to the platform environment, and held or could access evidence that would have confirmed the channel. The author says his early willingness to excuse Adam came from naivety and from wanting to believe in the goodwill of prominent people, not from the absence of harm.
The author further alleges that Adam supported or suggested a concealed monitoring method to political authority. He compares the alleged method to electromagnetic or radio-frequency monitoring and describes Wi-Fi or radio activity being used to infer a human silhouette through walls. The technical question is not the focus of this overview. The relevant point for newcomers is the author's claim that the same people who treated him as dangerous were also allegedly monitoring him, controlling his access to the accusation record, and refusing to give him the direct forum needed to answer.
From the author's perspective, the central issue is not whether Adam promised business support. The central issue is that Adam allegedly knew the author was being harmed through a platform-linked channel, knew Anna's conduct was being attributed back to the author, and still left him outside the evidence structure while the humiliation and later framing continued.
3. Presentation, Ideas, and Control
The website presentation is described by the author as lawful and data-driven: a bird's-eye view of organized knowledge contributed by users, with value returned through an advertising-revenue model and inappropriate commercial content removed. He rejects the characterization of the presentation as an invasion, espionage scheme, spam campaign, or nefarious public act. He says it was meant to be sent privately to Adam, and that its public appearance resulted from Anna's unauthorized access and release.
The author says the later body of ideas was very large and spread across many industries. It should not be reduced to a short list of topics or to a narrow benefit story. The broader significance, in his account, is that others allegedly saw an isolated and vulnerable person producing ideas, then used the hidden-channel structure to separate him from the record, contest his authorship, and turn his own lack of access into a weapon against him.
The author's one-way-information argument is central. He says he was blind to the channel and could not receive hidden claims, unpublished concepts, or private records from others. Therefore, in his account, he could give ideas outward through what was visible on his screen, but he could not secretly copy ideas he was never allowed to see. If someone else had prior authorship, he argues that prior authorship should exist as a dated, isolated record created independently before his work appeared.
He says the opposite pattern occurred: his ideas appeared first through his writing and presentation activity, and later claims or similarities followed after. He argues that this sequence cannot fairly be reversed through professional gaslighting, deletion of the past, or reliance on a technicality that he was “not in the channel” and therefore supposedly did not exist as the origin of the work.
He also rejects the logic that others could portray him as hostile while simultaneously benefiting from his work or encouraging continued contribution. In his account, such conduct shows inducement and self-benefit, not legitimate fear. A person already monitored, already seeking lawful resolution, and already excluded from the accusation record cannot fairly be treated as a danger simply because his anger reacted to imposed harm.
Related section: My Ideas. Related reports: 2025-2026 subject reports.
4. Housemates and the Framing Claim
The shared-house period begins around September 2020, when the author moved into closer physical proximity with Steve Choe and later Robert Bulmar. The author says Choe was not involved in the creation of his work and contributed nothing to the body of ideas. He describes Choe as a roommate or nearby resident whose physical proximity was later misused to imply access, collaboration, or origin where none existed.
The author alleges that Choe attempted to attach himself not to one presentation but to virtually everything: the entire body of ideas as it developed. This is why the author asks that the record not be framed as a dispute over one object or one presentation. In his account, Choe's alleged claims were always a follow-up after the author's own work appeared, never an independent foresight record preceding it.
The author makes the same structural point here as in the presentation dispute. If Choe had the ideas first, there should be dated evidence of Choe's own work produced independently before the author's writing. The author says he asked Choe whether Choe had ideas and received a negative answer. He also says Choe was pursuing an MBA path, not jointly developing the author's work.
Robert Bulmar is treated separately from Robert Puckett. The author describes Bulmar as a roommate or co-resident who used physical proximity and later narrative support to help frame the origins of the author's ideas through baseless explanations. The Individuals page labels Steve Choe and Robert Bulmar as Roommate / Framer to preserve that distinction.
The surviving chronology identifies an introduction to Festus on April 27, 2021, a May 8, 2021 email in which the author described his own idea and support story as difficult to believe, a July 5 message showing continued distance, and Choe's departure around July 18, 2021. The author believes Choe later confessed fully. He says deleted history then allowed a renewed effort to protect Choe, rewrite the past, and permit the framing to continue.
Related reports: Steve Choe, Robert Bulmar, and David Mercer.
5. Expansion, Deleted History, and Public Authorities
As the author's writings continued, the dispute expanded beyond the early Quora circle and shared-house environment. He came to believe that platform actors, public figures, political authorities, and other institutions accepted or repeated narratives formed inside a channel from which he was excluded. His concern is that the hidden channel became a substitute for direct legal process, while the people judging him saw material he could not inspect, correct, or answer.
During this expansion period, the author says he left the house where he had been staying and entered an emergency shelter because it was difficult for him to find a room. He describes spending approximately five months in that shelter environment while continuing to write, observe, and produce ideas across different fields. He says this period intensified both his vulnerability and his dependence on public Wi-Fi, public spaces, and indirect methods of communication.
The author also records an extraordinary episode involving King Charles. He says that, during the shelter period, King Charles appeared within the surrounding channel of communications and that there were discussions about adopting the author into his family and bestowing upon him prospects connected to the British throne. The author says he was surprised and initially uncertain, but later came to believe the matter was real after a stranger approached him early in the morning while he was walking toward the Eaton Centre area to use nearby free Wi-Fi, offered to shake his hand, and addressed him as "your highness."
The author says he was also coming up with ideas during this period and that his danger increased before and after the shelter episode. In his account, people wanted him destroyed because of his ideas, his perceived abilities, and the political or institutional consequences others attached to him. He identifies Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the most serious political figure in this danger, alleging that Biden and others treated the author's talents or potential as a political threat to the United States even though the author says he was trying to help, cooperate, and partner rather than oppose.
The author's position is that the political explanation was not the original cause of the attack. He says political framing became an excuse used to save earlier wrongdoers and to justify escalating control over him. In his account, what began as an effort to protect Anna Sharudenko and the early participants from responsibility for hacking, humiliation, and abuse became a broader zero-sum conflict in which every available accusation was used to endanger him, segregate him, and deny his authorship.
The author identifies Sean Kernan, Anna Sharudenko, Becky, and Robert Puckett as part of the early circle whose conduct, in his account, contributed to the malice directed against his life. He states that Sean Kernan's father was a Secretary of Defense and a close associate of Biden, and he views that proximity as relevant to how the conflict allegedly became political. The author says the later political framing should be understood as secondary to the original purpose of protecting the people who attacked him first.
The author further says that King Charles believed his best chance of survival was segregation. The author does not accept segregation as justice or access, but records that this was presented as a protective measure by some figures. His position remains that segregation also created the core technicality used against him: he was outside the channel, unable to see the accusation record, while others used that absence to control the narrative, frame him, and deny him fair access.
The author's cumulative allegation is not ordinary, impersonal identity theft. He says a group recognized that he was isolated, monitored, unable to see the channel, and vulnerable after losing part of his own early record. He alleges that participants removed or concealed presentation history, substituted later narratives, and gaslit authorities into treating him as the origin of wrongdoing even though, in his account, information flowed one way: his screen and ideas were visible to them, while their supposed earlier ideas or accusations were hidden from him.
The author further alleges that a second deletion of channel history occurred after he had already accidentally lost part of his own on-screen writing. He says this deletion removed the evidence that could have shown who initiated events, who had access, what was said, and how later claims were formed. He says this was not a neutral missing-record problem but a control mechanism: once the past was removed, others could claim the channel told a different story and use that altered history to frame him again.
In the author's view, the excuses used to keep him segregated do not suffice. If others truly believed he was dangerous, he asks why they continued to observe him, encourage contribution, show apparent goodwill, or benefit from the work. He argues that their conduct shows self-benefit and control: creating deeds for the victim, assigning motives he did not hold, deleting the context, and then using prejudice to justify destruction of his life.
Related reports: Joseph R. Biden Jr., Sean Kernan, Anna Sharudenko, and Becky. Robert Puckett is identified in the overview as part of the early-circle context. Additional public-figure reports are listed in the Individuals section.
6. Family Conflict, the Mother's Death, Cryonics, and Inheritance
Older family events became increasingly central to the author's understanding of the online and legal conflict. The family reports concern his elder sister Inhee and her husband Son Young-seok, his aunt Eileen Kwon, his maternal uncle identified as Wongi's father, Cousin Mark Kwon, Chloe's father, and a wider maternal extended-family group. The author alleges a history of psychological harm, disclosure of private communications, family isolation, housing interference, inheritance disputes, idea attribution conflicts, and efforts to portray his later anger as the beginning rather than a reaction to earlier harm.
The most serious family allegations concern suspected poisoning, events surrounding the author's mother while she was medically vulnerable, her death, and later attempts concerning her cryonic preservation or estate. The author asks that these events not be separated from the online and authority conflict, because he says his anger, grief, and defensive writing were reactions to harms already imposed on him, not proof that he initiated the conflict.
The author's central defense is that hostile or threatening language found in his writings should not be presented without the events he says preceded it. He describes the language as reactive venting during grief, fear, exclusion, and perceived danger, often written publicly while he was simultaneously seeking reconciliation, direct communication, investigation, or lawful intervention. The archive asks investigators to reconstruct initiation, sequence, knowledge, and available alternatives rather than isolate the most inflammatory sentence.
Related reports: Inhee and Son Young-seok, Eileen Kwon, Wongi's father, Extended-family group, and Cousin Mark Kwon.
7. The Claimed Inaccessible Court or Authority Process
A unifying theme is the author's belief that a consequential court, law-enforcement, political, or authority process observed him and received information about him while remaining inaccessible. He says he could not identify a stable case caption, docket number, charge, judge, order, hearing, counsel, evidence file, or reliable communication channel. He believed he was nevertheless expected to answer accusations inferred from online content and that earlier defenses or resolutions disappeared when a new narrative appeared.
The author describes this as a closed information loop: private or on-screen activity was allegedly observed; he encountered content he interpreted as a response; he reacted to that content; and the reaction then appeared to generate further observation or judgment. He repeatedly asked for direct access, notice, a stable record, and an opportunity to respond. He alleges that exclusion allowed third parties to revise stories, delete evidence, contest idea provenance, and use his reactions against him.
His legal argument is that the law should not reward a technicality created by the wrongdoers themselves. If he was excluded from the channel, that exclusion cannot fairly be used to say he did not exist, did not originate the ideas, or failed to answer accusations he was never allowed to see. In his account, the channel structure converted isolation into a weapon and then treated his efforts to enter, explain, or defend himself as proof of the accusations created by that same exclusion.
Related report: Court and associated judicial authorities.
8. The Written Record: 2022-2026 and Earlier Fragments
The current website preserves 11,885 journal entries organized from July 2022 through June 2026. The folders reflect the available file chronology, not necessarily the date of every historical event discussed inside an entry. A 2026 entry may reconstruct an event from 2018 or 2020, and a file's modification date may differ from the date on which the underlying event occurred.
The journal is valuable because it preserves the development of the author's account, including repetitions, uncertainty, revisions, design discussions, emotional reactions, defenses, and requests for help. Repetition should be understood as part of the lived record: the author was attempting to preserve events, answer moving accusations, and rebuild context after earlier material was lost or deleted.
The 2025-2026 observation collection has been synthesized into twenty subject-specific PDF reports. The author plans to add separate 2022-2024 records and reports for the same subjects, which is why each current report is visibly labeled by observation period. He also intends to add whatever surviving material he still possesses from 2018-2021.
The author cautions that the 2018-2021 record is fragmented. He says he accidentally deleted part of his own on-screen writing and therefore cannot reconstruct every early event from his personal copies. He separately alleges that Elon Musk later deleted the channel history for the second time, removing evidence that would have shown the earlier online activity of participants and the origin of the narratives later used against him. At the time, he says he did not know who controlled the channel and believed it was connected to Quora or another major platform. In his account, the second deletion is a central act of subjugation because it removed evidence while allowing others to rely on the channel's unseen history against him.
Browse the Records Archive or open the 2025-2026 subject reports.