Thygesen Continuously to this day has Wang unlawfully Surveil-lanced, He would have agents follow, surveil, and videotape the Wang Family, stage False Crimes in Order to Terminate Wang’s Contact with her son.

 

Thygesen Continuously to this day has Wang unlawfully Surveil-lanced, He would have agents follow, surveil, and videotape the Wang Family, stage False Crimes in Order to Terminate Wang’s Contact with her son.

Thygesen would unlawfully deploy a team of investigators to surveil and videotape Wang. Thygesen would then distort his unlawful surveillance of Wang and falsely report to law enforcement that Wang was planning a child kidnapping attempt. To again stage a False Crime in Order to Terminate Wang’s Contact with her son.

Google Executives get Free Security
Thygesen lied about getting security because of Wang. First, it’s Free Security for Google executives, Second how could you have gotten security on 8/13/19 due to Wang, when in March 2019, and July 2019 you declared you were arriving with security???

Thygesen knowing lied to law enforcement, Thygesen deliberately omitted he was illegally waiting in the “rear” of Terra Firma- (the “rear” of Terra Firma is Wang’s designated entrance. Thygesen who illegally surveil-lanced for months the Wang family, Thygesen would have his hired agents surveil, and videotape, the Wang’s, — — — -in the rear of Terra Firma, Thygesen had hi agents wait 15 minutes before Thygesen was scheduled to arrive at the Visitation Facility, and Thygesen would have his agents surveil, and videotape in the “rear” of Terra Firma, the Wang’s, 15 minutes after Thygesen had left the Supervised Visitation facility, Thygesen did this to stage a False Crime in Order to Terminate Wang’s Contact with her son.

After law enforcement took action, despite no evidence found through the SWAT, search and raid of Wang’s home, on July 29, 2021 Thyesen took the same lies he fed to law enforcement, embodied in the search warrant affidavit to San Francisco County Superior Court and had Judge Monica F. Wiley terminate all of Wang’s in-person visitation indefinitely.

DOUGLAS RAPPAPORT: “ This court has a declaration from a law enforcement officer in a Search Warrant which he swore under penalty of perjury is under oath that given the facts that he has seen, there’s an abduction risk to the child. That Search Warrant Affidavit was recently provided, I think, within the last month to Mr. Thygesen that Ms. Wang subsequently between July 19th and today’s date has been prosecuted for illegally issuing subpoenas in secret to the U.S. Department of State for the child’s passport to the United Health Care Alliance for the child’s medical……..” (7/29/21 RT 4:17–28)

Thygesen would then have his agents, criminal attorneys Douglas Rappaport, Erica T. Johnstone, Darrick Chase, Matthew Dennis, Gregory Johnson, etc., falsely report to the District Attorney’s around the country that Wang was attempting a kidnapping. Thygesen utilized his legal team, his Google network, and vast resources to abuse law enforcement agencies for personal gain, in order to terminate all of Wang’s visitation with her child. Thygesen in order to purport further acts of violence and terror purported against the Wang (after absconding with her 3 months old baby boy on March 6, 2019 by impersonating her online and threatening murder/suicide) now Thygesen has escalated the lies to the false allegations of kidnapping which resulted in Wang’s home being raided via search warrant executed on June 1, 2021. Thygesen knowingly, falsely reports and staged a crime against Wang, which further traumatized her and her family through his falsely testimony to law enforcement resulting in 20 police officers armed with automatic machine guns who broke down Wang’s home to the Wang residence and broke into Wang’s home by having a locksmith unlock Wang’s residence and seized all electronics, including computers, phones, and other electronic devices in search of evidence of Thygesen’s false allegations of an attempted kidnapping.

Thygesen With His Vast Resources Would stage False Crimes in order To falsely Incriminate Wang. Thygesen Would Then Lie to Law Enforcement Abusing The Criminal Justice System On Top Of His Google Resources In Order To Terminate Wang’s Visitation With Her Child. And if one District Attorney, law enforcement agency disregarded these false allegations Thygesen Would Then move on to another, and then another agency, in another jurisdiction, another State, continuously Forum Shopping For Criminal Charges with his team of attorney, one in every state, From Across The Country, Hiring A Team Of Attorneys, Investigators Working Around The Clock To Put Wang Away (in prison) In Order To Permanently Eliminate Her From Her Child’s life.

Thygesen, Knowingly Transmitted Or Caused To Be Transmitted, In Any

Manner, To Any Peace Officer, To Wit: Police Detective Richard Hales, A Report To The Effect That An Offense Had Been Committed, To Wit: Christoffer Thygesen, Allan And Terry Thygesen Through His Agents Criminal Attorney Douglas Rappaport, Erica T. Johnstone, and others

Knowingly, Falsely Reported, That Thygesen Was The Victim Of A Kidnapping Attempt And Thygesen Knew That At The Time Of This Was False Transmission There Was No Reasonable Ground For Believing That Such An Offense Had Been Committed.

The Staging Of A False Crime of Kidnapping:

Thygesen Hired Multiple Private Investigators To Film The Wang Family At Supervised Visitations. Thygesen Would Have His Investigators Wait In The Rear Entrance Of The Terra Firma Supervised Visitation Facility, The rear Entrance way specifically Designated as the entrance for Wang (the Non-Custodial parent). Per Court Ordered Terra Firma Contract, in order to utilize their secure facility, Thygesen to declare under penalty of perjury that he would abide by the rules and policies of the facility, he had to sign the contract declaring he understood the following:

Terra Firma Contract Paragraph # 22. Prior to a scheduled visit, the Custodial Parent will park in front and enter Terra Firma’s premises through the front door. The Visiting Parent will park in the back and enter Terra Firma’s premises through the back door. This also means the Custodial Parent should not be driving anywhere in the back side where the Visiting Parent is parked and the Visiting Parent should not be driving through the front area where the Custodial Parent is parked. Non-compliance of this rule will result in termination of that visit and the person responsible for the termination will be charged for the visit. This includes any additional guests, family or friends before and after the visit.

Thygesen at trial on January 5, 2022, testified under penalty of perjury that he understood and signed the Terra Firma contract and understood it, — -THYGESEN TESTIFIED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT

He understood that he, should not be driving anywhere in the back side where the Visiting Parent is parked and the Visiting Parent should not be driving through the front area where the Custodial Parent is parked.

Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings January 5, 2022

MS. WANG: Okay. Mr. Thygesen, do you remember that when you first

started going to Terra Firma there was an intake application

like a contract you have to sign. Do you remember signing that? (1/5/22 RT 61:20–22)

CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN: I’m sure there was an intake form, and if

there was, I definitely did sign it. (1/5/22 RT 61:26–27)

MS. WANG: Okay. Did you read it? (1/5/22 RT 62:1)

CHRISTOFFER THYGESEN: Yes. (1/5/22 RT 62:2)

MS. WANG: Okay. So on paragraph 22, it states, prior to scheduled visitation, the custodial parent will park in the front of Terra Firma and enter only through the premises through the front door. The noncustodial parent will park in the rear in the back and enter only at Terra Firma premises through the back door. That means custodial parent should not be driving anywhere near in the back side where the visiting parent is parked, and the visiting parent should not be driving in the front or park in the front, non — (1/5/22 RT 62:3–11)

MS. INSALACO: Your Honor, I object. This — Ms. Wang is raising her voice at this witness who is a victim in this domestic violence case. She is speaking to him completely inappropriately, and I ask the Court to admonish her to be careful about her tone and demeanor when questioning this Witness. (1/5/22 RT 62:12–17)

THE COURT: The Court did not observe Ms. Wang raising her voice. Ms. Wang is speaking very clearly as she has been directed to do throughout these proceedings. (1/5/22 RT 62:23–24)

Thygesen not only illegally had investigators wait in the entrance of the facility Thygesen had his investigators wait 15 minutes before Thygesens arrival time, and had these same agents wait 15 minutes after Thygesen left with the child.

Senate bill, SB1141: Domestic violence: coercive control, passed by both houses and signed by the Governor, amends Section 6320 of the Family Code so that “disturbing the peace of the other party” — a grounds for a DV Restraining order — includes Coercive Control. The legislature has unambiguously recognized that conduct that “destroys the mental or emotional calm” of victims.

qSpecifically, the amended statute defines coercive control as “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.” The following examples of coercive control are included in amended Section 6320 of the Family Code:

(1) Isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support.

(2) Depriving the other party of basic necessities.

(3) Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other party’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On March 6, 2019, the President of Google America’s son at an Ex Parte Hearing before Judge Richard C. Darwin granted Google Thygesen a 3 months old child who he’s never met before, and desperately wanted aborted at the 18–24 week mark Sole Legal/Physical Custody, and entered a “No Visitation Order” against Wang. Christoffer S. Thygesen v. Kailin Wang A158691, A161993, A161992, A163278,@ San Francisco Superior Ct. (Case no. FDV-19–814465) C.T. v. K.W., A161993.