"A Woman May Be Used As An Internal Toilet!" says U.S. Officials

Police agencies refuse to be held accountable for criminalizing and torturing this author, Kini Cosma. Criminal convictions are being obtained by malicious prosecutions, intentionally, deliberately and illegally based on her gender preference.

This author was severely defamed as a “stalker” and “sex offender“. This resulted in the removal of her children from her custody while driving her from the workforce and from city to city, state to state while conducting illegal seizures and deprivation of personal and real property. The abandonment and neglect has constrained her to experience torture on a daily basis for over 15 years.

Since these factors have singled this author out as an individual for abuse, access to remedies have hindered her with the heighten risk of retaliatory action and have advanced to gang mind stalking to promote hatred and hostility in every community she has fled to.

Kini Cosma had filed city complaints, state and federal lawsuits against the police agencies of Napa, California, Susanville, California, and Klamath Falls, Oregon since 1991.

The accumulation of acts of physical and mental violence inflicted on this author continues by threats directly and indirectly made through this author’s personal and housing relationships, and concerning the ill-treatment of her and her children, which caused this author intense fear and apprehension.

Serious and credible threats, including death threats, to the physical integrity of this victim has amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, especially while this victim remains in the hands of law enforcement officials.

This is so U.S. Government officials can continue to falsely accuse and subject this author to a continual pattern of malicious prosecutions on a monthly basis while forcing this victim of torture to take mind-altering drugs.

Alco Metals illegally seized her $100k trust estate funds so that she would have to suffer years of isolation in a world of punks, lying informants, the sloth and twit, the drunk and drug addict, and those with the banality of low mental acumen who have been given authority to constantly offend verbally and tear apart with taunts, cripple with scorn and fiercely threaten with sexual physical assaults.

Despite prolonged mental harm of a substantial duration, this author continues to suffer long-term psychological harm, including anxiety, nervousness, frequent nightmares, depression, difficulty sleeping, inability to work, and difficulty trusting people.

Notwithstanding, while these police bullies and their low down hooligan ways heckle and mock this author, this author remains in physical pain and mental anguish from all acts of violence, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury, reprisals, indecent assaults, complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation intended to destroy the personality of this author and constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason.

Despite having three resumes with rigorous completions, this author has been driven from the workforce while officials from city, state, and federal agencies deprive this author of excessive amounts of property.

Prolonged solitary confinement in conditions of severe material deprivation and with no or little activity is being intended to seriously impact the psychological and moral integrity of this author.

There is no respect for this author’s dignity and the degrading aspect is characterized by the fear, anxiety and inferiority induced for the purpose of humiliating, degrading, and breaking her physical and moral resistance. . . . This situation is now being exacerbated by the vulnerability of her being unlawfully detained for a superficial dog bite that Klamath Circuit Court Judge(s) Roxanne Osborne and Richard Rambo are responsible for.

This use of force was not strictly necessary to ensure proper behavior on the part of this author-detainee but only to constitute another assault on the dignity of this author.

The struggle to completely cripple this author has been allowed to restrict the protection of this author’s right to physical integrity and to force her to reside in the elements of the freezing cold chill of winter while the discrimination manifests itself into her death.

This treatment is inhuman because, inter alia, it was premeditated, is being applied for another year in an attempt to cause actual bodily injury and intense physical or mental suffering. It can be deemed treatment as “degrading” because it is such as to arouse in this victim feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her further.

It has been defined as torture by “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

The purpose of laws against torture is to prevent it from being used in the first place, rather than waiting to see the impact on individuals years after the fact.

However, these prolonged mental effects are continuing years after the infliction of the original predicate acts to inflict significant psychological harm of significant duration.

The complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation has been debilitating and dehumanizing including the use of threatening words accompanied by menacing acts and gestures, intimidation, including threats, intended to destroy this author’s personality which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other reason. . . .

The torture of Kini Cosma has amounted to;

• the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;


• the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;


• the threat of imminent death; or threats of rape or sexual assault;


• the “threatened infliction of severe physical pain and suffering;


• the use of sensory deprivation along with the lack of any idea about what could be done to be released from the Klamath Falls, Oregon community, including prolonged isolation and sleep deprivation clearly meant to disrupt profoundly this author’s senses and her personality resulting in both mental and physical deterioration.
  
  Simultaneously, the systematic pattern of torture and the use of threats, including threats of rape, the grand theft $100k of this author’s trust estate funds from Napa, California and the negative health consequences of psychologically coercive techniques has left this author with unnecessary pain and suffering from long-term symptoms of anxiety and insecurity intended for her to experience needless aggravated and provoked pain to her preexisting scoliosis condition intentionally depriving her of sleep for prolonged periods of time, for the purpose of tiring her out and ‘breaking’ her.
  
  A number of decisions by human rights monitoring mechanisms have referred to the notion of mental pain or suffering, including suffering through intimidation and threats, as a violation of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.
  
  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas In a case concerning the prison system in Texas, the court found that inmates in administrative segregation “suffer actual psychological harm from their almost total deprivation of human contact, mental stimulus, personal property and human dignity.” Ruiz v. Johnson 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 913. S.D. Tex. 1999.
  
  The court went on to say, “It goes without question that an incarceration that inflicts daily, permanently damaging, physical
  injury and pain is unconstitutional. Such a practice would be designated as torture.” Id. at 914.
  
  As the pain and suffering caused by a cat-o’-nine tails lashing an inmate’s back are cruel and unusual punishment by today’s standards of humanity and decency, the pain and suffering caused by extreme levels of psychological deprivation are equally, if not more, cruel and unusual. The wounds and resulting scars, while less tangible, are no less painful and permanent when they are inflicted on the human psyche.
  
  With respect to the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, courts have found that psychological coercion can constitute a violation of due process. In one case, a court explained that under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[p]sychological coercion can suffice.” The court found that the plaintiff was “weakened by pain and shock, isolated from family, friends, and legal counsel, and barely conscious, and his will was simply overborne.” Cooper v. Dupnik. 963 F.2d 1220, 1245. 9th Cir. 1992. Id. at 1247.
  
  The court said that this “can fairly be described as sophisticated psychological torture.” Id. at 1248.
  
  Another court said that “[e]motional distress can produce injury of the same severe magnitude as occurred in the cases of physical harm... and it can be inflicted in the same wanton and unreasonable manner.” Rhodes v. Robinson 612 F.2d 766, 772. 3rd Cir. 1979.
  
  Courts also have stated that a threat is enough to constitute a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., Gray v. Spillman 925 F.2d 90. 4th Cir. 1990
  
  The Human Rights Committee has said that the prohibition in article 7 relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim. Article 7 allows no exceptions.
  
  The Human Rights Committee explained:
  
  Article 10, paragraph 1, imposes on States parties a positive obligation towards persons who are particularly vulnerable because of their status as persons deprived of their liberty, and complements for them the ban on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contained in Article 7 of the Covenant.
  
  Not only may persons deprived of their liberty not be subjected to treatment that is contrary to Article 7 . . ., but neither may they be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; respect for the dignity of such persons must be guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons.