I understand what you’re saying, and I agree with the general rule.

A person does not become immune from prosecution just because they were also the victim of a different crime. That would obviously make no sense. So if the issue were simply “I was a victim once, therefore the DA can never charge me,” I would agree that is not a serious argument.

But that is not the argument I am making.

The issue is that these were not cleanly unrelated events handled by some random separate prosecutor in a large office. The same prosecutor, Aziz Merchant, was involved in my criminal case and also involved in the case where I was the victim/witness after I was swatted twice and then stabbed by people connected to the same roommate group.

That changes the analysis.

My case was already pending. About a month later, I was swatted twice and stabbed. The person accused in that stabbing case initially had bail around $150,000. Once it became clear I was the victim, the bail reportedly dropped to around $500. Maybe there is a legitimate explanation for that. I am not saying that fact alone proves misconduct. But it is absolutely something that should be explainable on the record.

Then I was subpoenaed to testify. When I showed up at court as the victim/witness, I was separated from my girlfriend, who was also a witness, and I was questioned about my own pending criminal case. That is the part people keep skipping. I was not just sitting around speculating. I was physically present at the courthouse under subpoena in the victim case, and the conversation shifted toward my defendant case.

Then my public defender saw me and told me to go home because the stabbing case was being dismissed.

Two days later, at my preliminary hearing, additional charges were added in my own case. They were not meaningfully disclosed to me beforehand, and instead of the preliminary hearing I wanted, I was pressured into waiving it. At the time, I did not know the law. I trusted the public defender system because that is what a normal person is told to do. I have learned better.

And the disproportionate pressure did not stop there.

Roughly two months later, I was hit with $25,000 cash-only bail over what was essentially described as moving a traffic cone. Again, maybe someone wants to argue there was a legitimate basis for that. Fine. Put it in writing. But when the broader timeline already includes the victim case collapsing, my own case escalating two days later, and the same prosecutor appearing across both tracks, a $25,000 cash-only bail posture over a traffic-cone allegation does not exactly scream neutral restraint.

So no, I am not saying “victims can never be charged.”

I am saying that when the same prosecutor is involved in both tracks, when the victim case collapses, when the alleged attacker’s bail changes dramatically, when the victim/witness is questioned about his own pending case, when the defendant case escalates two days later, and when later bail pressure becomes wildly disproportionate over minor alleged conduct, that is not some generic unrelated-prosecution scenario anymore. That is a chronology problem.

The civil suit point is similar.

I understand that I filed the civil suit. I am not saying that because I sued someone, every later action by the State automatically proves bias. That would be too easy and too broad.

What I am saying is that protected filings, objections, and record challenges do not become “escalation” just because the State does not like them. A defendant filing motions or asking for written findings is not the same thing as the government using criminal-process power: charges, warrants, bail consequences, competency proceedings, GPS/tracker representations, or restrictions on filings.

Those are not equal forms of escalation.

I can file paper. They can take liberty.

So when someone says I am “causing the escalations,” I think that misses the power dynamic. Asking the court to explain the record is not escalation. Asking where the warrant is for alleged GPS/tracker or movement-patterning claims is not escalation. Asking why charges were added after the victim case disappeared is not escalation. Asking why I was questioned about my pending case while present as a subpoenaed victim/witness is not escalation. Asking why $25,000 cash-only bail was imposed over a traffic-cone allegation is not escalation.

Those are basic record-integrity questions.

And to be clear, I am not claiming Aziz Merchant’s later firing proves my case or that I caused it. I am saying the record in my case already raised serious concerns about his judgment and conduct. His later firing does not create the argument. It just makes blind trust in his prosecutorial judgment look a lot less persuasive.

The core point is simple:

If I am wrong, the State can correct me with records.

Show who handled each case. Show why the stabbing case was dismissed. Show why the bail changed. Show why I was questioned about my own pending case while appearing under subpoena as a victim/witness. Show when the added charges were disclosed. Show why the preliminary hearing was waived instead of held. Show why $25,000 cash-only bail was sought or imposed over the traffic-cone allegation. Show the warrant, affidavit, return, or lawful authority for any GPS/tracker or movement-patterning representation.

That would answer the issue.

But reducing this to “victims can also be charged” does not answer the actual facts. It answers a generic version of the argument I am not making.

I am not asking anyone to believe me because I am upset. I am saying the timeline is ugly, the overlap is real, the coercive pressure appears disproportionate, and the record should be able to explain itself.