Evidence Photographs
These are the photographs of what was done to Justin — his broken face, and the modification that turned the air in his home toxic.
Portable AC Installation & Related Communications — March–April 2026
1. FLIR Thermal Imaging — April 6, 2026
IoT Sensor Record — Unit 806 Daily Temperature with 25 Documented Events (Apr 1 – May 31, 2026)
Interactive: click events for details, toggle views to explore patterns. Open full screen →
Source: 3,460-reading IoT ambient temperature sensor inside Unit 806. Colored dots correspond to events documented on this site.
2. FSK Tape — Physical Evidence
The FSK tape releases volatile organic compounds (VOCs) when heated. Learn what off-gassing is and why it matters →
3. Ring Doorbell — Maintenance & Hallway
4. Email Correspondence — March 31 to April 6, 2026
5. Dr. Fabi Physician Letter
6. Trustee Disability Coercion — February 2025
7. Assault Documentation — August 22–26, 2025
On August 22, 2025, Justin Horn was assaulted in the lobby of Goldtex Apartments. The assailant used the antisemitic slur “kike” during the attack. Justin sustained multiple facial fractures. The following documents the assault, injuries, medical records, and police correspondence.
7.1 Injury Photographs — August 23, 2025 (Day After)
7.2 Injury Photographs — August 26, 2025 (Day 4)
7.3 Medical Records — CT Scan & Hospital Discharge
7.4 Police Correspondence — Sgt. Callahan, Counter Terrorism Operations
7.5 Assault Videos
7.6 Second ER Visit — May 30, 2026 (Chemical Exposure)
These conditions persisted under Greystar CEO Bob Faith’s leadership — nine direct emails went unanswered over 54 days. See also: Lobby display evidence — how Greystar staged a Hanukkah display in the same lobby where the assault occurred.
Section 8: Trust Track — June 2026 Text Messages
On June 8, 2026, the trustee (Abraham Horn) emailed Goldtex management directly — without informing the beneficiary — regarding the non-renewal and chemical exposure. The building’s outside counsel (Cohen Marraccini LLC) subsequently sent their “unfounded” letter to the trustee, not the tenant. The following is a transcript of the text message thread documenting the beneficiary’s discovery of and response to this conduct. Screenshots of the original messages are preserved in the evidence archive.
Trustee’s email to Goldtex (June 8, 2026, 5:25 PM) — sent without beneficiary’s knowledge:
“Hi Nicole, I had paid 1st, last, and security deposit initially. Due to your letter of non-renewal, Justin’s rent should be covered. If something changes, please let me know. My understanding is that the HVAC has not been functioning correctly intermittently and for long periods of time. My understanding is that the temporary HVAC unit released noxious harmful fumes into his unit and that his belongings will require remediation before they can be moved. He should not be charged additional rent until this matter is safely resolved. Sincerely, Abraham Horn”
Beneficiary discovers the email and responds:
Justin: “I had another re-exposure yesterday. I feel horrible.”
Justin: “You email me a response but now what you sent to them?”
Justin: “What the fuck is the logic in that?”
Justin: “You paid through July 1.”
Justin: “Why not use your law firm to help me?”
Justin sends the VOC Investigation Handbook (PDF, 173 KB) and a screenshot of jlegal.pro.
Justin: “You send this stuff and disappear just to cause more crazy making.”
Justin: “What did you send them?”
Abe forwards the email he sent to Goldtex.
Justin: “And you plan to do what exactly sending that message to them?”
Abe (10:38 PM): “Informed them that I wasn’t paying anymore rent due to their nonrenewal notice. I have given you the money for a new place and movers as you requested and said you would do with those funds.”
Justin: “You did what?”
Justin: “You speak for me?”
Justin: “But do not send it to me?”
Cohen Marraccini LLC “unfounded” letter appears in the thread — sent to Abe, not Justin.
Justin: “Did you sign it Dr Abraham Horn, DO … etc?”
Justin: “You don’t have to inform them … you just put in escrow if you’re so worried about paying them again when they have no active rental license and, sign it dr Abraham horn.”
Justin: “Otherwise, it’s just bullshit that tells them you won’t help me, but will help them to harm me, as your motive for that hasn’t changed.”
Justin: “Did you send me the formal accounting?”
Abe: “No.”
Justin: “And the reason isn’t better for me.”
Justin: “Just like with this … again going behind my back when I’m the one that’s suffering.”
Justin: “You just want me to do something to use against me. You’re not going to get that. It’s not who I am.”
Justin: “You do this knowing it would make very unhappy and more.”
Justin: “This is the last straw. You want to set me up?”
Justin: “Then you already know what happens.”
Justin: “And again, you didn’t pay for shit. The trust paid.”
Justin: “Sincerely DR ABRAHAM … oh, didn’t include that, and that’s helpful? No.”
Justin: “But that’s why it’s not sincere. And why it’s just for appearances.”
Justin: “And didn’t help me. Selectively doctor stupid and also Mr stupid.”
Justin: “Fuck you.”
Original message screenshots preserved in evidence archive. The trustee’s email was sent without the beneficiary’s knowledge or consent. The building’s outside counsel responded to the trustee — not the tenant — with a letter calling the documented chemical exposure “unfounded.” The trustee refused to provide a formal accounting when asked.
Section 9: Family Track — June 15, 2026 Text Messages
On the evening of June 15, 2026, a group text thread (beneficiary “Justin”; trustee/father “Abe” — Dr. Abraham Horn; and the beneficiary’s mother “Lena,” present but silent throughout) ran from approximately 5:53 PM to 10:17 PM ET. It began as a single request — that the trustee contact “Mr. Christ” about extending the stay and securing a room with a balcony to remediate chemically contaminated belongings — and expanded into the trustee’s refusal to provide a full trust accounting and the trust documents. Below, consecutive messages from the same person are grouped under a single name for readability. The building’s management company is referred to generically; one passage that had been copied in from a separate email was omitted; the message wording is otherwise as written.
📄 Download this thread as a PDF · plain-text version
Part 1 — The one-email request (approx. 5:53–6:38 PM)
Abe 5:53 PM
“No argument. You’re moving your stuff to Heid?”
Justin
“‼️ Did you get the balcony room???”
Abe
“I paid the bill. I didn’t question him about the room assuming you took care of it.”
“I have your auto registration and a letter from family health. What do you want me to do with them?”
Justin
“One thing at time. No deflections.”
“No you said it depends on the cost”
“And never gave me an answer”
Abe 5:57 PM
“So what room did you get? I didn’t ask and paid for it”
Justin
“Email my building’s management company and tell them movers are arriving tomorrow at 12noon and need to reserve the elevator.”
My building’s management company replied by email: “Unfortunately, the elevator is reserved tomorrow between 10:30am–2pm for another resident. Would you like us to schedule your move for 2:30pm tomorrow 6/16/2026?”
Abe
“Is there an answer to this?”
Justin
“Did you ask about a room at the Heid with a balcony?”
“I’m sure you did not… Now you’re reading the email? I’m sure your next response is an argument”
Abe
“I didn’t know you were even talks about resi. Blame = self-responsibility. It’s your responsibility to get the info for your residence.”
Justin
“I asked you to extend and ask for a room with balcony.”
“You didn’t do that... and just said depends on the costs”
Abe
“I’m not your secretary or real estate agent. I take care of my own responsibilities. You should do the same. Your question didn’t indicate that was for resi.”
Justin
“Yes I was very specific. Extend stay. Ask for a room with balcony. Sent you his info.”
“You just decided to not do the full ask. And now blame it on me?”
“I said just contact Mr Christ and ask about it. And that anything else is defiant and oppositional. And what did you do? You responded with defiance and opposition”
Abe
“The normal thing to do after I told you it depends on cost would’ve been to find out the cost and let me know. Like I said I’m not your secretary or your personal assistant. You need to take some responsibility for yourself. You send 40,000 texts and then you expect me to read every word carefully. I must admit that I thought the initial request for a balcony was at the apartment you were moving to so if you want to move to a unit with the balcony find out the cost, let me know what a text and then I’ll contact him to pay it.”
Justin
“I just texted today it’s simple… contact mr Christ and ask. Instead you give me a lot of bullshit.”
“A simple ask… like when I simply asked for the trust accounting in full”
Abe
“You can do that”
Justin
“You remain defiant and oppositional. No I can’t. The amount of time you spent arguing you could’ve email him already”
Part 2 — Transactional vs. unconditional — and the diagnosis
Abe
“What you’re not appreciating is that you’re asking me to do something for you and I am not asking you to do something for me.”
Justin
“Like a transaction? Everything is transactional with you? Conditional?”
“I thought love was unconditional. Not transactional. But you do you try to make it that way”
“I just don’t see how asking you to send him one email is grounds for all the bs you just spent on negating it… ultimately to express your dissatisfaction about not benefiting from the very simple ask … again”
“I said oppositional and defiant. That is very true. These texts show it”
[sends a 12-photo collage of the preceding messages back into the thread]
“You’re one of the et al’s … so these chats continue to build the record against yourself as you try to manipulate me more.”
Abe
“That was Stern’s first diagnosis of you was oppositional defiance disorder”
Justin
“Yes and it was wrong… you are. These messages prove that 100%”
“And having to deal with you at ages 1–14 and beyond while you act like this to me in private, but not publicly...”
“Because you use DARVO, gaslighting, move the goal post…. Is the the truth now, just as it was then. That’s why I used those words to describe your behavior now… isn’t it?”
Part 3 — “I asked for one thing” — love, the trust, and Lena (approx. 9:12–9:30 PM)
Justin
“I asked for one thing… contact Mr Christ and check about a room with a balcony to be able to clean contaminated stuff… And instead of that, you just gave me a hard time.”
“I don’t owe you anything for being alive.”
“Two way street… means transactional, conditional… And that’s not love. That’s bullshit.”
“You use the trust to try and benefit yourself thinking ‘fair’. That’s unfair. Something that benefits me, doesn’t need to also benefit you. But you believe that. And always have”
“So, you’re not abusive? Yet you also believe things need to be transactional to be ‘acceptable’. Love is unconditional. No conditions. So from you I don’t get love. I only get from you… abuse.”
“I didn’t choose to be born. You both decided that. And therein, is the issue you don’t see. You made that choice without me. And for that choice, I don’t owe you anything”
“You’re abusive. Lena isn’t a mother I can celebrate on Mother’s Day because she allows this shit with you.”
“When she demands, you always accept. Never a question when she demands. Because losing her to your antics is the last thing you want. That’s why you demonize me to her to make her think you’re not that bad”
“She could leave this chat but doesn’t. And that’s why it’s worse. Abe can’t control himself. Lena can force Abe to act. She just chooses not to.”
“As once she realizes, if ever, you’re not ‘normal’… she has to decide to step up for her son and stop protecting her husband that causes harm to her son.”
“And I wish I was wrong... but this is what it is. Not my choice. Yours.”
Part 4 — “Self-responsibility” / the email loop (approx. 9:30–9:40 PM)
Abe 9:30 PM
“I will work with you, but you need to take some self-responsibility. Finding out the cost of your request is your responsibility to help yourself. You are very arrogant and entitled. You’re too old for me to have to wipe your ass.”
Justin
“I made a simple ask for you to email him and ask him. Just like the simple ask of asking for the actual accounting, in full. That’s something I am entitled to”
“But you won’t discuss that… But suggest wiping my ass for asking a simple request… you’re defiant, opposed, and blame me (DARVO).”
“You’ve spent more time arguing about emailing him and asking then it would take you to just email him. Every text to me to ‘argue’… was the email itself that you call wiping my ass”
“If I ask, you’ll say no, as always… Moving the goal post. I just asked you to ask… I could draft the email myself and cc you on it. What’s the fucking difference?”
Abe
“Bad assumption”
Justin
“Another text. How many now? To argue? Where you could’ve emailed him?”
Part 5 — The accounting, the trust documents, and “Plan B” (approx. 10:03–10:17 PM)
Justin
“Won’t send the accounting… illegal. You want me to pay for lawyers to get it? Like with the trust documents?”
“12 texts from you arguing one email to Mr Christ. It would require you to speak or email with him anyway … regardless of what he tells me.”
“Having to deal with YOU my entire life is the biggest problem of MY life … Nothing comes close to it. [Edited]”
“Even my building’s management company wasn’t as bad as you’ve been today to deal with. So I’ll move what I can into storage … Rehome the cats … And live outside for the rest of my days. That’s perfectly fine for me.”
“You said the building’s management company isn’t negotiable. You were wrong. Standing up for what’s right is hard to negotiate against… if it’s right, it’s right. They were reasonable as it was presented. You are not. Were not. Still not.”
Part 6 — “You bring up Dr Stern?” (approx. 10:15–10:17 PM)
Justin
“You mentioned Dr … from age 13 … ? And in this same chat, you’re trying to make it appear that’s actually true. And in doing so, you proved the opposite.”
“So you acknowledge this issues you caused me go back to age 13”
“To be defiant against a criminal… To be opposed to your crazy making… Isn’t an issue with me. That’s an issue with you. And you’ll never change. That’s clear. So I say words like defiant and oppositional… You suggest a diagnosis from age 13…”
“Perfect. As you proved that was wrong in this chat with your 12 texts to by defiant and oppositional and also… DARVO. Deny and reverse victim and offender”
“Like you did when I was young. Like smacking Jennifer in the face. Like not giving me the trust documents. Like not giving me the accounting. Like not emailing Christ and blaming me for it…”
“While I also handled things with my building’s management company and can barely walk but went to cvs … asking you to do one thing that you’d need to speak with him about anyway. You bring up Dr Stern?”
Analysis — the age-13 diagnosis as a reversal
When the beneficiary described the trustee’s conduct in this thread as “defiant and oppositional,” the trustee’s reply was to cite a childhood diagnosis: “That was Stern’s first diagnosis of you was oppositional defiance disorder.” Read against the rest of the exchange, that single move is the pattern this record documents:
- It reverses victim and offender. Recasting the person who names a behavior as the one who is “disordered” is the core of what Prof. Jennifer Freyd termed DARVO — Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. The point raised is not answered; it is turned back on the person who raised it.
- The rebuttal refutes itself. The response to a single, low-cost request — “contact Mr Christ and ask” — was to refuse it, deflect it, and assign blame: the very conduct (“defiant,” “oppositional,” “crazy making,” DARVO) it was offered to disprove. The defense performs the thing it denies.
- A label is not a cause. “Oppositional” and “defiant” describe how a child reacted; they do not record what the child was reacting to. And confirming that a diagnosis was once made is not the same as confirming it was correct — it leaves the unasked question: defiant toward what?
The beneficiary’s position is that the exchange does not display a disorder of his — it displays the conduct the label was originally a response to, now visible decades later in the trustee’s own words. The above is analysis of the documented thread above, not a clinical opinion about any individual.
Reproduced from the original 34 screenshots, grouped by speaker for readability. The building’s management company is referred to generically and one copied-in email passage was omitted; the message wording is otherwise unchanged. The full thread is available as a plain-text transcript and a dated PDF transcript. The trustee invoked a childhood diagnosis (“oppositional defiance disorder”) during the exchange; the beneficiary’s position is that the thread itself documents the conduct the diagnosis was originally a response to. The trustee again declined to provide a full trust accounting or the trust documents when asked.
Section 10: Family Track — June 17, 2026 (The Medical Exchange)
Two days after the thread in Section 9, on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at approximately 4:25 PM ET, the same two participants — the beneficiary (“Justin”) and the trustee/father (“Abe” — Dr. Abraham Horn, a physician) — continued, this time on a medical request rather than the trust. The beneficiary reports that he is unwell and unable to drive, and that he must see several doctors; the trustee — an MD — suggests a neurologist by text, declines to engage with the symptoms, and then characterizes the request for help as hostility. It is the same pattern, applied to a different subject. Consecutive messages from the same person are grouped under a single name for readability; the extended-stay address is referred to generically, and a photograph of mail that was sent into the thread is described rather than reproduced. The message wording is otherwise as written.
📄 Download this thread as a PDF · plain-text version
Abe
“I think you should see a neurologist”
[sends a photograph of a piece of mail addressed to the beneficiary]
“Do you want me to open and scan this or should I mail this to the [extended-stay] address? I’m not sure what to do.”
Justin
“I just told you I’m really not doing well today.”
“Just mail it to [the extended-stay address] I don’t care”
“I can’t drive while in like this”
“I have to see 3-4 different doctors.”
“And doctor, you know that too.”
“Why use such non sense about medicine you know about.”
“You do know… Jennifer had issues”
“You won’t research or look up anything as a doctor to help me”
“You just say stuff to appear normal acting towards me. You don’t ask about symptoms, etc. You’re suddenly ‘incapable’ of helping me with medical advice, while also suggesting you stuff you know isn’t really helpful in full at all”
Abe
“G whiz, for someone who isn’t feeling well, you still have plenty of energy to give me a raft of shit”
Justin
“DARVO? AGAIN? Yeah that’s what you do to me.”
“I’m asking for real medical advice and you’re calling it a raft of shit.”
“And suggesting I’m not feeling so badly as I say because I asked for help with medical stuff.”
Analysis — a physician’s refusal, then the reversal
The beneficiary states a concrete medical situation — not well, unable to drive, needing to see several doctors — to a father who is himself a physician. The reply is a one-line referral by text (“see a neurologist”) with no question about symptoms, followed by a pivot to the logistics of a piece of mail. When the gap is named, the request for help is recast as an attack. Three moves run through the exchange:
- Deny by deflection. A physician with the relevant knowledge declines to engage it — “you won’t research or look up anything as a doctor to help me” — and substitutes a referral-by-text for any actual engagement with the symptoms. The capability is present; its use is withheld.
- Attack through minimization. “For someone who isn’t feeling well, you still have plenty of energy…” is the classic move against a contested or invisible illness: the fact that the person can still speak up is treated as proof the illness is exaggerated. The complaint, not the condition, becomes the problem.
- Reverse victim and offender. The person asking for medical help is positioned as the aggressor giving “a raft of shit” — the structure Prof. Jennifer Freyd named DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender), which the beneficiary names in real time. The same reversal documented in Section 9 appears here on a medical subject.
The reported symptoms — feeling unwell, unable to drive — are consistent with the chemical-exposure documentation elsewhere in this record (see the off-gassing and VOC materials and the treating-physician letter). This is analysis of the documented thread above, not a clinical opinion about any individual.
Reproduced from the source screenshots, grouped by speaker for readability; the message wording is unchanged. The extended-stay address is referred to generically and a photograph of mail sent into the thread is described rather than shown. Wednesday, June 17, 2026, approx. 4:25 PM ET — a continuation of the June 15, 2026 Family / Trust Track thread in Section 9.
Much of what appears on this page was reconstructed with the help of artificial intelligence. The assault on August 22, 2025 happened in seconds — across multiple camera angles, in the chaos of an antisemitic attack that left me with three facial fractures and a camera knocked from my hand. Afterward came months of emails, text messages, building communications, physician correspondence, police reports, and audio recordings.
AI helped me piece those fragments together into a coherent, sourced record: reading through the full text of emails and texts, cross-referencing timestamps, connecting what the video showed with what was said, and identifying the gaps. It had access to things I couldn’t hold in memory — because VOC exposure doesn’t just make you sick, it affects cognition. The texts and emails were already there. The audio was already there. AI helped me use them when I couldn’t.
I want to be direct about what I was up against. I was asked to testify about an 11-minute assault. That would be hard for anyone — 11 minutes of violence, chaos, adrenaline, a camera knocked from my hand 2 seconds in. It would be hard to reconstruct perfectly even with a healthy brain. I don’t have one right now. I have been sick from VOC exposure since May 2026. My memory has been affected. For most of the case, the prosecution’s plan, as I understood it, was to rely primarily on my recollection, because the building surveillance footage — the footage that would show exactly what happened, from angles I didn’t have, in full — had not been subpoenaed.
That changed on July 2, 2026: ADA Andrew Lay subpoenaed the footage directly from Post Goldtex and received it — roughly 12 minutes from the front-desk camera, 2 minutes from the elevator lobby — three weeks before trial. This page remains my best reconstruction of what happened, built from what I could hold onto with an affected memory, but I no longer expect my testimony to be the only account of those 11 minutes.
To whoever in the DA’s office is working on Commonwealth v. Talley (CP-51-CR-0000673-2026): I hope this documentation is useful. I built it as carefully as I could, from what actually happened. Trial is July 21, 2026. I want justice. I want the truth on the record. This is my contribution to that.
— Justin Horn, July 2026