QIM Score: 90/100 — published under the house rule: no post goes live unscored.
If you are reporting voice-to-skull (V2K) audio, directed-energy sensations, or electronic harassment that has not let up — that is happening now, not decades ago — you have probably been told some version of the same thing: "That program ended a long time ago." Maybe a doctor said it. Maybe a police officer, a property manager, or a family member said it. And maybe it made you feel like the thing you are living through every day is being waved away.
Here is the honest starting point, from an attorney who takes these calls seriously: your suffering is real, and being disbelieved is its own injury. You are not required to prove the entire history of government research to be heard. The legal question in your case is narrower and more useful — who is doing what to you now, and can we attribute it and document it. This article walks through why "the program officially ended" is not, by itself, a defense to present-day harm, and what California law actually offers people carrying an ongoing burden.
What Congress Heard on June 30, 2026
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. House Oversight Committee's Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets, chaired by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), held a hearing titled "Mind Control and Accountability: Uncovering the Truth of the CIA's MKULTRA Experiments." The witnesses were serious people: historian Stephen Kinzer (author of Poisoner in Chief), investigative journalist Tom O'Neill (author of CHAOS), and former NIH scientist Elizabeth Ginexi.
Two moments matter most for anyone living with ongoing harm. First, O'Neill would not pretend the story was safely in the past: "Is it happening today? Did it continue? I don't know. I can't imagine that it didn't though because the technology that they worked to establish over 20, 25 years and spent more money on than any operation the CIA had ever conducted was successful" (Tom O'Neill, 01:01:33). Second, Kinzer put the same idea to the committee as a task worth undertaking: "This task force could also consider trying to determine whether some new incarnation of MKUltra exists today" (Stephen Kinzer, 32:55).
O'Neill also went at the official record directly. "I believe the agency misled Congress in 1977 when it characterized MKUltra as a failure" (Tom O'Neill, 34:57). And he reminded the room how that record was built: "Nearly 50 years ago, another congressional committee believed it had been given the truth about MKUltra. It had not" (Tom O'Neill, 42:07). To his credit, O'Neill kept his own honesty intact about the limits of what he knew — "I have no firsthand knowledge whether those guys were programmed through radio waves or through their computer activity" (Tom O'Neill, 01:32:17).
That is the correct posture, and it is the same one this firm brings to your case: take the field seriously, and stay disciplined about evidence and attribution.
The Science Is Not Fringe
The mechanism people describe is documented in peer-reviewed literature. The
Frey Effect (the Microwave Auditory Effect) was published by Allan H. Frey in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 1962; it is peer-reviewed and has been replicated — pulsed microwave energy can create the perception of sound inside the head. The U.S. Navy's
MEDUSA program explored microwave auditory effects around 2003-04. The
LRAD "Voice of God" acoustic device was deployed in Iraq beginning in 2003 and later against U.S. protesters. And in 2020, the
National Academies of Sciences concluded that directed pulsed radiofrequency/microwave energy was the most plausible explanation for the injuries known as Havana Syndrome. In January 2026, CNN reported the Pentagon had obtained a suspected device.
None of this proves what is happening in your apartment. It does something more modest and more important: it establishes that the field is real, the physics is published, and hardware exists. So the honest question in a legal case is never "does this exist" — it is "can we identify and attribute the source here, and capture it correctly." Which is exactly why a
medical work-up is armor, not surrender: ruling out treatable conditions strengthens your credibility and clears the ground for the technical evidence.
Your Legal Rights — and Why "The Program Ended" Is Not a Defense
This is the section that matters for ongoing harm, so read it carefully. General information follows; Michael Benavides, Esq. gives the case-specific legal analysis.
Continuing torts and continuing violations. When harmful conduct is not a single event but a repeated, ongoing course of conduct — a signal that comes back night after night, harassment that renews itself — California law recognizes doctrines under which each new act can be its own wrong, and the pattern can be treated as a continuing violation. In practical terms, a defendant who says "that started years ago" may still be answerable for what is happening this month. The point of "the program officially ended in the 1970s" is a historical claim about a government project; it is not a shield against a present-day actor causing present-day harm.
Statutes of limitations and the discovery rule. California generally applies a
discovery rule: a claim can accrue when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should discover, both the injury and its cause. For people who spent years being told their experience was imaginary, the moment you can actually attribute the harm can matter a great deal. Combined with continuing-violation principles, the timing clock is often more forgiving than people fear. These are general concepts an attorney evaluates case by case — not a guarantee.
The legal levers. Depending on the facts, the toolkit can include
47 U.S.C. § 333 (prohibiting willful interference with licensed radio communications, an FCC hook),
18 U.S.C. § 2261A (federal stalking), California
Penal Code §§ 646.9 and 502 (stalking; computer crimes),
Civil Code § 1708.7 (civil stalking), the
Bane Act, Civil Code § 52.1 (interference with rights by threat or coercion), and constitutional claims under the
First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments where a government actor is involved.
FOIA requests are a legitimate route to pursue federal records. And the law is moving:
Colorado (2024) and
Montana have enacted neural-rights protections.
Evidence, done right. This is where cases are won or lost. Proper capture means
software-defined radio (SDR) with documented source attribution and a clean chain of custody — not phone "acoustic" apps, which measure sound, not RF, and will not stand up. Attribution is the whole ballgame: identifying the source, direction, and signature — not just recording a sensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you sue for V2K harassment?
Sometimes, yes — it depends on the facts. If a specific person or entity is causing ongoing harm and we can attribute and document it, California and federal law offer real causes of action (civil stalking, the Bane Act, computer-crime statutes, RF-interference law, and constitutional claims against government actors). No lawyer can promise an outcome, but the door is not closed simply because you were disbelieved before.
The "program" supposedly ended in the 1970s. Doesn't that end my case?
No. A defendant's harm to you today is judged by what they are doing today. As Tom O'Neill put it at the hearing, "I can't imagine that it didn't" continue (01:01:33), and Kinzer urged Congress to look at "whether some new incarnation of MKUltra exists today" (32:55). Continuing-tort and continuing-violation doctrines are built for ongoing conduct.
Have I waited too long to file?
Maybe not. California's discovery rule can start the clock when you reasonably discover the injury and its cause, and ongoing violations can extend or restart it. These are fact-specific — bring the timeline to a consultation and let an attorney evaluate it.
Will a doctor's visit hurt my case?
Just the opposite. A medical work-up is armor, not surrender. Ruling out treatable causes protects your credibility and lets the technical evidence carry the weight it should.
How Michael Benavides Legal Can Help
Michael Benavides, Esq. builds electronic-harassment cases the way they need to be built — patiently and forensically. That means starting with your timeline and your reported experience (treated as reported experience, never dismissed), pairing it with a proper medical work-up as protective armor, and then pursuing the technical evidence the right way: SDR capture, source attribution, and a documented chain of custody. It means filing FOIA requests where federal records may exist, and mapping your facts onto the actual legal levers — civil stalking under Civil Code § 1708.7, the Bane Act, Penal Code §§ 646.9 and 502, the FCC's § 333, federal stalking, and constitutional claims where a government actor is in the picture.
If you are living with ongoing V2K or directed-energy harassment and you have been told it is all in the past — or all in your head — you deserve an attorney who takes the field seriously and stays disciplined about proof. Call or text
707-362-4166 or visit
attorneymichaelbenavides.com to talk it through. You will be heard, and you will get an honest read on what the law can and cannot do in your specific case.
Attorney advertising. Michael Benavides, Esq., California State Bar #270714, 428 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 · 707-362-4166. This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Quotes are from the June 30, 2026 House Oversight MKULTRA hearing (Rev transcript; verify wording against the C-SPAN video before republication). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
If you are in crisis or thinking about harming yourself, reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988) — reaching for support is strength, not surrender.
