Hi Mr. Guertin,

 

As to your question about recordings, no, Psychological Services does not audio or video record any of the evaluations the psychologists do, nor do we allow examinees to produce any such recordings. Again, there are a number of reasons for this, which I’m happy to review on March 1. The remainder of your questions will also all be addressed at the outset of the interview on March 1, before you are asked any questions. At that time, the parameters of the evaluation will be reviewed and discussed, including my role and the differences between this kind of court-ordered evaluation and encounters you might have with a psychologist in other settings. You will also be given time to ask any questions you have that may not have been covered during this process. I am happy to discuss these issues at that time. I am going to stop responding to emails at this time, not to be rude, but because the appointment we have scheduled for March 1 is the more appropriate forum to discuss these matters. Please feel free to bring any questions with you on that date.

 

Thank you, and I look forward to speaking with you on March 1.

 

Best regards,

Dr. Rogstad

 

Jill E. Rogstad, Ph.D., LP, ABPP (Forensic)

Senior Clinical Forensic Psychologist

Board Certified in Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology

(she/her/hers)

Fourth Judicial District and Regional Psychological Services

Phone: (612) 394-0937

 

From: Matt Guertin <MattGuertin@protonmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 6:12 PM
To: Rogstad, Jill <Jill.Rogstad@courts.state.mn.us>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Matthew David Guertin / Preliminary Introduction and discussion of facts

 

Jill,

This sounds good / reasonable. Thank you.

One of the other things then which I am wondering then however is the following - which is essentially the same exact question asked in a variety of ways for clarity's sake:


Will you be audio and video documenting our meeting?

If I bring a laptop / device to share with you that which pertains to the topics you would like to discuss with me will my 'presentation' of digital information also be clearly documented in a way where if our meeting was reviewed at a later date for some reason that whoever is viewing it would be able to see, hear, and clearly identify that which I am sharing with you on said device?

In regards to any audio or video recording of our meeting that you and the county obtain from our meeting is there some kind of standard/ protocol/procedure regarding where that data is archived, who can access it and under what circumstances, etc, etc. What is the normal procedure basically?

I know that you are presented as a 'neutral' or 'objective' opinion for all intents and purposes. Based upon the fact that you are a PHD, have published papers, appear in various case law discussions in addition to the most obvious of them all which would be your current position as a clinical forensic psychologist it is obvious to me that you must be very good at what you do as a lot of people trust your opinion. So with all of that said I believe what would be a more unlikely case is if you didn't have a natural bias which weighs in favor of the state and ultimately the prosecution since that's basically your employer. I'm not talking about corruption or intentional deceit, etc... rather I am just discussing simple human nature as far as most people who are happily employed developing a healthy and natural sense of loyalty to those that employ them even if that that loyalty (bias) is on a subconscious level.   To get to the point of my bringing this up what I am wondering then is how exactly does mine and yours relationship defer from that of an ordinary doctor & patient / doctor & client relationship in regards to HIPAA laws...and particularly those that are enforced in MN?


What is any changes/differences are there as opposed to if you were a privately practicing psychologist and I came to your office and said I'd like to pay you your required fee to have you perform a psychological analysis on me for X and Y reasons?

Is the attached PDF that I've read through and took the time to highlight still considered to be 'current' based on your knowledge?

 

If these HIPAA laws are still current I am assuming that even if I am unable to personally record any audio or video of our meeting on my own that I would still be able to request and obtain the audio and video you record of the meeting as it would ultimately be considered 'doctors notes' correct? If I am wrong please feel free to provide me with the supporting documents which clearly state this so I can lay it to rest as an issue of mine. 

 

Thank you,

 

Matthew Guertin

Inventor / Founder / CEO

InfiniSet, Inc.

Minneapolis, MN

763--221-4540





Sent from ProtonMail mobile



-------- Original Message --------
On Feb 15, 2023, 4:40 PM, Rogstad, Jill < Jill.Rogstad@courts.state.mn.us> wrote:

 

Good afternoon, Mr. Guertin:

 

I’m afraid I cannot provide any materials to you. However, if you have a device (e.g., phone, tablet, or laptop), I believe the Government Center has public Wifi you can access. We can discuss further what makes the most sense at the appointment on March 1, but please feel free to bring any of those devices as well as paper documentation.

 

Best regards,

 

Jill E. Rogstad, Ph.D., LP, ABPP (Forensic)

Senior Clinical Forensic Psychologist

Board Certified in Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology

(she/her/hers)

Fourth Judicial District and Regional Psychological Services

Phone: (612) 394-0937

 

From: Matt Guertin <MattGuertin@protonmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:40 PM
To: Rogstad, Jill <Jill.Rogstad@courts.state.mn.us>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Matthew David Guertin / Preliminary Introduction and discussion of facts

 

Jill,

Regarding the other methods of being able to share information at the meeting vs. before the meeting in the form of emails:

Would one of those options include an hdmi cable and a monitor?

~Matt


Sent from ProtonMail mobile



-------- Original Message --------
On Feb 14, 2023, 4:16 PM, Rogstad, Jill < Jill.Rogstad@courts.state.mn.us> wrote:

 

Good afternoon, Mr. Guertin:

 

I appreciate the effort and time you spent constructing your message to me. I want to assure you that this information is definitely relevant, and you will be asked questions and given the chance to discuss these themes during our interview appointment. However, your message suggested that you plan to send more emails like this, and I would respectfully ask that you not. This request is not because I do not want to discuss these matters; rather, I ask that because email is not the best forum in which to have a productive discussion of these issues. You have given me an introduction to some of the matters you referenced on the phone, and I want to emphasize that you will have the opportunity to discuss them during the March 1 interview. However, it is much more conducive to the evaluation process to have these conversations in real time. Please feel free to bring any documentation with you to the appointment. If it would be difficult to bring physical copies of certain things, this is something we can discuss at the appointment to figure out the best way to proceed.

 

At the March 1 interview appointment, we will discuss many of the points you brought up, including the purpose and parameters of the evaluation, as well as my role in the proceedings. You will also have the opportunity to ask any questions you may have at that time. I do want to take the time to answer one question you mentioned in your message, however, with regard to audio recording. You are NOT permitted to audio record our interview session on March 1. There are a number of reasons for this, which I am happy to discuss with you at the March 1 appointment. Importantly, the Hennepin County District Court also prohibits the use of any recording devices in courtroom areas.

 

I look forward to speaking with you further on March 1.

 

Best regards,

 

Jill E. Rogstad, Ph.D., LP, ABPP (Forensic)

Senior Clinical Forensic Psychologist

Board Certified in Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology

(she/her/hers)

Fourth Judicial District and Regional Psychological Services

Phone: (612) 394-0937

 

From: Matt Guertin <MattGuertin@protonmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:00 PM
To: Rogstad, Jill <Jill.Rogstad@courts.state.mn.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Matthew David Guertin / Preliminary Introduction and discussion of facts

 

Jill,

 

It was nice to speak with you on the phone the other day and I am looking forward to our meeting on March 1st. 

 

In what I am sure will be one of many follow-up emails leading up to our meeting I would like to provide you with an initial, short introduction to myself and what I have been up to over the past 15 years as well as a little bit of information about what I currently have taking place in my life in regards to my patent application - the one I filed on March 19th, 2021 and which will officially no longer be an 'application' beginning tomorrow (v-day) as that is when it officially grants - tomorrow is also when my patent will be filed as prior art against this patent here which was invented by Stephan Trojansky and first filed on March 31, 2021.....12 days later than my application. 

 

It's not an exaggeration to say that the situation I have currently found myself in is similar to wining the lottery. I have had patent attorneys tell me this statement is an accurate depiction of my situation as well as I essentially invalidated ('shredded'...made worthless..) not only the most critical parts of the Trojansky application but many of the additional elements included in his application as well. Not only did I cover the core element of the rotating treadmill with the very broad claims I am being granted tomorrow but I also mention in my disclosure a multi-camera photogrammetry rig, emerging photogrammetry technology (which will be able to cover 'neural radiance fields' or 'nerf' which is what I believe Netflix is working on currently, I mention the creation of a 'digital twin', I mention the user wearing sensors, I specifically mention a 'user cue system' multiple times, and on and on and on......once my patent gets handed in as prior art against the Trojansky application (which moving forward I will simply refer to as 'The Netflix patent' as that is who acquired Trojansky's company 'Scanline VFX' for at least 100 million dollars 8 months after he filed his provisional application based on press releases as well as Q12022 Netflix, Inc. Investors report - page 5) it means that they will NEED my patent if they want to be made whole and be able to obtain Intellectual property rights for that which so far they have easily invested a quarter billion dollars into but more likely it is much closer to a half billion dollars. 

 

It is currently my intention to take advantage of the unique situation I am in and outright sell my entire company, InfiniSet, Inc. (a Delaware c-corp which I am the CEO of and which is also the company my patent is assigned to upon its issuance tomorrow), collect my money, and exit stage right. That is especially my intention after all of the crazy shit that has been going on ever since I discovered the Netflix patent - which I only stumbled upon after searching for PhotoRobot to see if they had any patents granted for their 'Virtual Catwalk' which is the product they have been pouring a massive amount of money, time, and effort into fraudulently positioning against my patent - It is when I was sent an email response by the CEO of Mark Roberts Motion Control, Assaff Rawner the first week of Novemeber that all of this began....and by 'all of this' I do in fact mean 'ALL OF IT' which would include not only stumbling upon the Netflix patent (which is so technically written that I had to read it seven times before I realized it was the exact same thing as my patent application) by sheer luck but also my trip down the ultimate rabbit hole as I completely diverted my attention to focus on investigating that which I had the most to lose if I had chosen not to investigate it as it was and still is very obvious that whatever was/is going on is solely for the purpose for trying to fraudulently steal something I have dedicated the last two years of my life bringing to fruition. At the very least they are setting themselves up to be able to steal my patent by being able to build and use it without being found guilty of infringement by creating a false history that would lead one to believe that they have always been heading in a specific and 'obvious' direction which was only established after I shared my patent application with Mark Roberts Motion Control in an email. This 'false history' includes my discovery that the Wayback Machine / Internet Archive was being fraudulently edited with backdated copies of recently created pages, and ultimately I ended up realizing that it involves multiple websites and was obviously being accomplished using chatGPT and/or other sophisticated AI tools (I even go through the fraudulent AI written pages at the end of that video - apparently one of the authors - Samantha McDonald - was able to write at least 2500 articles which were all dated in the same time range near the end of 2020 as you can clearly see in the video.....hint.....those people in the fake Zoom call are also fake - as in completely generated by AI which would include their vocals as well as the subject matter they are discussing...just pay close attention...especially to the repeated use of 'experience' and 'experiential' over and over and over...I will get more into how we logically end up at footwear in follow up emails though) that the general public have been lead to believe do not currently exist. At the very worst what I was investigating and documenting could lead to my patent being challenged and possibly invalidated - which is why it has now turned out to be the 100% correct move on my part to choose to investigate and collect as much evidence as I did. I have close to 100gb of digital forensic evidence I collected in the form of dowloaded full web pages from the archive among others in which I was ultimately able to process and make sense of to the point of being able to lay all of it out in very clear and easy to understand spreadsheets which proved that the internet archive was 100% in fact being fraudulently edited just based on the statistical/mathematical probability of having the same pattern occur over and over for each group of archived pages I collected (I went on a manual collection run where I downloaded every single archived webpage for 61 of the 89 total blog pages archived for PhotoRobot dot com) and I was able to clearly identify an anomalous pattern that points to clear fraud by copying recently published pages and pasting them into the past. I then was able to further support this when I discovered a code that allowed me to download every single page ever archived for PhotoRobot dot com in which I discovered that there were a bunch of WARC files being served which relate specifically to updating duplicate pages (although I will admit I still do not fully understand the general protocol - I do know that it can be considered a 'container file' though - much the same way a .zip file is and it's purpose has to do specifically with updating duplicate pages in an easy to implement 'file dump' of sorts. It was when I was finally able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there was in fact fraud taking place that I began trying to alert authorities to what i had discovered. I'm not sure if you are fully aware of exactly 'what' the internet archive is but all you have to know is that it is considered a legit form of court admissible evidence - at least I know it is for the USPTO as it has been cited numerous times in cases - so just the fact that I had been able to collect and establish this proof of fraud at the internet archive by itself is a very big deal and one which I believed put my safety at risk as if this information were to become public it would mean that any cases which involved or heavily relied upon information from the Internet Archive (a non-profit 501c3..) would be able to be re-opened and reexamined which could have massive ramifications involving an untold (but I am sure very large..) amount of money. It is my opinion that there is a system in place at the archive to commit the fraudulent editing I have been able to prove and that this has almost certainly been carried out before.

 

As you have probably ascertained by now I am not your average client and I have a very unique set of circumstances surrounding the criminal charges responsible for bringing us together. It is my personal opinion based on your profession and education that I am being required to sit down with you so that you can 'classify' me as something...meaning that your ultimate goal I believe is to place some sort of universally understood label on me for the purpose of blaming some sort of mental 'disability' or defect upon me which could then be used to explain the incident that happened at my apartment by blaming it solely on me instead of actually considering the crazy and insane set of circumstances which lead up to the extreme decision of me firing a gun off to essentially 'call the police' as seeming completely logical considering the situation I had suddenly found myself in. To be clear I am not in any way trying to minimize the illegal and obviously 'extreme' nature of what I did nor am I trying to make any assumptions or disrespect you/ your education /career /etc. That is definitely not how I would want to come across before even having a chance to meet you in person - I am simply trying to be very clear and upfront with you about what my current thoughts are in general surrounding everything. Basically these are my personal thoughts and opinions and should be considered only that and nothing more.

 

I will get into more of this in follow up emails as I mentioned previously as it is quite a bit to unpack - even for me who was/is the one caught in the middle of all of it. It is definitely something that will need to be introduced and documented in multiple parts as I could spend a couple days trying to write all of it down chronologically and lay everything out - which I assure you is what I am ultimately going to accomplish and which will make the actions I took at my apartment seem logical or at the very least it will become very clear to everyone (including perhaps a jury of my peers..) that I was put under so much stress that it would make sense that I could've 'cracked' and basically been launched into a fight or flight state where I was genuinely in fear for my life and my safety as everything involving the AI aspect of the 'operation' being carried out against me as well as many strange coincidences all became dots which I was connecting in my head at a faster and faster pace as everything became crystal clear to me - all of which lead to a bad ending for me as far as I was concerned.

 

I will leave you with a simple question to ask yourself - "What on earth would cause someone who has been traveling the world and accomplishing some of the most amazing technological, engineering, and programming feats since 2014 after essentially traveling to LA with his entire life in a trailer behind him and who now has now moved back home after covid only to continue accomplishing projects which have gained him a massive amount of attention, including winning awards for my 3D photogrammetry Chicago scan, and who then somehow was able to top all of the projects he worked on in LA and all over the world by inventing, patenting and then proceeding to design, engineer, and fabricate a device and system in his living room which can only be described as a complete paradigm shift in the way movies and film will produced going forward, and which he was/is only days away from being able to record a 'proof of concept' video for just as he is also finally going to officially be granted a patent for to suddenly decide that shooting a gun out of his window to alert police makes logical sense?"

 

And that is the question......

 

BUT - I actually have one more question for you which is much less subjective than the previous one I posed to you - that being the following:

I am assuming the interview I conduct with you will be at the very least audio recorded and I would like to check and make sure that it is not a problem if I also record the audio of our interview when it is conducted?

 

As I mentioned previously this is not just a criminal matter as far as I am concerned but also one which involves my corporation, my patent, my reputation as a CEO, extremely large sums of money, etc, etc and so it is my intention to be sure that I protect myself and my interests by all means possible which is why it seems logical to me that I would also be able to obtain my own personal audio recording of our meeting as well. 

 

 

I look forward to my continued correspondence with you leading up to our meeting on the 1st.

 

Sincerely,

 

Matt Guertin

Inventor / Founder / CEO

InfiniSet, Inc.

Minneapolis, MN

763-221-4540

 

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If this email appears suspicious, or is asking you to provide sensitive information, please do not forward the email; submit the email via the ‘Report Message’ button on your Outlook ribbon on your computer or contact the ITD Service Desk for further guidance.