Mouna’s Story

Mouna Was Stalked by Tasha Kaminsky

Mouna was a person living their life, going to coffee shops, attending community events, spending time with friends. They did not know that someone was watching: tracking where they lived, who they lived with, where they went, and who they spent time with. The person doing all of this was Tasha Kaminsky, and the evidence comes from Tasha’s own testimony.^[1]

Tasha Showed Up to an Event Expecting to See Mouna

On June 12, 2016, Mouna’s household hosted a FoodSpark dinner.^[2] FoodSpark was a rotating monthly potluck organized by De Nichols and Sophie Lipman, both friends of Mouna at the time, held at a different location each month. The June event was listed on Mouna’s home’s Facebook page. Mouna was personally listed as a co-host.^[3]

Less than a month later, on July 10, 2016, Tasha showed up at the very next FoodSpark dinner, held at Nebula Coworking on South Jefferson Avenue.^[6] She and Mouna crossed paths there. Tasha later cited this encounter in her petition as evidence that Mouna had stalked her.^[7]

But testimony and evidence tell a different story. Tasha already knew Mouna’s home address before the July event.^[4] She testified that she looked into prior FoodSpark events before attending the July 10 dinner.^[5] Because the June 12 dinner was the immediately preceding event, that research would have led her directly to Mouna’s household Facebook page. She knew where Mouna lived, she saw the event tied to their home, she researched the series, and 28 days later she went to the next one.^[6]

She even testified that upon arriving, she had a panic attack and left,^[11] framing herself as the victim of the very encounter she had engineered. Every piece of documented evidence points in one direction: Tasha researched the event, Tasha knew the connection to Mouna’s home, and Tasha chose to attend. Mouna was a regular FoodSpark attendee whose own friends organized the series and who had co-hosted the previous month’s dinner at their own home.^[2][3]

Tasha Appeared at Places She Knew Mouna Frequented

Mokabe’s coffeehouse was the closest coffee shop to Mouna’s home, a place Mouna visited almost daily. Tasha had reason to know this. Messages produced in discovery show that Tasha’s friend Alyssa Banford actively monitored and reported Mouna’s whereabouts to Tasha.^[12] Tasha also knew that Mouna had gone on a date at Mokabe’s with Alyssa Banford on August 20, 2016,^[13] giving her additional reason to associate Mouna with the location.

Tasha then began appearing in the area. Less than four months after Mouna’s date with Alyssa at Mokabe’s, Tasha saw Mouna at Mokabe’s in December 2016. She reported another encounter in February 2017, though she omitted the location of this alleged contact from her testimony.^[14] Following the same pattern as FoodSpark, she accused Mouna of stalking her at these encounters.^[15]

But there is a problem with her story. During the order of protection hearing, Tasha testified that she had moved out of the neighborhood because she “was terrified and tried to break [her] lease,” ultimately relocating to Soulard in September 2015.^[16][17] The December 2016 encounter at Mokabe’s occurred well over a year after she claims to have fled the area, meaning she was returning to Mouna’s neighborhood, not the other way around.

If Tasha was genuinely afraid to live near Mouna, her return to a coffee shop she had reason to know Mouna frequented raises an obvious question about the sincerity of that fear.

Tasha Appeared at Mouna’s Housemate’s Workplace

In September 2017, Mouna and Tasha ended up at Gelateria at the same time. Mouna was already inside when Tasha walked in.^[19][20] Like each incident before it, Tasha listed this encounter on her petition as evidence that Mouna had stalked her.^[7]

The background is relevant. Tasha had access to Mouna’s household Facebook page through her research into prior FoodSpark events,^[5] which would have shown her that Allison Smith lived with Mouna. From there, a simple internet search would have connected Allison Smith to Gelateria. No testimony or document in the record establishes that Tasha actually performed that search. What the record does establish is that Tasha had the means to identify the location, that Mouna was already inside when Tasha arrived, and that Tasha nonetheless cited this encounter as evidence of stalking.^[18]

There is no plausible version of events in which Mouna stalked Tasha to a location that Mouna was already inside when Tasha arrived. Whether Tasha’s appearance was a coincidence or not, the fact that she placed this encounter on a sworn petition as an instance of Mouna stalking her^[7] calls her credibility into question. If she genuinely believed she was being stalked, why did she enter a shop where she could see Mouna was already present? And if she did not believe it, then citing this encounter as evidence of stalking was a deliberate fabrication.

Tasha Conducted Systematic Surveillance of Mouna’s Life

The individual incidents above are part of a broader pattern. Tasha’s monitoring of Mouna extended well beyond showing up at locations.

She tracked Mouna’s political donations by reviewing Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC) reports,^[26] which she then used to accuse Congresswoman Cori Bush of taking bribes from Mouna.^[24] She searched Mouna’s CaseNet records (Missouri’s public court record system) and used what she found to falsely claim that Mouna “keep[s] getting charged with tax evasion,” when in reality Mouna was never charged with tax evasion.^[25] She had associates reporting Mouna’s location to her in real time.^[12]

To summarize what the record shows Tasha knew or tracked: Mouna’s home address.^[4] Their household’s Facebook page and the events listed on it.^[5] Their housemate and that housemate’s workplace.^[18] Their political activity.^[26][27] Their court records.^[25] Their physical location on a given day, relayed by friends.^[12]

No evidence in the record shows Mouna doing any of this to Tasha. Mouna did not research Tasha’s social media. Mouna did not track Tasha’s political donations. Mouna did not search Tasha’s court records. Mouna did not have friends reporting Tasha’s location. The surveillance ran in one direction, and it was not the direction Tasha claimed.

By Tasha’s Own Standard, She Stalked Mouna

On November 16, 2017, Tasha filed a petition for an order of protection against Mouna.^[21] The petition cited exactly five incidents as evidence that Mouna had stalked her:^[7] seeing Mouna at Mokabe’s in December 2016, seeing Mouna at a restaurant in February 2017 (the specific location was not identified in her testimony),^[14] seeing Mouna at a Cinco de Mayo parade attended by thousands of people (and she was not even sure Mouna saw her),^[22] seeing Mouna at Gelateria in September 2017, and seeing Mouna at FoodSpark. That was the sum total of her case: Mouna existing in public spaces.

The petition was denied.^[23]

Under Missouri law, a petitioner seeking an order of protection must prove the allegation of stalking by a preponderance of the evidence. § 455.040 RSMo. This is the lowest standard of proof in the legal system, requiring only that the claim is more likely true than not. It is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases. The court reviewed Tasha’s five alleged incidents and found them insufficient to meet even this standard. A denial does not affirmatively prove fabrication, but it does mean that the only court to examine these allegations under oath concluded that the evidence did not support them.

By the standard Tasha herself set (that being present at the same public location constitutes stalking), her own documented behavior is not just equivalent but dramatically worse. Mouna went to coffee shops, dinners, and parades. Tasha researched Mouna’s home, tracked their online presence, identified their housemate’s employer, monitored their political donations and court records, had friends report their location, and showed up at places she had reason to believe Mouna would be. The difference is not subtle.

What DARVO Looks Like in Practice

DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a well-documented strategy used by aggressors to silence the people they harm.^[10] It works by flipping the narrative so that the person being harmed appears to be the aggressor, and the actual aggressor appears to be the victim. The pattern documented on this page follows each phase.

Deny. Tasha denied her own surveillance behavior. She admitted to researching prior FoodSpark events (which gave her access to Mouna’s household Facebook page),^[5] tracking their political donations,^[26] and searching their court records,^[25] but she never acknowledged that this conduct constituted monitoring. In her framing, she was simply a concerned citizen gathering information, not a person systematically surveilling someone else’s life.

Attack. Tasha attacked Mouna’s credibility and reputation through false public claims. She falsely told people that Mouna “keep[s] getting charged with tax evasion”^[25] when Mouna was never charged with tax evasion. She used Mouna’s political donations to accuse Congresswoman Cori Bush of taking bribes from Mouna.^[24] These attacks served to discredit Mouna in the community and ensure that if Mouna ever tried to speak up, they would already be positioned as untrustworthy.

Reverse Victim and Offender. The petition itself is the reversal. Every encounter Tasha listed as evidence of Mouna stalking her^[7] was an encounter where Tasha had the informational advantage: she knew Mouna’s address, she had researched their social media, she had friends reporting their location. Despite all of this, she filed a petition casting Mouna as the stalker and herself as the victim.

Every time Tasha appeared at a location connected to Mouna (FoodSpark, Mokabe’s, Gelateria), she accused Mouna of stalking her. Every time. The reversal covered up her own surveillance, silenced Mouna by putting them on the defensive, isolated Mouna from community support, and ensured that if Mouna ever tried to speak up, they would not be believed.

A Note on the Limits of the Record

The record does not contain direct evidence that Tasha planned each encounter in advance. It does not prove that every appearance at a location connected to Mouna was intentional. What the record does show is a pattern: Tasha gathered detailed information about Mouna’s life, her associates reported Mouna’s movements, and Tasha appeared repeatedly at locations tied to Mouna, then accused Mouna of being the one doing the following. The reader can assess whether that pattern is coincidence.

The stalking documented on this page was only the beginning. In time, the campaign escalated: Tasha encouraged people to confront Mouna at their home with guns, and people were sent to Mouna’s workplace.

Mouna was not stalking Tasha Kaminsky. Mouna was living their life. The evidence (Tasha’s own testimony, her associates’ messages, her documented pattern of research and surveillance) tells a clear and consistent story: Mouna was the person being stalked.