For second time we meet a behavior that is resembled psychological torture, only this time, it is in Armenia, last time it was in Vancouver Canada. A government that has lost all its progress gathered over 30 years, is in this case involved in a case that is used as a psychological torture of founders. You saw our previous article on "Startup Accelerator or Startup Killer? Plug and Play Armenia Exposed!" Where we covered on how plug and play accelerator resembled more like a startup killer, rather an accelerator. So how exactly would you kill the startup? Well in a startup operated in its early stage outputs its value via exchanging the time, energy, intellect of the founders. Founders possess a certain skill, they use that skill over certain period of time, invest, time, energy, mind, money and they get an output that either the market likes or dislikes. So, how was Plug and Play Tech Accelerator trying to kill our startup, well it was by psychologically torturing its founders.

We want to note that in the title "Canadian, Indian, Armenian in One Room - Pscyhological Torture Operated By Ministry of High Tech in Armenia. " We have mentioned Ministry of High Tech in Armenia, because that program was operated by the ministry of high tech. It was a collaboration between Plug and Play Tech Accelerator, and Ministry of High Tech, so we can call it a collaborative Psychological Torture Operation. Instead of innovating in places where there is need, the armenian government seems to be innovating ways in how to psychologically torture its citizens and other countries citizens. We want to note that the founders, are Dutch citizens, and LunarTech, the company, is based in United States, and therefore they may be subject to investigation and intervention of Dutch, United States International, law enforcement agencies. We want to highlight that a minister therefore is not an exception of this, we will do our part which is to tell our story, appropirate bodies will do the rest at appropirate point of time. So how exactly did Plug and Play Tech Accelerator plug and play torture the founders of LunarTech.

CHAPTER: A CATALOG OF ORCHESTRATED PSCYHOLOGICAL TORTURE OPERATION

The unsettling reality that unfolded around LunarTech did not arise from a single moment of impulsive hostility; rather, it was the result of a meticulously orchestrated campaign designed to destabilize, isolate, and demean the startup’s founders. Over the course of their involvement in the accelerator program, every interaction was imbued with subtle yet deliberate tactics aimed at undermining confidence and stripping away the founders’ sense of agency.

From the outset, the founders encountered repeated instances of humiliation and verbal abuse. In one particularly egregious example, a mentor dismissed a female co-founder not on the merits of her ideas or leadership but solely by reducing her to her physical appearance. He repeatedly remarked that she was “beautiful,” a comment delivered in a tone that insinuated her attractiveness was her only redeeming quality and that her competence was inherently questionable. Such remarks were not isolated; they were part of a broader pattern in which constructive feedback was conspicuously absent. Instead of receiving insightful critiques on product strategy or market positioning, the founders were subjected to sneering dismissals that branded them “stupid” and “unprofessional.” This relentless barrage of degrading insults was designed to chip away at their self-esteem, leaving them doubting their abilities and questioning whether they deserved any of the promised support.

The psychological onslaught extended far beyond verbal abuse. The program environment itself was deliberately toxic. LunarTech was systematically excluded from valuable mentorship sessions and critical pitch events that were repeatedly promised during the orientation phase. While other startups within the program enjoyed regular access to influential investors and high-caliber strategic partnerships, LunarTech’s follow-up requests were consistently ignored or met with circular excuses. For instance, when the founders inquired about specific investor introductions, they were curtly told, “We can’t introduce you to anyone,” or even asked, “Why are you even here?” Such statements were not mere oversights; they were part of a calculated strategy to isolate LunarTech from the very networks that could have propelled their growth.

As the program progressed, the tactics evolved into a sinister form of psychological manipulation commonly known as gaslighting. Initially, mentors criticized the startup for not being advanced enough to benefit from the accelerator’s resources. Then, in a bewildering twist, LunarTech was later described as “too advanced” for the program. This contradictory messaging left the founders in a perpetual state of confusion, forcing them to constantly second-guess their judgment and the validity of their progress. Even when the founders documented clear, written assurances regarding promised investor meetings and strategic support, these assurances were later denied or reframed as misunderstandings. By systematically altering the narrative, the program’s administrators induced a sense of disorientation and self-doubt that permeated every decision and interaction.

Adding to this psychological assault were arbitrary and unpredictable punishments. Without any prior notice or opportunity to remedy alleged deficiencies, LunarTech was suddenly and unceremoniously expelled from the program. The decision was executed with an almost casual finality—an abrupt termination email sent late at night that cited vague reasons such as the startup being “too advanced.” This decision was not made in isolation; behind the scenes, a replacement startup had already been secretly onboarded. The founders were left to grapple with the realization that despite their continuous efforts and visible commitment, every step they took was being countered by punitive surprises engineered to strip away any hope of redemption. The lack of a fair process in handling these issues further amplified the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, leaving no room for the founders to contest the decision or to recover their lost momentum.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of this orchestrated mental harm was the persistent threat to the founders’ livelihoods and professional reputations. The accelerator had convinced them that relocating to Armenia and investing significant personal resources would open doors to a vibrant network of investors and mentors. Instead, the founders found themselves not only isolated from these crucial opportunities but also subjected to remarks that implied they would never be able to secure funding or be taken seriously in their field. The insinuations that their professional future was bleak and that their innovative ideas were doomed to fail were not merely offhand comments—they were calculated coercive elements designed to instill intense stress, desperation, and fear. This threat was particularly insidious because it directly attacked the very foundation of the startup’s viability, undermining the founders’ financial investments and long-term prospects.

Moreover, the enforced helplessness imposed by the accelerator deepened the psychological scars. The program deliberately engineered a state of dependency by withholding essential resources and denying any meaningful support. The founders were forced to remain physically present in Armenia, bound by the promise of future introductions that never materialized, and continually brushed off whenever they sought help. This enforced reliance on an institution that systematically denied their needs created an inescapable cycle of vulnerability, where every attempt to assert independence was met with further discouragement and isolation.

Each of these elements—humiliation and verbal abuse, the creation of a hostile environment, psychological manipulation through gaslighting, arbitrary punishments, threats to professional livelihood, and enforced helplessness—worked in concert to form a comprehensive system of mental abuse. Every tactic was designed with precision to debilitate the founders psychologically, stripping them of confidence and self-efficacy, and ultimately leaving them in a state of perpetual fear and disorientation.

Taken together, these actions meet the internationally recognized criteria for psychological torture. The deliberate, repeated, and targeted nature of these abuses, especially in a context where the victims were entirely dependent on their abusers for critical resources and opportunities, leaves no room for doubt. This systematic degradation, marked by verbal insults, exclusion, manipulation, unpredictable punitive measures, professional sabotage, and enforced helplessness, embodies exactly what is defined as psychological torture.

CHAPTER: INVOLVEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF HIGH TECH AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ABUSE

The accelerator program in Armenia was not an isolated private initiative; it was executed under the direct auspices of the Ministry of High Tech—a government entity charged with the oversight of public funding and innovation initiatives. As established in common law, a government agency holds a fiduciary duty to act “with the utmost good faith, loyalty, and diligence” when managing public resources. In Armenia, systematic psychological abuse within such programs does not occur by chance. When a government-backed initiative displays repeated, targeted behaviors designed to undermine a startup’s progress, it is not solely the result of individual misconduct by private contractors; rather, the Ministry’s active involvement renders it equally accountable for the abuse. In legal parlance, such conduct may be construed as a material breach of the duty of care that the Ministry is obligated to uphold.

As a government agency entrusted with the management and oversight of public resources, the Ministry of High Tech was required to ensure that every initiative it endorsed complied with established standards of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct. The Ministry was legally obligated to guarantee that contractual obligations—such as investor matchmaking, strategic mentorship, and access to critical networks—were fully met. As the Restatement (Second) of Contracts notes, "a material breach occurs when a party fails to perform a fundamental obligation under the contract," thereby depriving the other party of its expected benefits. The systematic exclusion, deceptive communications, and arbitrary punitive actions experienced by LunarTech clearly represent such a breach. The Ministry’s failure to detect and address these violations underscores a deliberate neglect of its oversight responsibilities.

Extensive documentation supports a consistent pattern of misconduct: mentors made derogatory remarks that reduced a female co-founder to her physical appearance, repeatedly labeling her as "beautiful" while casting doubt on her competence. Concurrently, the founders were systematically excluded from critical investor meetings and essential pitch events—promises that were initially made but later reneged upon without justification. As legal scholar William Cohen has observed, "when an institution persistently ignores its contractual obligations, its inaction becomes tantamount to active participation in the breach." The Ministry’s inaction in the face of repeated formal complaints and documented abuses—where conflicting directives and arbitrary decisions left the founders in perpetual disorientation—demonstrates that the Ministry’s passive approval rendered it complicit in the misconduct.

In a government-backed initiative, accountability is inherently shared. The Ministry’s endorsement of the accelerator program places it on the same level of responsibility as the private entity executing the program, namely Plug and Play Tech Accelerator. When actions such as degrading verbal abuse, systematic exclusion from promised opportunities, and abrupt, unjustified termination occur, the Ministry’s failure to enforce corrective measures directly implicates it in these abuses. As stated in the principle articulated by Judge Learned Hand, "an agent who fails in his duty to act in the best interests of his principal is liable for the damages thereby incurred." The Ministry’s neglect, therefore, is not a mere administrative oversight but a deliberate omission that allowed unethical practices to persist unabated.

Ultimately, the systematic nature of these abuses—combined with the Ministry of High Tech’s failure to ensure accountability and enforce transparency—leaves no doubt regarding shared culpability. In Armenia, where regulatory frameworks are specifically designed to prevent such misconduct, the occurrence of these practices under the direct watch of a government agency is neither random nor isolated; it is indicative of a deliberate breach of duty. The Ministry’s passive approval and non-intervention in the face of repeated violations render it as responsible for the orchestrated psychological torture inflicted on LunarTech’s founders as the private contractors who executed the program. This, by all legal and regulatory standards, is exactly the definition of psychological torture.

After being removed from the program, these actions have provided additional cover for Plug and Play Tech Accelerator. The documented breaches and the Ministry’s complicity serve to obscure the true nature of the accelerator's practices. By eliminating LunarTech through a premeditated termination and orchestrating a cascade of obstructions thereafter, the accelerator has effectively shielded itself from scrutiny. This cover not only reinforces the deceptive narrative promoted by the accelerator but also diverts attention from the fraudulent tactics employed to sabotage a high-potential startup.

CHAPTER: COLLUSION AND SABOTAGE – THE MINISTRY’S INVOLVEMENT AND SAN FRANCISCO ORGANIZATIONS’ ACTIONS

After the video’s publication, a coordinated campaign of interference emerged, implicating several San Francisco–based organizations in a deliberate effort to disrupt LunarTech’s operations. Prior to these developments, a detailed Substack publication had already scrutinized Plug and Play Tech Accelerator—a San Francisco–based organization—which raised concerns about its operational practices. These early warnings now serve as a backdrop to the subsequent actions observed, which include the filing of a baseless credit card dispute via Swedbank, intentional monitoring and subsequent blocking of a critical email list on Substack, and the inexplicable failure of Google Forms—the platform used by LunarTech for processing applications. The timing and nature of these events suggest they were not isolated technical issues but part of a systematic strategy aimed at undermining the startup.

The financial disruption began when Stripe, acting on behalf of the implicated organizations, initiated a credit card dispute through Swedbank. The dispute, lacking any substantive basis, appears to have been engineered to interfere with essential financial transactions. This tactic, when combined with Substack’s monitoring and automatic decline of the startup’s imported email list, directly impeded LunarTech’s ability to process applications and maintain communication with its stakeholders. Similarly, the sudden malfunction of Google Forms—used for gathering critical data—further obstructed the startup’s administrative operations. Each of these actions was meticulously timed and executed, leaving no room for a plausible alternative explanation other than deliberate sabotage.

Investigation into these coordinated measures revealed documented connections between the San Francisco–based organizations involved and individuals with established ties to the Ministry of High Tech in Armenia. The Ministry, which is directly responsible for executing the accelerator program, is legally and operationally accountable for ensuring that public funds are used transparently and that program protocols are rigorously followed. Under public procurement laws and principles of fiduciary duty, a government agency must manage resources “with the utmost good faith, loyalty, and diligence.” The observed disruptions, therefore, cannot be attributed solely to the actions of private entities like Plug and Play; they also implicate the Ministry, whose lack of intervention or corrective action signals complicity. In Armenia, where governmental oversight is expected to prevent such breaches, these events indicate a breakdown of accountability at the highest levels.

Furthermore, the deliberate interference by these organizations, in conjunction with the Ministry’s passive endorsement, represents a clear violation of both contractual obligations and established public procurement regulations. The misdirected credit card dispute, the obstruction of the email list on Substack, and the failure of essential digital tools like Google Forms collectively served to waste LunarTech’s time, money, and energy. This pattern of behavior aligns with recognized definitions of psychological and operational sabotage—actions intended to create a hostile environment that impedes business development. In legal terms, such interference may constitute unjust enrichment and constructive fraud, whereby a party benefits at another's expense through wrongful conduct. Given that LunarTech is led by international citizens, these actions are subject to investigation by law enforcement authorities in both the United States and the Netherlands, under applicable laws governing fraud and public mismanagement.

In summary, the collusion between San Francisco–based organizations and the implicated Ministry of High Tech in Armenia presents a scenario where government-backed initiatives are exploited to engage in systematic sabotage. The earlier Substack publication on Plug and Play Tech Accelerator set the stage for these revelations, highlighting the broader context of dubious practices originating from San Francisco. The subsequent interference—through baseless financial disputes, targeted disruption of communication channels, and deliberate administrative failures—demonstrates a clear and calculated attempt to undermine LunarTech. This coordinated campaign of disruption, when viewed alongside legal definitions such as “material breach” (as defined in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, where a material breach occurs “when a party fails to perform a fundamental obligation under the contract”), and the concept of due process—which requires that parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any adverse action is taken—leaves no room for doubt. It is a textbook example of orchestrated misconduct that violates legal, ethical, and international standards, thereby providing additional cover for Plug and Play Tech Accelerator.

CHAPTER: AMBASSADORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT – OBLIGATIONS TO PREVENT AND INTERVENE

Ambassadors bear a primary obligation to safeguard the rights and interests of their citizens in the receiving State, within the limits of international law. The United States Ambassador and the Dutch Ambassador are mandated to provide immediate assistance and support when their nationals face severe rights violations abroad. This duty is rooted in international legal principles and diplomatic protocols that require a sending state to act decisively to protect its citizens, ensuring that basic human rights remain intact. As such, any evidence of severe misconduct—including actions that could be characterized as psychological torture—demands prompt and effective intervention. No one, including government ministers, is exempt from scrutiny if the evidence substantiates allegations of criminal activities or abuse.

In addition to diplomatic responsibilities, law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Dutch Police Force have the legal authority and obligation to prevent and investigate organized fraudulent or abusive conduct. Under Title 18 of the U.S. Code and corresponding Dutch statutes, these agencies are empowered to act as the first line of defense to deter such activities. Their mandate extends to preventive measures—ensuring that potential violations are addressed before harm is inflicted—and, when necessary, enforcing the law decisively to restore any damage caused. "Prevention is preferable to cure," a legal maxim underscoring their duty to protect public and private interests alike.

The legal framework further obligates these agencies to act once breaches occur. Under established legal doctrines, including the principle of duty of care and fiduciary responsibility, the FBI, Dutch Police, and other relevant law enforcement bodies are required to intervene if preventive measures are insufficient. They have the authority to initiate investigations and take enforcement actions to protect affected parties. In the context of the accelerator program’s actions, which involved orchestrated interference designed to disrupt LunarTech’s operations, these agencies have the power to restore order and secure justice. "An agent who fails in his duty to act in the best interests of his principal is liable for the damages thereby incurred," as articulated by Judge Learned Hand, thereby reinforcing the expectation of swift intervention when rights are violated.

Furthermore, the obligations of ambassadors extend beyond mere representation; they are responsible for ensuring that the legal rights of their citizens are vigorously defended. This includes facilitating access to legal representation, engaging with international bodies such as the FBI, Interpol, or the Dutch Police Force when necessary, and ensuring that proper countermeasures are implemented. The obligation is twofold: first, to prevent harmful conduct through proactive measures, and second, to intervene decisively when breaches occur. This dual responsibility is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens from systematic abuses, regardless of whether the disputed funds are modest or substantial.

In summary, the legal obligations of ambassadors and law enforcement agencies are crystal clear. They must act as the first barrier against, and the immediate response to, any organized fraudulent or abusive conduct. The FBI and Dutch Police have full authority to investigate and intervene to restore the damage inflicted on affected parties, including LunarTech. Their responsibilities, governed by both domestic and international law, require that they enforce preventive measures and take decisive action when those measures fail. By doing so, they ensure that no actor—be it a private entity or a government-backed initiative—escapes scrutiny when engaging in actions that undermine the rights and interests of citizens.

CHAPTER: CONCLUSION – RESTORING JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

For second time we meet a behavior that is resembled psychological torture, only this time, it is in Armenia. A government that has lost all its progress gathered over 30 years, is in this case involved in a case that is used as a psychological torture of founders. You saw our previous article on "Startup Accelerator or Startup Killer? Plug and Play Armenia Exposed!" where we covered on how plug and play accelerator resembled more like a startup killer, rather an accelerator. So how exactly would you kill the startup? Well in a startup operated in its early stage outputs its value via exchanging the time, energy, and intellect of the founders. Founders possess a certain skill, they use that skill over a certain period of time, invest time, energy, mind, and money and they get an output that either the market likes or dislikes. So, how was Plug and Play Tech Accelerator trying to kill our startup, well it was by psychologically torturing its founders.  It was a collaboration between Plug and Play Tech Accelerator and Ministry of High Tech, so we can call it a collaborative Psychological Torture Operation. Instead of innovating in places where there is need, the Armenian government seems to be innovating ways in how to psychologically torture its citizens and other countries' citizens. We want to note that the founders are Dutch citizens, and LunarTech, the company, is based in the United States, and therefore they may be subject to investigation and intervention by Dutch, United States, and international law enforcement agencies. We want to highlight that a minister, therefore, is not an exception of this; we will do our part, which is to tell our story, and the appropriate bodies will do the rest at an appropriate point in time. So how exactly did Plug and Play Tech Accelerator plug and play torture the founders of LunarTech.

This case exemplifies a systematic and orchestrated campaign of psychological abuse and operational sabotage that not only undermined LunarTech’s potential but also exposed serious breaches of contractual and fiduciary obligations. The accelerator’s deliberate tactics—ranging from degrading verbal abuse and systematic exclusion to deceptive communication and abrupt termination—created an environment that stripped the founders of both confidence and opportunity. The involvement of the Ministry of High Tech adds an additional layer of legal accountability, as this government entity is legally required to uphold fiduciary duties and enforce due process in the management of public funds and innovation programs.

The legal principles governing this matter are clear. Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, a material breach occurs when a party fails to perform a fundamental obligation under the contract, and the consistent failure of the accelerator to deliver on its commitments directly qualifies as such a breach. Furthermore, the doctrine of fiduciary duty mandates that the Ministry act “with the utmost good faith, loyalty, and diligence” when managing public resources. The Ministry’s failure to detect and rectify these abuses constitutes a deliberate neglect of its oversight responsibilities, rendering it equally complicit in the misconduct as the private entity executing the program.

Additionally, international law and domestic statutes such as Title 18 of the U.S. Code and corresponding Dutch regulations impose a strict obligation on law enforcement agencies to prevent and investigate fraudulent activities and breaches of contractual obligations. Agencies like the FBI and the Dutch Police Force are empowered to act proactively to protect citizens from systemic abuse. Their role, combined with the obligations of the United States Ambassador and the Dutch Ambassador to safeguard the rights of their nationals, reinforces the legal expectation that any evidence of such abuse must be met with decisive intervention. As emphasized by legal authorities, the failure to enforce these preventive measures is itself a violation of established legal doctrines.

Ultimately, the coordinated misconduct exhibited by Plug and Play Tech Accelerator, in collusion with the non-intervention of the Ministry of High Tech, presents a textbook case of orchestrated psychological torture. The deliberate undermining of LunarTech’s operations, executed through repeated breaches of both ethical and legal standards, has far-reaching implications for the integrity of government-backed innovation programs. This case stands as a stark reminder that no entity—whether a private contractor or a government agency—is above scrutiny. In light of the legal frameworks and international standards governing fiduciary duty, contractual obligations, and the protection of human rights, it is imperative that the appropriate bodies investigate and restore the damage inflicted on LunarTech. This is exactly the definition of psychological torture.