Q: I am being harassed by voice to skull technology and they are threatening my life.. nobody believes me please help

A: At first glance, this does not appear to be a legal question.

However, the gap between technology and science fiction depends largely on the time of day.

Hypothetically, assuming what you say is true, although I would more likely rephrase as mental distress in response to suspected directed energy transmission of unknown origin, this issue seems less Star Wars and more modern technology.

If the brain is essentially a biomicroprocessor, using organic chemistry to generate thought processes, and if a directed energy emitter could alter the organic chemical foundation of certain parts of the brain, then it should be theoretically possible to establish both causation and correlation.

This analysis hinges on determination by experts that the potential plaintiff was subjected to directed energy; that as a result, the potential plaintiff's brain chemistry was adversely affected by said directed energy; and that but for the exposure to such directed energy the potential plaintiff would have been in good mental health.

Extending the analysis to this hypothetical, it is worth mentioning that there may be some federal questions which may be brought by the Department of Energy and Federal Communication Commission, just to name a few.

If such could be proven, depending on the circumstances, there maybe criminal charges, if for example, if the potential plaintiff were maliciously targeted or if this was a criminal violation of federal and/or state code.

Another likely scenario to this hypothetical would be this is some random party with no malicious intent, such as an inventor, conducting experiments for lawful purposes, in which case, a potential plaintiff could apply for injunctive relief from the court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Again, these are all hypothetical, based upon the assumption that science can explain why XYZ is happening.

If the science can't establish that notional XYX explanation, then there is very little a court could do to assist.

In any event, it absolutely would be necessary to speak with a medical doctor, preferably a neurologist and psychologist, an expert on brain chemistry, an expert on radiation and emissions, etc.

Note: this answer was formulated on the theory that what the potential plaintiff reports is true. I wish to underscore that this is not intended as medical advice, and to the extent that this hypothetical analysis is considered legal advice, it is strongly suggested that a personal injury attorney review this theory against the jurisprudence of the appropriate jurisdiction and the ground truth facts.