Post #19: A Dangerous Precedent

Disclaimer: I made time for a post on crazy because that is the usual fare with this blog, unfortunately, I did not schedule for bat-shit-crazy so this post will not deeply address the latest circus of misinformation and intimidations. I will get to as much as I can today and in upcoming posts...

I have not blocked ANYONE on my blog, just one person on my email about a while ago. Anyone can leave comments and criticisms as long as they are respectful. I welcome the discourse. If anyone states I have blocked them, ask them for proof. If anyone makes threats in comments here, I won't bother engaging with a reply, I will report them immediately and I will follow up to ensure it is handled.

Along those same lines of misinformation, I did not make a fraudulent account (or any account) to get back into LSA. I am not back on LSA. However, this is a serious accusation that should be followed up upon with the LSA moderators. They should be able to check my old account with any new account that is being stated is also mine. I welcome anyone to follow up on this.

Housekeeping 101: only Cathryn Parker was served with the RO so only Cathryn Parker is bound by the conditions of the RO; she is the Restrained Person listed on the RO. 

The other named social media accounts in the RO filing are not prohibited from posting unless they are Cathryn Parker and were served with a Restraining Order. Any nonsense about Cathryn Parker not being served legally or properly and the judge not caring is irrelevant to the RO now in place, nonsense and a diversion to intimidate and bully other people, namely the other 10+ social media accounts. 

The final RO clearly shows Cathryn Parker was legally served by attending the hearing via phone and that the RO was transmitted to law enforcement to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS).

The signed RO is filed with law enforcement and they are responsible for investigating any infractions involving THE RESTRAINED PERSON = Cathryn Parker. They are tasked with enforcing the RO. The judge has nothing to do with this. The hearing is over and she made her decision and described her ruling prior to signing the Restraining Order against Cathryn Parker.

Social media accounts are not served with Restraining Orders, they are shut down. Human beings are served with Restraining Orders - and arrested when they are investigated and found to have violated them. 

As shown below in the screenshot of the RO, if the officer has probable cause to believe the restrained person has disobeyed the order, the officer must arrest the restrained person.

Attorney Rosengart was clear during the RO hearing that the TRO and the RO are about Cathryn Parker, the person. He even states, "this has nothing to do with any individual account" because a RO is served on a person. It is up to law enforcement to investigate PRIOR to arresting anyone for violating a RO.

Next, I interrupted my post on Sergeant Gore to have dialogue with another social media user who has criticisms of my blog. She feels I am too harsh on Keanu Reeves and too nice to Cathryn Parker (I will go into specifics on this in my next post). 

There was a bit of a language barrier but one key take away was that because I am posting facts with screenshots of court documents, it lends credibility to what I am saying and that credibility leaks over to my opinions. She wants me to be more forthright about direct evidence statements versus informed opinions versus opinions. Since the Internet is global and many people do not speak and grasp English well, I will try to be more aware of this while I am writing.

My next post will be dedicated to what myself and this other person agreed upon and disagreed on incorporated into more aspects of the RO hearing. Hopefully, it will ease some of the tension between social media fans of Keanu Reeves who I didn’t know I was triggering. 

During our exchange, she sent me a copy of a comment made by someone called investigativenewsa. 

I do not know this company that is circuitously mentioned, Investigative News A, but I do have some pretty strong suspicions about this company.

(1) Our company was able to get all the Court Documents in the Grant vs Parker case, including a transcript of the Trial. It cost about $1000 for all the documents. 

It does not cost about $1000 for all the documents, this is an exaggeration - I paid less. You can verify this with the online court system for each of the filings and the court reporter, which is who you go to for the transcript of the RO hearing.

(2) We also got copies of the tape-recorded testimony, which was not provided by the court.

This is correct -- tape-recorded testimony is not provided by the court. 

WHY? 

Because testimony is not tape recorded in family law in Los Angeles Superior Court. The court provides live court reporters.  There is not any tape recording available. 

The court reporter for this proceeding was kind enough to confirm this when I asked if a recording was available.

Which led me to wonder:  how did this company got recordings of testimony?

Unlike all of the attorneys involved in the RO hearing who would know the answer to this question immediately, I do not know what the laws are for recordings in the California court system.  So I looked it up on 2021 California Court Rules. 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?linkid=rule1_150&title=one

For court proceedings, anyone directly involved would have needed to get advance permission from the judge if they wanted to audiotape the procedure for note taking purposes only.

For an outside company, such as Investigative News A, access to record or audiotape requires written permission from the judge.  This involves filing a Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (from MC-500) 5 court days prior to the proceeding. No such filing exists in the court record. 

Plus, media coverage is prohibited for proceedings closed to the public.

Either investigativenewsa is Cathryn Parker and she approached the judge PRIOR to the hearing to gain permission to tape record the proceeding for personal note taking purposes only OR investigativenewsa is not Cathryn Parker and illegally obtained a recording from goodness knows where since it was a closed court proceeding where other than the lawyers, only Cathryn Parker was present for the entire hearing. 

And I just don't see any of the lawyers opening up an IG account and blog under investigativenewsa on behalf of Ms. Parker.

Hence, it may be wise for investigativenewsa to clarify their public (mis)statement that they investigate various public figures and keep an archive, plus they have copies of tape-recorded testimony from the RO hearing. 

According to the California court rules, any violation of the rules is considered an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court and can result in a citation for contempt for court or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions.

(3) …As far as the conclusions expressed by the author, they are conjecture and may not be accurate or correct. Only a party to the action could clarify said statements.

This is partly correct and part of my conversation with the social media account who had criticisms of my blog - that I am reaching a conclusion about the length of time of Keanu Reeves' involvement in the RO process when I don't have specific information such as his financials or a copy of the legal representation letter where Mr. Reeves hired attorney Rosengart to ascertain when he was hired and for what purpose. 

This is a reasonable criticism- I do not have direct proof of the date Keanu Reeves hired attorney Rosengart. But he did hire him as evidenced by the hearing transcript. 

Those who choose to believe Mr. Reeves is not represented by attorney Rosengart, you may prefer to move on to another blog. 

Those who choose to believe Keanu Reeves only hired attorney Rosengart when he was made aware there was a subpoena for his financials, I respect that you are within the realm of reason. I disagree with you but understand that this is a possibility. My disagreement is mainly because that scenario does not explain the liberal use of Mr. Reeves name throughout the proceeding if the only connection was the subpoena. Secondly, I believe Keanu Reeves is intelligent, grounded and experienced, not an ignorant rube who would be oblivious to the implications of the RO proceeding on him and his career.  

Any conclusions I reach are based on the information provided in the documents filed and the testimony at the hearing – which by law should be the facts of the case with accompanying evidence by Alexandra Grant to prove her allegations. And then secondly, Cathryn Parker's evidence disputing what she was charged with.

This is noteworthy:

As much as Ms. Grant and her legal team would like to rely on hearsay because it is permissible in this proceeding, providing only testimony by Alexandra Grant with no corroborating evidence to show that her words are true and correct should not pass the litmus test for any court in America – Family or otherwise. 

In America, the onus is on Alexandra Grant to provide evidence to prove guilt of stalking and harassment under California law, not Cathryn Parker to provide evidence to prove her innocence. 

In addition to the court filings and testimony, I make the effort to investigate further when the evidence provided seems patently false, such as the Eve Wood-Robinwood correspondence that proved the SISS exhibit offered by attorney Rosengart was fraudulent and misleading. (See Post #18)

Both parties to the RO had months to obtain evidence. The time to clarify anything was during the proceeding process - RO filing through hearing, plus the time allotted for an appeal. During this process, Cathryn Parker was at a huge disadvantage that is built into the justice system that favors money and influence. 

The decision by the judge was based on the evidence presented -- and that is the heart of this blog because it goes beyond Cathryn Parker and extends into the lives of everyone touched by the justice system in America.

(4) As an example, the blogger uses the words, “Wrongful Conviction.” The Respondent was not “Convicted,” she was ordered to have no contact with the Petitioner…It is not a “Criminal Proceeding,” therefore the word “conviction” is misleading and an exaggeration of the facts.

As far as the terminology used – Cathryn Parker was wrongly accused of stalking and harassing Alexandra Grant using 11+ social media accounts. 

When the TRO was changed to a permanent RO (5 years), Cathryn Parker was found guilty by the judge – convicted -- of the allegations made by Alexandra Grant. Investigativenewsa commenting that "conviction" is misleading and an exaggeration of the facts, is an exercise in using semantics to diminish what happened in this court of law and more importantly how the court system as a whole was affected by this order. And for those who have a personal bias against Ms. Parker due to her cantankerous nature and aggressive actions defending herself (I am not immune to her rants and accusations), try substituting the name "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" whenever I mention Cathryn Parker. 

This is the true damage of this case - it affects us all.

My conclusions about the nature of this RO are not an exaggeration – a regular RO would simply be “she was ordered to have no contact with the Petitioner” but that is not the case here. 

Cathryn Parker is not only prohibited from having any contact with Alexandra Grant but she is prohibited from referencing Alexandra Grant by name, tag or hashtag on ANY social media. 

Add to this the allegation that Cathryn Parker is the other 10+ social media accounts.

How does this translate into Cathryn Parker’s life specifically or the other social media accounts tangled in this web? My last count, nearly 80 news outlets worldwide and Twitter picked up The Blast RO article because Keanu Reeves’ name and hashtag was used. Writers routinely post their articles on their social media pages in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. 

Here's a great example: 

https://news.amomama.com/219299-the-blast-keanu-reeves-girlfriend-alexan.html

The other social media accounts have been painted with a tainted brush that encourages readers to dismiss out of hand the information in their posts because Ms. Grant can point to a TRO/RO that leads everyone to believe that critical posts are from "hate accounts" by one convicted felon stalker who is delusional and posting false information about Alexandra Grant due to jealousy of her relationship with Keanu Reeves. 

Anyone who posts an online criticism of Alexandra Grant can now be lumped into this category of a "hate account" and dismissed as having no credibility by an unsuspecting public.

Ms. Parker herself is prohibited from even commenting, much less posting, to adequately defend herself against the false accusations and lies that Ms. Grant herself disseminated to the media within 24 hours of the RO filing - beginning with the tabloid The Blast. Her defense is limited by not being able to mention Alexandra Grant or use tags or hashtags. This is like showing up at a gunfight with a knife.

Most people have no concept of the mental, emotional and psychological struggle involved with being prevented from speaking out about being railroaded in a court of law, being prevented from defending yourself against false accusations. Living in fear of being arrested and jailed for speaking the truth. That is barbaric. Most people could not handle that pressure.

This pain that Cathryn Parker is experiencing extends to what others are writing online that she doesn't agree with - myself included. 

So why would I continue to write if I may be causing someone else pain?

Because this type of muzzling is system wide – this is not just Cathryn Parker who suffers from this wrong. 

And I know first hand how devastating the effects of this type of injustice can be.

Cathryn Parker is one case that bleeds into and feeds the corruption. It continues, unceasing, if it is allowed to be. Unless people speak out.

The BIGGEST error in the comment by investigativenewsa was to ignore the damage to our protected rights under our Constitution by this judge’s findings and issuance of the RO. 

With this PR motivated legal debacle, there is now a dangerous precedent in the California court system that undermines free speech by threatening someone with a possible RO, arrest, or imprisonment -- for speaking out on social media.

At the end of the hearing in his argument to the court, Attorney Ellicott specifically brings up the First Amendment.

Attorney Rosengart responds and initially states how low the burden is under the California Code for Civil Procedure (CCP) for harassment.

Attorney Rosengart then implies he meets the burden by Cathryn Parker ONLY being Uiamalgamated, Ann Maria Reeves, and Catharine1967 – because the three accounts together are alarming and annoying. No direct evidence was ever presented showing Cathryn Parker was Ann Maria Reeves or Catharine1967 so this is a red flag that the low burden of proof to convict Cathryn Parker needs these two additional accounts to be met.

Note: I mentioned in a previous blog post that I would get to the emails that Cathryn Parker sent to Alexandra Grant; the above screenshot from the RO hearing shows attorney Rosengart characterizing the emails as alarming and annoying - the emails are located under Pages and include analysis of the evidence used to connect Rosescented1 to Cathryn Parker-- https://grantvsparker-restrainingorder.blogspot.com/p/analysis-of-emails-sent-from-cathryn.html

Next attorney Rosengart makes the statement that there is no First Amendment protection for alarming, annoying, or harassing conduct -- and then re-frames and corrects this statement by saying “within the meaning of section 527.6 is not constitutionally protected.” 

So the First Amendment does not protect speech if that speech meets the requirements of harassment under 527.6.

Section 527.6 legally defines “course of conduct” and "harassment." The important areas for this case are sending harassing correspondence to an individual & the course of conduct serves no legitimate purpose.

When the judge made her decision, it was inferred that she believed Cathryn Parker was more than social media account Uiamalgamated because of her wording, “includes consideration of posts that were sent to Petitioner’s business associates” and “the Respondent tagged or used hashtags.” She formed this belief with no direct evidence that Cathryn Parker was operating ANY of the named social media accounts other than Uiamalgamated.

Cathryn Parker made 3 online comments that were deemed posts and she never used tags or hashtags. 

The only business associate you could say was sent a post was Oscar de la Renta because Cathryn Parker commented on their page. Oscar de la Renta is the only business associate, so this is not plural. 

To sum up what Alexandra Grant and her attorneys think the new bar should be for defining harassment and what is considered "very, very alarming disturbing and harassing posts" = a comment on a colleague's account where Alexandra Grant is accused of fraud and of stealing from grantLOVE, plus her relationship with Keanu Reeves is mentioned. Alexandra Grant is NOT tagged - but she learns of the comment from her colleague and is embarrassed and humiliated.

 

This is the actual comment:

Troubling to me was the judge’s reasoning regarding comments where she loosely defines a form of harassment termed, “indirectly harassing Petitioner.” Judge Gould-Saltman stated this was when posts were sent to Petitioner’s business associates with the probability that those business associates would inform Petitioner. 

 

Per this ruling, as long as the Petitioner shows a pattern over a period of time, no matter how short, and a continuity of purpose-- they can accuse one person of being multiple online accounts and never be required to directly prove that the accounts are one real person. 

Protected speech is no longer protected if the person you are referring to is made aware of your speech because you tagged them or used a hashtag - and the person is seriously annoyed or alarmed by what you say – because this is the equivalent of direct harassment. 

Namely, any public figure that does not like criticism aimed at them on social media using tags and hashtags – can now haul someone into court and have a RO issued that prevents the other person from speaking out publicly online about them. 

And now, there is the additional legal snafu for any public interest activist or simply a regular person informing business associates via a post that someone they are doing business with may be dishonorable or a fraud who may damage their credibility. This has now been legally defined as a form of indirect harassment if the business associates inform the person you are warning them about. 

HOW DOES THIS ALL RELATE DIRECTLY TO ALEXANDRA GRANT?

I am wondering where the Section 527.6 “serves no legitimate purpose” fits in here because there are laws protecting whistleblowers and “see something, say something” protocols where we encourage people to speak up when they see something amiss. 

We are a society who protects individuals for doing the right thing and sounding the alarm for others when we see something unfair, unjust, corrupt, illegal, dishonest, or immoral.

This brings me to Cathryn Parker’s post, or comment to be more accurate, about Alexandra Grant’s management of XAB where she accuses Ms. Grant of committing fraud and even embezzlement. 

Alexandra Grant also deemed the comment that she is capable of unethical or fraudulent behavior to be inciting other people. I CANNOT STRESS THIS STRONGLY ENOUGH: incitement is to encourage violent or unlawful behavior - this is a ridiculous exaggeration by Alexandra Grant to equate public criticism with a call to violence. 

Since this was asked of Alexandra Grant from attorney Rosengart, it was a pre-planned question and a pre-planned answer. I would surmise it was to show that Melanie Cook, Keanu Reeves' attorney, decided no legal involvement was necessary - the implication being that the allegations against Ms. Grant were false. 

However, what this does show is that Keanu Reeves was aware of the allegations against Alexandra Grant as the Manager and Publisher for XAB and decided his lawyer did not need to do anything - including sending a courtesy reply back to the person lodging the complaint.

I do not know the totality of Ms. Parker’s evidence on this matter, only the contract and correspondence between herself and Eve Wood. This alone is enough to raise eyebrows and ask questions; in my opinion it warrants a closer look at XAB and Alexandra Grant. 

XAB offices are no longer at NeueHouse, where they launched in July of 2017 with Keanu Reeves, Jessica Fleischmann and Alexandra Grant as founders.

Ironically, Alexandra Grant says, “There is a strong sense of politics and social interest that goes through each single one of the books.”  

Perhaps their next book should be about framing innocent people and then stripping them of their civil liberties as a public threat to silence critics– The Scapegoat’s Prison.

And although XAB was still reportedly at NeueHouse in August of 2018 and Keanu Reeves was centrally focused for name recognition, it was now a coworking space for only Keanu Reeves and his business partner, Alexandra Grant, to use as their office according to the piece done by The New York Times Style Magazine. 

No mention of any other founders, just Keanu Reeves and Alexandra Grant making most business decisions together including what to publish. 

First, XAB is now sharing office space with three other businesses – all managed by either Alexandra Grant or her mother. Since XAB artists are not paid royalties until publisher operating expenses are paid, this may be a good thing to share costs. However, these are not independently owned companies that are sharing the costs– they are all associated with Alexandra Grant. And one of them is grantLOVE Project which Alexandra Grant has stated repeatedly is her charitable organization where she engages in philanthropy by raising funds for artists and artist projects. It is her love branding that she started years earlier but that only received notice after she merged it with Keanu Reeves (#keanureeves), her business partner and romantic partner, if the PR is to be believed. 

Second, employees are resources; financial resources who are paid a salary for performing a specific job. For XAB, these salaries are part of the overhead for running the publishing house -- so these salaries are paid before artists are paid royalties. 

Addy Rabinovitch was hired by XAB in May of 2019 according to her LinkedIn profile.

She worked at a popup shop for grantLOVE in Feb 2020.

Andrea Vocos was hired around the RO hearing timeframe in November 2020 as a Project Manager for grantLOVE and a Project Manager and Editorial Associate for XAB. Some of her strongest skills are writing and social media. She is a media and communications professional according to her LinkedIn profile.

So it is a tad confusing when despite a writing and social media specialist being hired by grantLOVE in November of 2020, that XAB employee Addy Rabinovitch was writing social media posts for grantLOVE in January and February 2021.

Then Addy Rabinovitch wrote another piece for grantLOVE in March 2021 entitled Alexandra Grant + grantLOVE featured in Pasadena Magazine. 

NOTE: Ms. Rabinovitch did not write the actual story featured in Pasadena Magazine, she wrote the social media portion and created the link for grantLOVE on their IG page.

Employees are financial resources - they are paid a salary. Alexandra Grant hiring an employee who works for both XAB and her private business, grantLOVE, is confusing enough. Using a supposedly dedicated XAB employee for her private business - this is where criticisms about fraud and embezzlement come in.

Maybe Keanu Reeves doesn't care that the employee he is paying to do XAB work is actually doing grantLOVE work so this salary money pilfering is ok with him. But is he keeping track of how this is affecting his XAB artists being paid their royalties or has he relegated this to his Manager, Alexandra Grant? The same Manager at the center of contractual and monetary issues in the past.

My point regarding Cathryn Parker’s post is this: after Eve Wood told her she had not been paid nor given any annual statements and showed Ms. Parker her XAB contract, it was obvious that something was not kosher between Alexandra Grant, finances and XAB. 

Keanu Reeves is not on any of the XAB paperwork – artist contracts or XAB filings – only Alexandra Grant and her long time attorney, Alexandra Darraby show up. 

I believe Cathryn Parker had a legitimate purpose for these posts: getting Eve Wood paid and apprising Mr. Reeves, through his attorney, that there was an issue with XAB artist Eve Wood, and potentially others, who felt they were a victim of unethical behavior by Alexandra Grant, his co-founder, Manager and Publisher at XAB.

A legitimate purpose is NOT harassment.

This brings us to the other aspect of this RO proceeding - allegations on social media about Ms. Grant's character and business practices related to her philanthropy. 

Note: there is a relevant blog post regarding Alexandra Grant's character: 

https://grantloveproject-caution.blogspot.com/2020/12/oh-what-tangled-web-we-weave-post-7.html

Questioning of why Cathryn Parker would have maligned Ms. Grant's character were a main overtone of the RO hearing because fraud and dishonesty were central themes of the other 10+ social media accounts. 

And Ms. Parker was accused of being ALL of those social media accounts so she was accused of all the critical posts.

During this questioning, Attorney Rosengart asked Cathryn Parker if grantLOVE was “Alexandra’s Charitable organization.”

Ms. Parker took exception to the word “charity” and proceeded to tell attorney Rosengart that grantLOVE is not registered with the IRS, has no business license in the city of Los Angeles AND it doesn’t have a fictitious business name filing so the money is not separated from Alexandra Grant and her personal bank account.

So my last query is this:

If Ms. Grant found Cathryn Parker so crazy and deemed her delusional, wouldn’t it be odd for Ms. Grant to take business advice from Ms. Parker?

And yet she apparently did.

Alexandra Grant, within one month of Cathryn Parker uttering those words in court about a fictitious business name filing, filed for a fictitious business name filing.

The Pasadena Weekly confirms this is an Original filing - meaning it is the first time it was filed. It also states that according to Alexandra Grant she started doing business as grantLOVE in January 2013.

I am truly only interested in the effects of this RO process on our justice system and our civil liberties. However, a large part of this case is about non-profits and charities where I have little expertise. So I had to go looking...

There is a wonderfully informative and lucid blog that I used for some of the information in this post. I mentioned the Post 7 regarding Alexandra Grant's history and character. The entire blog is very well constructed, deeply researched and informative, plus it includes a list of references for where the information was found. 

 

The name is:

grantLOVE Project - An Investigative Eye on Charity Fraud

 

 https://grantloveproject-caution.blogspot.com/2020/12/about-grantlove-project-post-1_17.html

 

I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to take a look at this blog.

Post #18: The TRUTH Matters – allegations against Cathryn Parker using artist Eve Wood

The November 2020 RO hearing was held using Covid-19 protocols. 

Attorneys Rosengart and McCarthy showed up in person and were in the courtroom with Judge Gould-Saltman. Alexandra Grant phoned in from Germany and Sergeant Gore showed up in person.

Attorney Ellicott and Cathryn Parker were both remote at separate locations and phoned into the courtroom. 

The court video system did not work; it was audio only. Exhibits had to be emailed and then opened on computers, causing delays. Phones were muted at certain times to diminish background noises. These were the challenges of a legal proceeding during a pandemic.

I ask you to keep all this in mind as you read this and all future posts regarding the transcripts of the hearing.

After wafting back and forth, I decided to use Eve Wood’s full name in this post because she is a public figure and she is part of the wrongful conviction of Cathryn Parker. According to attorney Rosengart, Eve Wood is a famous artist. Cathryn Parker spoke fondly of her and praised her art in several instances during the 3-day hearing, including stating she purchased a piece. Admittedly, I enjoy some of her art. It has a dark whimsy to it. 

During my research, I discovered a poem that Eve Wood wrote entitled “Democracy Is.” The words are simple, heartfelt and she repeated  “the truth” twice. Nothing else is repeated in the poem. 

My favorite line is, “Working for nothing when the truth is at stake.” 

This poem about democracy reminds me of a quote that a friend sent me when I first started writing about this case. She said Alexandra Grant was a hypocrite to use branding and public relations specialists to voice a pleasing narrative of herself that she could publicly disseminate using Keanu Reeves' influence and power-- and then to again use that same influence and power to shut down anyone else's voice who decried her pleasant version. My friend sent me this by the ACLU:

Also at the heart of our democracy is our court system, which leads us to the RO Hearing. 

To support her claim that she should be granted a RO against Ms. Parker, Ms. Grant alleges that Cathryn Parker went to artist Eve Wood’s studio and told the artist lies and disparaging false information  -- all for the express purpose of harassing Eve Wood and stoking hatred of Ms. Grant. 

*** And that this harassment continued to such a degree that Ms. Wood was forced to take action and send a Cease and Desist letter to Cathryn Parker.

The verbiage Ms. Grant uses here is deliberate and to support the common themes found in the RO filing of “incessant” and “unrelenting”  -- themes necessary to paint the picture of harassment so egregious and damaging to Ms. Grant that a RO must be issued to make it all stop.

Then, at the RO Hearing on November 9th, Ms. Grant changed her story to another version that does NOT include the Cease and Desist letter. 

No sworn Declaration from Eve Wood and no copy of a Cease and Desist letter was ever included in any filings nor was any provided as evidence at the RO Hearing. Further, although Ms. Grant called Sergeant Gore as a witness, she did not call Eve Wood to the hearing to give sworn testimony. 

Why?

Ms. Grant knows from her high priced legal team that she does not have to provide a sworn Declaration from Eve Wood or call Ms. Wood as a witness – she just has to say that this is what Eve Wood told me happened. 

Hearsay is allowed. 

No corroborating proof is necessary.

So according to Ms. Grant’s sworn testimony, Eve Wood told her that Cathryn Parker pretended to be an art collector wanting to buy her work. Cathryn Parker did buy her work and then after paying her, Ms. Parker needled her with inappropriate personal questions about Ms. Grant, including whether or not she had been paid for her work on “The Artists’ Prison.” Ms. Parker's behavior caused Eve Wood to become flustered.

And then Ms. Parker posted about this visit and said Ms. Grant had not paid Ms. Wood.

Just to be clear, there are two separate allegations against Cathryn Parker that involve artist Eve Wood. 

The first allegation is that Cathryn Parker physically harassed Eve Wood to such a degree that Ms. Wood sent a Cease and Desist letter. This allegation changed at the RO hearing to Ms. Parker went to Ms. Wood’s studio and asked such inappropriate questions about Ms. Grant that Eve Wood became flustered. Alexandra Grant never provided any proof of this allegation against Cathryn Parker.

The second allegation is Cathryn Parker, as IG account uiamalgamated, posted lies online about Alexandra Grant and this false information served no legitimate purpose other than to harass Ms. Grant. For proof of this allegation, Alexandra Grant provided screenshots of the posts.

Specifically, this online comment posted by Cathryn Parker on April 16, 2020, using her account uiamalgamated, was included as proof:

At the RO Hearing Ms. Grant read this particular post and then stated under oath, “And all of this is a lie. Every single thing here is a lie. So she is going after me.”

Ms. Grant obviously feels that the heart of the matter to prove that Cathryn Parker “is going after” her is that what Ms. Parker is posting is false. 

Secondly, Ms. Grant states, “There’s hundreds of these – every day.”

Ms. Grant never provided any proof of this allegation against Cathryn Parker that her post is all a lie – that every single thing here is a lie – and that Cathryn Parker is posting hundreds of these false posts per day.

Ms. Grant’s lawyer was clear on the law and telling lies regarding a material matter while under oath when he questioned Cathryn Parker. A material matter here is one that is so important to what you are alleging that it may affect the decision by the Judge. This includes collateral matters that might influence the outcome – like credibility.

I will not bother with providing external proof to refute the allegation that Cathryn Parker is posting hundreds of lies about Alexandra Grant daily. In any given day-- and using all the named accounts and not just uiamalgamated -- there were not hundreds of negative posts about Alexandra Grant. This is hyperbole rising to the level of an outright lie by Alexandra Grant on a very material issue – the frequency of posts. 

Cathryn Parker has a different rendition of events for meeting Eve Wood that she gives at the RO Hearing. 

According to Cathryn Parker the visit to the studio of artist Eve Wood went like this: 

Eve Wood posted a piece of her art online, a red cardinal, and Ms. Parker messaged her to ask how much the piece was selling for so she could buy it and then arrange to pick it up at a later date when she could coordinate with a caregiver for transport. Eve Wood preferred Cathryn Parker come by her studio to purchase the art and look at other pieces she had for sale. Apparently, Eve Wood was experiencing financial difficulties and wanted the best opportunity to sell her art. Ms. Parker arranged for transportation and went to Eve Wood's studio where she purchased the cardinal for $350. Eve Wood asked her if she knew Alexandra Grant. The two started talking about Alexandra Grant and Ms. Wood told Cathryn Parker that she was having difficulties as an artist with being paid by Ms. Grant for the work they collaborated on for XAB. Ms. Wood even gave Ms. Parker a copy of her XAB contract in hopes that Ms. Parker and her non-profit might be able to help her get paid for her XAB illustrations from several years prior.

Cathryn Parker provided proof of her version of events for meeting Eve Wood by providing a copy of her contacting Eve Wood on IG. 

Further proof to support Cathryn Parker's version of events & controverting evidence for Alexandra Grant’s claim that Cathryn Parker was harassing Eve Wood is shown below. Cathryn Parker, through her Harmony Services non-profit, gave Eve Wood money for what appears to be assistance to help her buy a computer. This means Ms. Wood was comfortable enough with Ms. Parker to discuss her private financial distress and leads credence to the claim that Ms. Wood was sincerely making attempts to receive her royalty payments from XAB because she needed the money.

Then a few days later, Eve Wood returned the funds via a Cashier’s check. This means Ms. Wood cashed the check from Harmony Services. It conveys the money was solicited by Eve Wood, if not outright then by her discussion with Ms. Parker of her personal finances. 

These are not the actions of someone who is "flustered" by inappropriate personal questions.

After cashing the check, presumably Ms. Wood received money from someone else to help her financially so she returned the money. 

Cathryn Parker also provided proof of her version by providing a copy of the XAB contract that Eve Wood gave to her. 

NOTE: only a partial copy of the XAB contract is provided here for reference.

Cathryn Parker could only have a copy of the XAB contract if Eve Wood gave it to her when she asked Ms. Parker for help in dealing with Alexandra Grant. If Ms. Wood was bothered by inappropriate questions regarding whether or not she had been paid by XAB, the last action she would have taken was to give her XAB contract to that person.

Ironically, the contract states that the royalties paid are after the Publisher recoups costs and expenses of publishing. This is a common practice in publishing. What is ironic about this situation is that this means that Eve Wood is not being paid for her work until after Alexandra Grant is paid as the Publisher and the Manager. 

The job of a Publisher is to print and sell books. The job of a Manager is to handle the day to day operations of the business and ensure that contracts are being adhered to and that the artists being represented are being taken care of.

So Ms. Grant is being paid even though she is not doing her job and Ms. Wood is still not being paid even though she already did her job years prior.

Also, the contract states, "No royalties will be payable on copies distributed without charge for promotional purposes." Depending on the accounting, this means that any expenses for XAB promotional gigs where Ms. Grant set up book signings and readings with Keanu Reeves instead of the artist for the book, Eve Wood, would be paid BEFORE Eve Wood was paid any royalties. The book signings in Los Angeles would not be a problem, presumably, but the European launch where Eve Wood was not invited would fall under this umbrella.

Or worse, any book signing that Ms. Grant set up for herself in a foreign country could also fall under this umbrella if she decided to dub it as an XAB event. 

One such XAB event was hosted by Alexandra Grant's fan club account in Italy. 

The promotional flyer does not say that the event is being hosted by this club but posts on their (now private) IG account show this is their event held for Alexandra Grant. I will respect their "rights" to the images since I have no need to repost any to illustrate my point.

This is the same Alexandra Grant fan club account that I wrote about in Post #17 - the fan account that was formerly for Keanu Reeves but changed to Alexandra Grant. I sent them a message on IG to verify information and give them the opportunity for their voice to be heard in their own words. They have not responded. I was able to verify the information I needed without them and included it in the previous post. If they ever do respond and wish to be heard on the blog, I will happily accommodate them.

Let me be clear, there is no legal issue with a Keanu Reeves fan club account changing to an Alexandra Grant fan club account. It is their private club so they can do whatever they please with it, including inviting the object of their affection to Venice.

The ISSUE is that Ms. Grant may have charged XAB for her expenses to visit her own fan club under the guise that this was an XAB promotional event. And those expenses are paid before the artists are paid for their work.

 

Next, Cathryn Parker provided proof that she did NOT harass Eve Wood by including copies of a series of emails between herself and Eve Wood.

The emails show Ms. Wood was not flustered about personal questions regarding Ms. Grant but actively engaged with trying to obtain help from Ms. Parker.

This December 3, 2019, email from Cathryn Parker to Eve Wood appears to show that Ms. Parker’s express purpose was to assist Eve Wood with an issue she was having with Alexandra Grant that stemmed from Ms. Grant, as the Manager of XAB. 

This was Eve Wood’s reply: 

Eve Wood’s reply back to Ms. Parker clearly shows two points: (1) the content of the letter is based on facts Eve Wood is comfortable with, “this is a terrific letter,” and (2) that Eve Wood is intimidated by and/or afraid of Alexandra Grant. Eve Wood didn’t even want Alexandra Grant’s attorney involved because she feared that Alexandra Grant would link the letter to her and retaliate and disparage her reputation.

Also in Ms. Wood's email: Ms. Grant instructed attorney Alexandra Darraby to check with her for approval prior to even giving an artist a copy of their own contract? This type of Management and Publisher leadership where "permission" needs to be granted from the person "in charge" prior to acquiescing to standard requests that people are entitled to -- sponsors a climate of dictatorship. 

Another aspect from this email exchange: Ms. Wood refers to Alexandra Darraby as Alexandra Grant's attorney. This is an indicator that Ms. Wood is aware of Ms. Grant's long standing relationship with this attorney on matters outside of XAB. 

Ms. Darraby was Ms. Grant's attorney when Cartier legally blocked her Trademark application for Love jewelry. 

Ms. Darraby is also representing Alexandra Grant for GrantLOVE, specifically for her LOVE house formerly of the Watts House Project.

This is a business contract between XAB and Eve Wood, not a personal contract between Alexandra Grant and Eve Wood. There should be separation between Ms. Grant's personal business matters as an artist/writer for XAB and XAB business matters as a Manager and Publisher.  On a separate level, confusion arises because the attorney Ms. Grant hired for XAB has been her own attorney for years. In other words, it appears that Ms. Grant is behaving as if there is no separation between what is XAB and what is personal. This creates an environment where employees' and/or artists' concerns can't be addressed in a just and equitable manner because the power dynamic is one sided.

Since Eve Wood requested the letter NOT be sent to Alexandra Grant's attorney, Cathryn Parker then drafted a letter for Keanu Reeves’ attorney and sent it to Eve Wood for her approval – which she gave with the comment that the letter was wonderful, very clear, to the point, and very gracious. This email is the proof that what Cathryn Parker posted online in the letter and in comments was accurate per Eve Wood.

So according to Eve Wood, this letter below graciously and clearly sums up how Alexandra Grant is managing XAB and abusing XAB artists, herself included.

Alexandra Grant set up a business environment with her long time lawyer that discouraged artists from asking for information they are entitled to under their XAB contract. 

At a minimum, Eve Wood was due an accounting in 2018. This is fraud on Ms. Grant’s part. As XAB Manager and Publisher, she is intentionally engaging in a deceptive action by denying a contractual right and obligation to Ms. Wood. 

Plus, why not be clear about where the money is going?

Ms. Wood was not paid and was not being shown the financial records for WHY she was not paid any royalties. This was in December of 2019.

Add to this that Eve Wood was excluded from promotional book signings that included her collaborative work with Alexandra Grant, yet the funds used to pay for those events was taken from the till before any royalty money was paid. This possibly includes the event in May 2019 in Venice hosted by Alexandra Grant's fan club. 

This is a quagmire that merits a financial accounting - which is what Cathryn Parker was referring to in her posts.

In other words, this means that Cathryn Parker’s post was NOT as Ms. Grant stated under oath, “And all of this is a lie. Every single thing here is a lie. So she is going after me.”

When questioning Cathryn Parker, attorney Rosengart asked why she posted the comment on Oscar de la Renta’s IG account. This is the comment discussed earlier from uiamalgamated (Cathryn Parker) posted on April 16, 2020 that mentions Eve Wood by name.

When Uiamalgamated (Cathryn Parker) made that comment on Oscar de la Renta's post Alexandra Grant then became absolutely aware that Eve Wood had complained about her to a third party. And that this complaint was detailed enough that a crisis might occur that would harm the carefully crafted public image that Ms. Grant had been building with her branding specialist.

In Ms. Grant’s sworn testimony she says Eve Wood contacted her after this post, which was on April 16, 2020.

During her testimony, Ms. Grant states that she identified Cathryn Parker in March (of 2020). She was transparent that it was not until she found out Ms. Parker had a history of aliases that she came to the conclusion that it was not a “community of bullies” who thought she was a liar, narcissist and fraud but one singular person. In Ms. Grant's mind, all of these people - all of these accounts - were Cathryn Parker.

Alexandra Grant articulates that what was so distressing and harassing was her very firm belief that Cathryn Parker WAS all these people. This scenario, that was created in her mind, where one individual was switching from multiple personalities, from multiple aliases, was terrifying to her. This can only be true IF Cathryn Parker is all of these accounts. In other words, it is not Cathryn Parker herself that is harassing, but the belief that she is all these other people as well. 

To recap, Ms. Grant identifies Cathryn Parker in March 2020 and convinces herself that only one person with multiple personalities is posting negatively about her online. Then in April 2020, Alexandra Grant becomes aware that Eve Wood knows Cathryn Parker and this association has created a very negative online image of herself via a post on Oscar de la Renta’s IG account. 

Shortly thereafter, Eve Wood starts following an account that is critical of Ms. Grant and one named in the RO filing – Robinwood_thereturn.

The exact date that Eve Wood started following Robinwood is unknown but Robinwood posted in LSA on April 27, 2020 with a screenshot as proof. 

Note: For English speakers – the Abonnes is the list of Followers and the S’abonner is asking if Robinwood would like to follow her back. 

To be clear – Robinwood was NOT following Eve Wood. Ms. Wood sought out Robinwood and began following her within ten days of Alexandra Grant being made aware that Eve Wood was the artist who was responsible for the reprehensible allegations, now public, against her.

The next day, Eve Wood unfollowed Robinwood and told Robinwood that someone had attacked her online.

For reasons unknown, Eve Wood again started following Robinwood on April 29, 2020.

Eve Wood continued to follow and privately chat with Robinwood for months. 

After the RO filing and TRO came out in July 2020, Robinwood asked Eve Wood if she knew Catherine Parker. Eve Wood responded, “Why?”

Robinwood replied that Alexandra Grant had a “restriction order” against Cathryn Parker and claimed that Eve Wood had sent a Cease and Desist letter to Ms. Parker – and Robinwood wanted to know if it was true.

Eve Wood did not answer after the “why” and then immediately blocked Robinwood and proceeded to delete all evidence of their chats. 

Robinwood was only able to retain 2 screenshots where Eve Wood was not quick enough. 

Peculiar reaction by Eve Wood to delete her entire chat record with Robinwood when the answer to her question was a simple “yes” or “no” as to whether or not she sent a Cease and Desist letter to Cathryn Parker. 

Pivot to the RO filing and who Grant hired as her expert to prove she was being stalked – SISS, who is a security and investigation firm specializing in protection and threat assessment.

Despite Ms. Grant's allegation that Ms. Parker's harassment of Eve Wood was so "unrelenting" that she was forced to "send a Cease and Desist letter" being the only claim with ANY concrete details; no proof of this was ever provided. 

No sworn declaration by Eve Wood.

Ms. Wood was not called as a witness.

There was no copy of a Cease and Desist letter.

INSTEAD, an email between Eve Wood and Claudia at SISS – dated July 26, 2020 was included as the last document provided on the last day of the hearing - as evidence that Cathryn Parker harassed Eve Wood by contacting her as one of her multiple personalities - Robinwood.

This document below is the only ​proof​ of any harassment or stalking that Ms. Grant ever provided.  

This email to Claudia, the VP at SISS -- Alexandra Grant's expert security and investigation firm-- is puzzling given that Eve Wood obviously worked closely with Katherine and Harmony Services in December 2019 to circumvent Alexandra Grant because she was afraid of Ms. Grant retaliating against her. 

From Eve Wood’s words in her email, you can deduce that there was at least one previous exchange with SISS, if not more. And that by this time, she had been convinced Cathryn Parker was all the accounts because she switched from referring to her as Katherine and is now referring to her as Parker in the email. 

The article from the LA Times along with the report on her criminal history and Alexandra Grant proclaiming that her security expert SISS had concluded that Cathryn Parker had multiple identities and personalities were likely used to instill confusion and fear in Eve Wood against Cathryn Parker.   

Since there is no Cease and Desist letter, this email was the best that could be provided to support Alexandra Grant’s case that:

1-Cathryn Parker is assuming another alias, that of Robinwood. 

2- Ms. Parker as Robinwood is relentlessly harassing Alexandra Grant’s associates.

3-There is a need for protection against Cathryn Parker because she is scaring Ms. Grant's associates to the degree that they are asking her security firm how they will protect them from this woman with multiple personalities. 

The problem with this email – it’s manipulated to the degree that what it is conveying is FALSE.

Clarity on this can be seen in a side-by-side comparison of Eve Wood’s IG account screenshot versus Robinwood’s IG account screenshot. 

In order to support the relentless harassment claim, the message between Robinwood and Eve Wood is cut off to make it appear as if Eve Wood is telling Robinwood to leave her alone and not contact her anymore. 

However, Robinwood’s screenshot clearly shows that conversation continued between Eve Wood and Robinwood after Eve Wood tells her not to contact her again, including intimate conversation about private family matters. 

Note: on the email from Eve Wood to SISS, looking right above the red line clearly shows that the screenshot is cropped because the vertical line is cut off where the message is cut to make it appear as if this is the last message Eve Wood sent to Robinwood.

Another takeaway from the unaltered screenshot evidence:

Eve Wood lives in California within driving distance of Cathryn Parker – the date and time are April 28th at 4:05pm. 

Robinwood does NOT live in California, she lives on another continent– the date and time are April 29th at 1:05am – a 9-hour time difference.

SO: Cathryn Parker is NOT Robinwood.

This is the only proof that Ms. Grant's security firm and lawyers were able to come up with after months of work - and it is FALSE and MISLEADING.

The date on this email shows that SISS was actively working on this case on July 26, 2020 - AFTER the initial RO filing. According to Ms. Grant, it was her work with a TEAM at SISS that proved Cathryn Parker was all of the social media accounts.  

This opens the door to two relevant questions:

(1) Why was no one at SISS called as a witness for the RO hearing; and

(2) Since an entire TEAM analyzed "the volume of very scary social media accounts" -- why were there only 2 pieces of evidence from SISS -- the original sworn Declaration from Claudia and this doctored email and IG message? 

Experts normally produce reports of their findings with proof attached and then share those findings with the Judge and opposing legal counsel so questions can be asked about their process and results. Credible experts are happy to have their results questioned and verified.

Even more confounding and suspicious is that the only witness called by Ms. Grant to support her allegations of harassment and stalking was Sergeant Gore -- and according to Sergeant Gore's testimony while being cross-examined -- he had no evidence that Cathryn Parker ever harassed or stalked Alexandra Grant.

The purpose of Sergeant Gore was solely to establish that Cathryn Parker was operating all the social media accounts. 

When Alexandra Grant's attorneys filed an opposition to Cathryn Parker getting an extension so she could get the IP address information back from Facebook, they stated that Sergeant Gore would testify Ms. "Parker is clearly the person controlling the social media accounts at issue." 

Ms. Grant's lawyers did this to make it appear as if they had an expert in law enforcement who had overwhelming evidence that Cathryn Parker was all of these accounts -- so there was no need to wait for Facebook's subpoena information.

Unbelievably, at the RO hearing under cross-examination by attorney Ellicott, Sergeant Gore stated he had never investigated or looked into social media account Catherine1967. He did not recognize the named social media account whitewitch_777. Even more incredulous was that according to Sergeant Gore, in court is the first time he ever saw the screen name rosescented1.

When attorney Ellicott continued to question Sergeant Gore about his knowledge - or even if he recognized any of the social media accounts at issue by going over each one that was included as exhibits in the original RO filing- attorney Rosengart shut down the questioning. But in doing so attorney Rosengart revealed that Sergeant Gore did not conduct an investigation of the posts made by the accounts at issue.

If Ms. Grant was so terrified for her safety that she could not even stay in California and had to travel to Berlin with Mr. Reeves -- while she was still working with her security expert team -- why did she not have SISS coordinate with Sergeant Gore, the police officer tasked with public safety, and send a subpoena to Facebook to identify the IP addresses of the named social media accounts? 

Alexandra Grant’s legal and security team had months to do this simple task of contacting Facebook while they were analyzing the social media accounts. Rather than using proper investigative techniques they chose to have a blind focus on Ms. Grant’s unsubstantiated and exceedingly unlikely scenario that only one person disliked her and this hate was based on her being romantically involved with Keanu Reeves – and that this one person was posting hundreds of lies about her on a daily basis out of jealousy. 

ONLY if Cathryn Parker is all the other accounts does Ms. Grant’s narrative of needing a RO against Cathryn Parker have any weight or credibility. 

In this case, the IP addresses of all the named social media accounts are analogous to DNA evidence in a rape or murder case. The only reason corrupt prosecutors fight testing DNA is when they are afraid – or worse – when they know that it will not match the person they are accusing of the crime. 

All their circumstantial evidence against Cathryn Parker gets thrown out the door when Facebook turns over the IP addresses for the named social media accounts and Cathryn Parker is not operating all of them. 

Their case against her is over; she is innocent of what they have accused her of.

But that is not what happened at the RO hearing. 

No Facebook subpoena information was available. 

Cathryn Parker was wrongly convicted based on false and misleading evidence. 

The narrative that attorney Rosengart provided at the RO hearing was carefully crafted and blatantly misleading. His lack of evidence to support his narrative was appalling - and he was fully aware of the gaping hole in his case.

The gaping hole was filled with circumstantial fluff bolstered by credibility. Attorney Rosengart stated to the judge that he was a former assistant US attorney right before subtly letting her know he didn't need evidence proving that Cathryn Parker was operating all of the social media accounts (plus a new account, Ann Maria Reeves, added during the hearing) - because he was able to elicit from the credible Sergeant Gore-- who never investigated any of the social media accounts - that he believed it looked like something Cathryn Parker would do - so this is how they know it is Cathryn Parker even though they lack any proof.

Mr. Rosengart's page on the Greenberg Traurig website is impressive and it reeks of credibility- he was even asked by former Attorney General Janet Reno to prosecute a high-level public corruption case.

Attorney General Janet Reno was actually one of the first high ranking public officials to make attempts to identify and correct wrongful convictions in the legal system.

There’s an off-Broadway play called “The Exonerated” that features vignettes of six wrongly convicted death row inmates. The play is powerful because it is comprised of the actual words of the exonerees and interviews and trial transcripts. The play started in NYC in the early 2000’s and has traveled around the globe and is still being performed today at universities and theatres around the country. 

There was a revolving cast of Hollywood A-list stars. Keanu Reeves was never in the play.

I originally saw the play the in NYC and have seen it several times over the years at different venues, including when former Attorney General Janet Reno attended.

One of the former death row inmates in “The Exonerated” was an African American man named Delbert Tibbs. He was convicted out of Florida for murdering a young man and raping a young woman. 

Delbert was an artist – a poet. 

Sadly, he passed in November 2013. Something he said regarding the failed legal system and the people responsible for the miscarriages of justice in America stayed with me. 

Delbert said, “The fact that you can have people who probably knew that a lotta folks were innocent--but they were not gonna be the ones to lose their jobs, jeopardize their kids’ college education, blow their new S.U.V. or whatever, for some abstraction like justice. That’s fucked up.”

I am most certainly not equating Cathryn Parker’s legal case or suffering to that of a wrongly convicted person who ended up in prison or on death row. 

I am equating-- the actions of those with power, money and influence complicit in perpetuating a broken system--  to this case here. 

Those who have the means to do the right thing yet lack something inside and trod a comfortable path out of fear for their own material losses or from pressure by those close to them - that demographic and the harm they create in the system is the same regardless of the crime. 

Framing an innocent person in a court of law is wrong; it is a vile action lacking in basic empathy for fellow human beings.

Why am I on this soapbox?

Because the first words from attorney Rosengart to the Judge set the tone for the entire hearing and created a bias that could not be overcome by a marginalized woman with meager resources and a past criminal record. 

And for those who believe Keanu Reeves is not responsible in any way for Cathryn Parker’s wrongful conviction, you are mistaken. He bears a partial burden - he was a large part of the circumstantial fluff to establish credibility to bolster this case.

In other words, even though Keanu Reeves may not have filed the TRO, may not have provided a sworn Declaration, may not have been present during the hearing to provide testimony, HIS PRESENCE WAS FELT - FROM THE ONSET. 

Mr. Reeves' name was dropped repeatedly as shown in the word index at the back of the transcripts.

Rosengart WAS representing both Alexandra Grant's and Keanu Reeves' interests in this case. 

Mr. Reeves is absent from both the TRO and final RO and he has never accused Cathryn Parker of stalking or harassing him.

Ergo attorney Rosengart was not representing Keanu Reeves for charges he is making against Cathryn Parker. No charges exist now or existed in the past. 

For all of Sergeant Gore's testimony regarding Ms. Parker's "fanatical obsession" with Keanu Reeves, there was never any stalking charge because Mr. Reeves and his agent were unaware that he was being "stalked" by Catherine Parker.

Note: do not be mislead by Sergeant Gore's repeat use of the phrase "at that time" - Mr. Reeves has not had issues with Catherine Parker contacting him or following him; it would have been in the transcript if he felt harassed by her - and there is nothing from Mr. Reeves in the transcript other than his complicit presence.

There are more lies, manipulations and fabrications that show up in the RO hearing…next few posts:

 -- Sergeant Gore and his work to help frame Cathryn Parker for a crime she did not commit by profiling her (including his criteria for how he came to the conclusion of what "an extreme fanatic of Keanu Reeves" looks like)

-- the rest of the analysis of Cathryn Parker's posts about Alexandra Grant; a look at embezzlement, fraud, misrepresentation and lies  

-- a look at Alexandra Grant using the same criteria used to judge Cathryn Parker

This

is the place for thoughts that do not end in concreteness.

It is necessary to be curious

and dangerous to dwell here, to wonder why

and how and when is dangerous--

but that's how we get out of this hole.

It is not easy to be a poet here.

Yet I sing.

-Delbert Tibbs 

(June 19, 1939 – November 23, 2013)

SPECIAL NOTE: a genuine thank you to Robinwood for sharing the screenshot that contained personal and painful information with me, a stranger, and allowing me to put it out in the public domain.