Post #8: RO Filing: SISS - Part 2

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

SISS is the expert hired by Grant. The VP of Investigations at SISS gave a sworn Declaration in support of the RO filing. SISS stated that they were hired to perform an investigation to locate the author – singular – of threatening and disturbing social media posts. So they were tasked with identifying Parker.

NOTE: Parker had 3 social media posts that will be viewed in a later post. 

When, how and why SISS was asked to link Parker to all the other social media accounts is critical because it appears they were asked to do this only after they “located” Parker and saw that she had a criminal history of using aliases. 

The only other scenario, given the wording of SISS's sworn Declaration, was that they never entertained the viable concept that there was ever more than one author of these posts. This idea that only one person could find issue with Grant and criticize her online is highly delusional on Grant's part.

In my previous SISS post (see Post #5), I showed that the social media account, Facebook Catharina Monica, made posts while Parker was incarcerated. And that this Facebook account and the Youtube account Catharine1967 have the same photo avatar so they are run by the same person. So, SISS’s statement that these accounts are all Parker’s - was FALSE. The “thousands” of “harassing and threatening posts” were not from Parker. 

I also covered that SISS made a false statement to intentionally mislead the judge (perjury) when they stated in their sworn Declaration that the name “Gonsalves” appears in posts at issue. Never does the name Gonsalves appear in any of the exhibits in the RO filing. Any rational person can assume that the posts at issue are included in the original filing.

WHY lie about Gonsalves? BECAUSE the 2015 newspaper story about Parker’s 74 aliases uses both names -- Gonsalves and Parker-- under the photo, and SISS needed a piece of obvious evidence to tie it all together for the Judge. 

What’s new in this post is MORE evidence of SISS showing either gross incompetence or lying in their sworn Declaration to the court.

SISS pointed the Judge to Exhibit F to show that they had proof supporting their allegations about Parker/Gonsalves. 

According to Exhibit F, on December 15, 2010, the Tehama County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant of Parker’s home and vehicle as part of an investigation into an August 2010 online auction real property hustle using E-bay. The report says Parker admitted to conducting illegal activity using another address (Windsor) to facilitate the online fraud. Seized items included documents, debit cards and $5,400 in cash - but no computer or laptop.

Next step in a credible investigation would be to look at Catharine1967’s YouTube account since she is the first social media account named in the filing and also the first social media post exhibit. 

On December 15, 2010 Catharine1967 posted a video “Keanu reeves: Sensitive Dragon Heart.” 

Also according to Exhibit F, when police returned on December 20, 2010, to serve Parker with a no bail arrest warrant, she was gone. Not surprising since Parker knew she was getting arrested as soon as officers could get the arrest warrant drawn up and signed by a judge because during the police search, she admitted to officers that she had conducted fraudulent online real property transactions.

What should be surprising is that Catharine1967 also posted videos on December 16th and 18th, 2010: 

“Keanu Reeves: A Precious Gem” & “Keanu Reeves – Panini Pua Kea” respectively.

So this amounts to Grant labeling Parker as an obsessed fan, who on her way out of town as a fugitive escaping police – TWICE – went to the Windsor address that police knew was used for the illegal activity – just so she could get on a computer to create and upload Keanu fan videos onto her Catharine1967 Youtube account. 

As a basic rule of survival, formerly incarcerated people who have a warrant out for their arrest do not return multiple times to a location where police are likely to look for them. They leave the area immediately. Even if they haven’t finished making all of their Keanu videos.

Parker evaded authorities for nearly 5 years and in the same state she was wanted in. That takes street smarts, criminal sophistication and grit that most people do not possess. 

It took me less than 15 minutes to read the police report in Exhibit F, see the dates regarding the search warrant and then look at the first social media account and see the videos uploaded at conflicting times. 

NOTE: I do not fault the Judge for not seeing the glaring errors and false information in SISS’s sworn Declaration before she issued the TRO. SISS stated they “conducted a comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis “ of Parker’s criminal record and these social media accounts. Experts are afforded a level of standing in the legal system; judges rely on them.

I do fault SISS, Grant, and her attorneys. They either discussed or looked at SISS’s report/findings and asked them to provide a Declaration explaining their findings (a report was NOT included in the filing); and Grant herself looked at these social media accounts since she compiled exhibits of selected posts that she states harassed her and made her feel threatened and afraid and included them in her sworn Declaration. 

Post #7: Clearing Up a Lack of Clarity

(Original post in Lipstick Alley) 

This post is meant to clear up a lack of clarity, that's all. No subterfuge, derailing, cleaning or whatever other terms are used here in LSA for attempting to diminish the integrity of a post.

(1) The RO filing (like most legal instruments) is open ended - when detailing the social media accounts, it says "included, but not limited to." LSA is social media. If there is an LSA account belonging to C Parker/K Parker, and she ever posted in LSA about Grant, then that is evidence that Grant can use. Also, writing a comment is considered publishing a statement on social media - it's public, just scroll down and you see it.

(2) Who is covered and responsible for abiding by the TRO? Only one person is named- C Parker/K Parker.

Note: the TRO was extended to November 9th to correspond with the new Hearing date so the expiration date below under (4) is for the original TRO.

(3) The TRO Addendum clearly states, "or any other social media platforms" -- which means LSA.

So if C Parker/K Parker posts on this thread about the RO, even if she does not mention Grant's name -- she is referencing the protected party indirectly-- and she is violating the TRO. Any posts/comments will be noted, assessed for credibility and added to the complaint.

Post #6: RO – Mr. Reeves is included in the RO Filing

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

Reeves, whether willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly, is included in the Restraining Order filing.

(1) Grant names Reeves as her witness. He is named under the “Description of Harassment – (2) Who else was there?” 

Grant calculatedly capitalized on Reeves as a “world-famous actor” who has a public persona as a nice guy removed from the Hollywood skullduggery to substantiate her stalking story – and to link him to the stalking so they can be in it together for media stories. (I feel absolutely confident in making this statement given that this is exactly what occurred when Grant, who was the only obvious suspect given only she and her attorneys had control of the filing, leaked the story to The Blast. See Post #2)

This is a deliberate attempt to use Reeves’ status as an A-list movie star when a surplus of obvious witnesses were present at the four public events Grant claims Parker stalked her at. Most notably, the Lowell Ryan Gallery exhibit where Grant contends Parker had to be asked to leave. (See Post #3)

(2) Under “Background and the Parties,” it says, “Respondent Cathryn Parker is a serial harasser of Petitioner Alexandra Grant and an obsessive and extreme fanatic of world-famous actor Keanu Reeves (with whom Ms. Grant has been romantically linked in the media, making Ms. Grant the target of Respondent’s campaign of harassment.) 

NOTE: the descriptive adjectives of  "obsessive and extreme fanatic" and "compulsively" and "disturbingly" leveled against Parker throughout the filing will be addressed in a later post on Sgt. Gore who gave a sworn Declaration for Grant. 

Throughout the filing, Mr. Reeves is named repeatedly as the reason for the stalking and harassment against Grant. 

This phrase “romantically linked” is used 6 times in the filing, which equals 6 more times Keanu Reeves' name is used. 

NOTE: Grant is romantically linked to Mr. Reeves everywhere in the filed documents with the exception of her own sworn Declaration. This is not a dig or jest, it’s a curious observation.

(3) When asking for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and to explain why notice should not be given to Parker before issuing it -- Mr. Reeves is included in this request to ensure it is granted. Again, this is a calculated move by Grant to use Reeves' sterling reputation against Parker whom Grant has maligned throughout the filing in a repugnant manner, distilling her entire being down to "a career criminal" and "convicted felon."

NOTE: the TRO filing states it would be “dangerous and counter-productive to give Ms. Parker notice until a TRO is in place” – yet Grant was in Germany. Her sworn Declaration, although not notarized, stated she was in Potsdam, Germany.

(4) Reeves is used to add an additional allegation against Parker-- “encroaching or trespassing on Mr. Reeves’s home and property…” (See Post #4 for proof this allegation is false.)

(5) In a less obvious manner, some may infer that Reeves is included in the filing by virtue of the lawyer Grant was able to retain. Not McCarthy, but her second lawyer who is listed first on her filings – Rosengart of Greenberg Traurig. 

NOTE: Parker does not have an attorney according to filings thus far. 

Post #5: HOW Grant linked all the social media accounts to Parker: SISS - Part 1

 (Original Post in Lipstick Alley)

Judges rely on experts and give weight to their findings because they are assumed to be knowledgeable in their field and credible in their conclusions. Dishonest experts have been a significant factor in wrongful accusations/convictions for a long time. The entire burden for this sad circumstance does not fall on the expert alone – the lawyers and party who hired them are equally to blame. Especially in a case like this where the science being utilized is data gathering/analysis and common sense.

Grant linked all the social media accounts to Parker by utilizing a company called Screen International Security Services (SISS) and having the VP of Investigations submit a sworn Declaration as an expert. 

SISS declared that through their investigation they were able to determine that the 11 named social media accounts were all Parker’s. 

Grant used SISS so she could say that Parker, who is described in the filing as delusional and obsessed with Reeves, is a threat to her that she fears will escalate because of the volume of posts directed at her from this one person. 

This was a major contributing factor for why the judge issued the TRO without notifying Parker in advance to allow her an opportunity to defend herself against the accusations.

This is unfair and unjust for a few reasons.

(1) Subjectively, SISS’s findings are false based on a cursory glance at the named accounts. 

Grant stated in her sworn Declaration that Parker spoke to her and also that she received a few emails from Parker – so Grant knows that Parker is American and speaks and writes English as her native language. Grant sent these emails to SISS.

SISS should have seen that all the accounts, with the exception of uiamalgamated, have common grammatical errors found with people who speak English as a second language– such as issues with pronouns and plurals. Notably, some of the accounts post or comment in their native language at times – not English. 

SISS uses an intentional deceptive tactic to feed into their conclusion that Parker is pretending to be all 11 accounts. When citing emails Parker sent to Grant, SISS says that the names and email addresses match social media accounts – plural, as in more than 1 account -- but there is only 1 match, uiamalgamated. 

(2) Objectively, SISS’s findings are suspicious because the VP who submitted the expert declaration perjured herself when she stated that the name Gonsalves, one of 74 aliases used by Parker, appears on posts at issue. 

There are no posts with the name Gonsalves and none of the named accounts use Gonsalves. 

This false statement was made to deliberately mislead the court into believing Parker was tied to the other social media accounts. 

To further confuse the court by including a visual to back up their false statement, SISS included an exhibit of the 2015 LA Times article with the photo that has the caption, “Cathryn Parker, a.k.a. Katherine Gonsalves, is accused of stealing multiple identities.”

(Note: typical behavior in the face of being openly criticized for lying to the court would be to start scouring accounts looking for the name Gonsalves to be able to link it so you could maintain your lie was true– but if the evidence legitimately existed, you would have included it in your original filing Exhibits with your Gonsalves material. Your believability is gone when you do this after the fact to fill a criticism hole – it would most likely be concocted evidence.)

(3) The last example to objectively illustrate that SISS’s believability is non-existent and their conclusion that Parker is all 11 social media accounts is false:

SISS stated in their expert Declaration that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of… the social media accounts at issue… and criminal records.”

However, SISS’s expert findings contained discrepancies so obvious that any rational person would conclude that these social media accounts could not possibly be Parker’s. 

Discrepancies included posts being made on dates when Parker was incarcerated. 

Also, in looking at the two accounts with similar nomenclature – Catharine1967 Youtube and Catharina Monica Facebook – note that both use the same photo avatar so there is a strong probability they are run by the same person, who is not Parker.

This leads to one of two interpretations involving the expert that Grant hired to prove the 11 social media accounts all belonged to Parker:

(1) SISS did NOT conduct a “comprehensive investigation that included a detailed analysis” of the social media accounts and Parker’s criminal history – so their expert opinion that all 11 accounts belong to Parker is not supported by any evidence, hence their findings are bogus.

OR

(2) SISS did conduct a “comprehensive investigation that included a detailed analysis” of the social media accounts and Parker’s criminal history -- and they LIED about their findings – so their expert opinion that all 11 accounts belong to Parker is not supported by any evidence, hence their findings are bogus.

It also clearly shows that SISS is either grossly negligent in that they describe a thorough investigation as the work conducted to bolster their expert findings but fail to actually conduct said work or they are wantonly dishonest as the expert – to the degree that they are comfortable lying and intentionally misleading the court. There is no other explanation for this disgusting incompetence and fraud. 

Post #4: Using social media accounts as stalking evidence

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

One of the reasons WHY Grant linked other SM accounts to Parker is she needed more evidence in her case because the stalking evidence she was using on Parker contradicted the timing aspect of her motive and it was a year old. 

Grant’s Declaration first states the social media accounts have been identified as belonging to Respondent (I will address how Grant comes to this false conclusion in my next post), then lists the most important photo first.

The first Exhibit attached to Grant’s declaration is a screenshot of a post from the first SM account named as belonging to Parker – YouTube account Catharine1967. 

This is a critical piece of evidence because it attempts to place Parker at Reeves’ house while Grant is there in June 2020 = STALKING. So it’s after November 2019 and recent. There is an issue or two with it though.

1st Issue: Catharine1967 says in the post she thinks someone staged the photo by putting a car that looks like Grant’s at Reeves’ house, then she changes her theory of the photo and says it may be Grant's car and she took the photo to show she is at Keanu's house.

So the logical conclusion is that Catharine1967 (Parker) did not take this photo and she doesn’t seem to know where it came from.

2nd Issue: The second issue is pretty obvious. Grant, by her own admission, has met Parker and heard her speak. She knows Parker is American and speaks English as her native tongue. Someone who speaks English as a second language wrote this post. Grant should know the person she met did not write this post. 

Grant’s attorney attempts to fix the first issue by offering another theory of how the photo was taken by stating, “or coordinating with others to do so.” So his take is that Catharine1967 (Parker) had someone else take the photo for her and then she posted it online. That still doesn’t answer why Catharine1967 doesn’t seem to know the provenance of the photo. If she was involved, she should know. 

In conclusion:

Catharine1967 did not take this photo and does not know the person who did;

Catharine1967 does not write English like she is American; and 

Parker is American – so Catharine1967 is NOT Parker.

Also, Grant’s attorney accuses Parker of “encroaching or trespassing on Mr. Reeves’ home or property” in order to take the photo. This is an attempt (usually made by police or prosecutors) to stack charges against Parker and scare her with the additional allegations.

ONLY Mr. Reeves can make the determination that someone is trespassing on his property. I won’t go into the point that “encroaching” is used incorrectly here and does not apply in the least to this situation. 

As far as the provenance of the photo, this is important. Grant includes a photo of Parker twice in this filing via the LA Times article so this is the person she is accusing of trespassing on Reeves’ property -- a 67-year old convicted felon from the worst photo perspective imaginable - a police mug shot.

However, the provenance of the car at Reeves’ house photo is actually a beautiful, young fan of Reeves, nothing to do with Catharine1967 (Parker). 

Reeves is known for being kind and considerate to his fans and even compassionate to a stalker who entered his home. Whatever else you may think of Reeves, he is a generous and good-hearted human being according to hundreds (thousands?) of stories over the decades.

I find it difficult to believe he would charge this adoring fan with trespassing and ask for a RO. 

If I am wrong and Mr. Reeves’ has changed so much, then LA County Family Services Court should hire another judge whose sole responsibility is to process RO request paperwork against the thousands of female Keanu uber-fans who drive by his house and take photos. Maybe two judges.

Post #3: WHY Grant linked 11 social media accounts to 1 person

(Originally posted in Lipstick Alley)

A logical question is HOW Grant linked 11 social media accounts and thousands of posts to 1 person – Parker. 

Before answering this, the question of WHY Grant did this should be answered. 

According to Grant, the MOTIVE for Parker stalking her is that Parker is an obsessed fan of Reeves & the media romantically linked Grant and Reeves thereby setting Parker off.

To make this motive plausible, the timing of the media event must coincide with the beginning of the stalking. 

TIMING - In her declaration, Grant is vague in her recollection of when she was romantically linked to Reeves in the media – she says “2019.”

Is it possible to NARROW THAT DOWN from an entire year?

YES, GRANT was romantically linked in the media after the LACMA event, which was the FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER 2019. 

AS A MATTER OF FACT – GRANT USED THAT EXACT TIMEFRAME in a media interview with British Vogue, “I think every single person I knew called me in the first week of November.”

In addition to Grant’s comments to British Vogue, more concrete evidence of the timing of the media event can be tracked via social media. And Grant most assuredly would be aware of this since within her sworn Declaration she stated, “I regularly use the Instagram platform.”

SO - Grant should have remembered that her Instagram followers went from 13k on November 4, 2019 --- to 76.5k followers within 6 weeks. 

During this time, she had no exhibit openings; just 1 red carpet walk holding Reeves’ hand.

WHY was Grant purposefully vague on an easily recognizable date? 

BECAUSE to prove stalking, Grant references four different instances where Parker was present at events where she was also.  

PROBLEM 1: all of these events were PRIOR to November 2019. 

SOLUTION 1: Grant prevaricates and uses the entire year of 2019 for the timeframe.

PROBLEM 2: IT IS NOW JULY 2020 – relevant question is why are you waiting nearly a year since the last alleged stalking event to file for a RO? 

SOLUTION 2: Use other SM accounts to demonstrate recent ostensible stalking. AND link Parker to these other accounts because she is a PERFECT FIT – a convicted felon who is purportedly obsessed with Reeves and has a history of using aliases.

SO, according to Grant’s own evidence, she cannot tie Parker to her romantically-linked-to-Reeves in the media narrative laid out in the filing. This is where other SM accounts come in handy. They fill the gaping holes in Grant's evidence.