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.