Post #9: RO – Parker Criminal History

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

Due to the RO filing referring to violence and a fear that harassment will escalate due to Parker’s criminal history as a convicted felon -- a look at Parker’s criminal history as outlined in the RO filing is warranted.

Grant’s filing shows the following as Parker’s criminal history:

(Note: SISS has the same criminal history outlined in their Declaration)

There are four noteworthy items.

(1) There is NO evidence of violence, threats, harassment, or stalking in Parker’s criminal history.


(2) A possible factor contributing to the repeated probation violations may be an inability to pay restitution fees or fines. It’s reasonable that persons with convictions, and especially felony convictions, find it more difficult to find employment and places to live. Skipping town because you fear going back to jail or prison for violating parole for not paying fees is understandable. I am not excusing this behavior, I am offering explanatory conditions that most people do not have to deal with or think about.


(3) In 2000, as part of sentencing Parker was required to participate in a mental health treatment program, as directed by the probation officer – and Parker was responsible for paying part or all of this cost, depending on the amount.

In the filing, Grant juxtaposes herself with Parker and characterizes Parker as a criminal who was sentenced to years of jail time, “as well as mental health treatment (which she failed to participate in as ordered).”

To me, this portion of the RO filing is mildly offensive and indicative of why people shy away from mental health options; they fear the stigma attached to getting treatment and being labeled a mental health patient.

Further, when looking at the criminal records, there was only one instance of “failing to participate” in a mental health treatment program: from 6/1/2006 – 7/20/2006.

(4) The last noteworthy item I found was that the SISS Declaration, even though they state that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of …the social media accounts at issue,” only includes posts that they obtained from Grant’s Declaration.

Worse, Grant’s Declaration was dated on July 14th, and SISS’s Declaration was dated July 13th. 

I've never worked on a case before where an expert, in their sworn Declaration/Affidavit, referred to another person's sworn statement that was dated AFTER theirs was dated.

I asked an attorney friend for legal clarification and was given this reply:

If Claudia (SISS) prepared and signed her Declaration on July 13, 2020 - how did she know what was contained in Grant’s Declaration, let alone what Exhibit # evidence would be, dated and signed a day later?

This entire investigation is inadmissible. You don't have to explain what you think they were doing or create a scenario. It's out - period. No one can predict the future. The party's attorney needs to file a motion to strike the Affidavit from the Exhibits as it brings into question the credibility of the investigation. Did they investigate, or did they base their evidence on hearsay from the Plaintiff's unsigned Declaration?

**You know it's not legally binding until it's signed - therefore she can't say she saw a draft copy of Grant’s declaration.

The SISS Declaration has an egregious amount of false information in it that was detailed in previous posts. THIS error with the dates on the Declarations is a legal issue that the lawyers should have caught. Leads me to believe this was a rushed filing.

Reasonable questions:

When was SISS contacted to do this work for Grant?

Since Grant was in Germany when she filed for the TRO/RO, she could not have been in fear of physical stalking -- so what was being posted on social media a week to 10 days prior to the filing that caused Grant to have such fear?