Post #15: Grant was given her RO against Parker

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

Note: the Minute Orders for November 9th, 10th and 12th are at the end of the post. 

Grant was given her RO against Parker.

I feel comfortable stating that the only way the Judge could have ruled in Grant’s favor is if she ruled that all of the social media accounts, while maybe not being Parker, were controlled and instigated by Parker. That she was the ringleader coordinating all the negative posts against Grant.

I have seen the posts on the named accounts while researching the RO filing - I do not agree with everything that is said - but I will agree that none of these people are ignorant sheep and that each could hold their own against Parker. NO ONE WAS LED TO POST ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEIR CONSCIENCE AND THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.

I feel very comfortable stating that Parker never physically stalked Grant nor harassed her online and she was never a threat to Grant – it was the online posts by the other social media accounts that Grant feared.

And Parker never had any control over that. 

It was never Parker's sandbox and she was kicked out of it early on.

This RO will not stop the negative online posts against Grant; some of them will be nasty and vulgar and some of them will hit so close to home that Grant will be threatened and afraid of exposure. 

And the sandbox will get bigger.

On that note, I will say that I am very optimistic for the future regarding the story of this RO that Grant has used to manipulate the public narrative about her character, business practices and PR machinations. People will not be hoodwinked forever into believing that delusional or obsessed Keanu Reeves fans run all of these accounts, plus the other social media accounts that are critical of Grant.

I am not delusional. I am not obsessed with Keanu Reeves. Hell, after I read the transcript, I may not even be a fan anymore – because I’m one of those chicks who hates bullshit, abhors hypocrisy and is intolerant of bullies.

And I will continue posting, researching and investigating. 

Because Parker -- and every other vulnerable, marginalized human being in our society like her -- deserves a fair public tribunal.

The transcripts will tell a story, including why super-lawyer Mathew Rosengart a Partner with GreenbergTraurig (Mathew S. Rosengart | Professionals | Greenberg Traurig LLP) would be in Family Court on a RO for Grant. Seems Grant had the privilege and luxury of having two attorneys work on her case for the last 4 months – and both appeared in person each day of the hearing. 

The transcript will also answer questions about why the hearing lasted 3 days and perhaps why the hearing was moved at the last minute from the original judge's courtroom to a brand new judge unfamiliar with any aspects of the filings - for technical reasons to accommodate Grant's lawyers. This technologically superior hearing room was unable to handle even one witness for Parker who was calling in from another country to prove Parker did not run her social media accounts, Catharine1967 Youtube and Catharina Monica Facebook.

Shed light on why the evidence allowed for Parker was mainly online posts (REALLY?! She had to vigorously defend that she was not the 10 other accounts, WITHOUT the benefit of the information from the Facebook subpoena which would have easily proved Parker was not the 10 other accounts? Bit like going to a gun fight with a knife...).

 The transcript may explain WHY the evidence for Grant did not include supporting documentation for her claims, such as the cease and desist letter she claims E. Wood sent to Parker or a sworn Declaration or testimony from any witnesses who attended the public events where she alleged Parker confronted her and stalked her. Nor any testimony or sworn Declarations from any of the business colleagues Grant claims were relentlessly harassed online by Parker. Not one.

But then again, she did not have to provide evidence that what she was alleging was true - it was taken as fact on her word because she had the privilege afforded her by stating Keanu Reeves' name repeatedly in her filing thereby using his reputation to slyly support her claims and his power to gain her a super-lawyer who represents A-list Hollywood stars.  

STILL, facts have a way of showing up when one looks for them. So...

The facts will be known, as in she thought she could get away with it, but truth will out, and I'm sure she'll get caught. (All credit to Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice.)    

Post #14: RO filing - to protect Grant from Parker OR to protect Grant from online criticism?

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

The purpose of a Restraining Order is to protect someone who is in danger and legitimately afraid of another person.

The timing of the RO filing is critical because it gives you insight into what the Plaintiff’s fear is because logically it would coincide with a traumatic event that was the tipping point. In many cases, the Plaintiff knows the stalker.

In this case, Grant’s attempt to find the identity of the person stalking her first – this is what would coincide with the tipping point. What alarmed her and spurred her to action?

So when did Grant hire SISS? If that information is not available, then one could infer when they were hired by how long it would take to do the work they did and deduct that from the RO filing date.

SISS says they were hired to find the identification of the author (singular) of the posts. Grant needed the author of the posts because there were no events, no emails since 2019 and Grant was in Germany = nothing to hang a stalking charge on. 

So no legal grounds for a TRO against Parker.

Parker had a few posts – nothing rising to the level of harassment. And as far as Grant’s allegation that her whereabouts were being tracked online: that’s patently absurd since the purpose of having an online presence is to have followers who track you by your hash tags. If you do not want Keanu Reeves fans following you, stop using his hash tag and stop having others do the same on your behalf. This includes calling paparazzi that use Mr. Reeves name as click bait.

SISS does not say when they were hired and uses ambiguous wording so that one might erroneously infer that they worked for months -- they did not look at the social media accounts for months, the social media accounts posted for months.

Grant gave SISS emails she received from Parker and this is where their investigation would have started. So how long would this take for SISS to find Parker's identity?

Using the information from the emails sent to Grant, a friend who conducts investigations found Parker’s identity and the newspaper article in less than 30 minutes using three steps:

(1) Searched a publicly available database for information found in 2 emails: name Katherine Loo with a phone number of 213-378-XXXX and a tie to non-profit Harmony Services. Found a match.

Note: see that Parker signs an email with various names and then she misquotes a line from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet “a rose by any other name is still a rose” – meaning the names of things are just labels and that these names that Parker uses which she has listed here are not important to distinguishing who she is, they are just names. Therefore, when looking at the report, also look for these last names that Parker is clearly saying she also goes by.

(2) Looked online for Harmony Services and found a website online which has an address and phone number that matches the information in the public report. This confirms this is the person who sent the emails to Grant. Confirmed the match.

(3) Used the aliases in the public report for Katherine Loo and did an online search for each name and Los Angeles (since this is where the public events where Grant alleges Parker was stalking her took place) – and found the newspaper article with the photo of Parker that Grant says she used to identify Parker. Confirmed Parker is Loo.

One of the criminal history reports included in the filing has a date on it from when it was pulled – July 8, 2020.

Tracking the timing is simple even though Grant specifically declined to state in her Declaration when she saw the newspaper article saying it was sometime after the public events Parker attended that she, “became aware of the article published by the Los Angeles Times about Respondent, concerning Respondent’s criminal history.” There is a note that the article was last visited July 7, 2020.

Included with the criminal history reports are names also used by Parker, called Name Variations. Public reports include this same information under Possible Aliases and they also include Possible Relatives.

SISS would have clearly seen that Parkers aliases/name variations are all variants of the first name Katherine and the last names appear to be maiden or married names or relatives. These lists also match the names that Parker says she goes by in the email she sent to Grant.

Oddly, Catherina Monica was NOT listed as an alias even though it is identified with named social media accounts on Youtube and Facebook that supposedly belong to Parker - and it matches the nomenclature for the other aliases which are variations of the name Katherine.

Even more illogical is that ALL of the aliases were obvious variations of the name Katherine with the exception of one, Rose Plath.

When you have a piece of evidence being used that clearly does not fit logically with the other evidence, you should absolutely question it.

Why is Rose Plath being forced into Parker’s aliases? Why does Grant fear rosescented1?

Turn back to what was the tipping point. From the above and knowing how quick and easy it was for SISS to identify Parker, the timing of the event that caused fear in Grant is around July 5, 6, or 7, 2020. Grant was in Germany at this time so her fear was not from stalking. Posts made around that time from rosescented1 are below.

These posts may look innocuous but they are not because they state facts and show that other people are pontificating on these facts and this invites informed online discussion. 

Posts such as these during a pandemic when people are separated from loved ones, along with other media outlets looking into what is being posted by rosescented1 and making their own determination that it is accurate and then they in turn also post negatively about Grant – that can turn into a tweet that flies away and then takes on a life of its own. So from Grant's perspective, it is important to stop the online posts immediately.

But at this juncture, Grant had no evidence that any of the social media accounts belonged to Parker, with the exception of uiamalgamated.

The few posts by Parker don’t even begin to rise to the level needed legally to make a RO stick.

And each of these other social media accounts individually do not rise to the level needed legally to make a RO stick - and she does not know the identities of the individuals running each of them.

So Grant lumped them all together as coming from Parker, then smeared Parker’s name by repeatedly making reference to her as a delusional and obsessed convicted felon in the filing.

Then she leaked the filing to The Blast to ensure she was able to use Reeves name yet again to accomplish what she needed – for the online posts to be dismissed as false because they were coming from a delusional obsessed Keanu fan.

I do not know how this case will end up in the courtroom.

A court of law, unfortunately, is not always where the truth comes out.

What I do know is that justice and fairness matters to people.

Wrongly accusing a marginalized member of our society – a nearly 70 year old former convicted felon with zero history of stalking or threats – and then misusing power and influence to railroad them into a wrongful conviction, this MATTERS.

I will be looking for the transcript of the hearing and the evidence submitted to the court to make available more information so people can make their own determinations.

And once you make your own determinations – you should post them online. It’s everyone’s right to demand justice and denounce manipulation and lies.      

Post #13: What a Response to RO filing Allegation #5 Might Look Like

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley)

What a response to RO filing allegation #5 might look like:

(5) Cyberstalking Ms. Grant, including prolifically posting thousands of false, threatening, and disturbing Statements on social media about Ms. Grant, including but not limited to Statements that Ms. Grant is "surrounded by daggers" and will be "crushed," and "the war has begun." Demonstrating her state of mind and consciousness of guilt, Respondent herself has acknowledged the necessity of a restraining order, stating, "f . . .K[eanu] put a restraining order on me, l [sic] gladly accept."

RESPONSE: None of the "false", "threatening" and "disturbing" posts came from Parker's Instagram account, uiamalgamated. The SISS Declaration, whose sole purpose was to identify Parker and then link all of the named social media accounts to her, is false and misleading.

I provided proof that the conclusions formed by SISS which were, “Based on the results of a comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of …the social media accounts at issue; correspondence sent directly to Ms. Grant; discussions with law enforcement and a review of her criminal history” – were false. (see Posts #4 and #5)

Parker could not have made social media posts while she was incarcerated. SISS used the same flawed analysis for the other accounts so it can be concluded that no confidence can be placed in their findings.

The one exception is the account uiamalgamated, which matches emails Parker sent to Ms. Grant, which included her name and phone number and non-profit Harmony Services, so no detailed analysis was necessary to link this account to Parker. She did it for them.

More issues with the SISS Declaration (see Post #8):

SISS mentions emails Parker sent to Grant and says that the names and email addresses (plural) match social media accounts – but there is only 1 match, uiamalgamated.

SISS stated that the name Gonsalves appears on posts at issue. There are no posts with the name Gonsalves and none of the named accounts use Gonsalves.

Note: To further mislead the court, 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.”

SISS stated, “Although the posts were made from various social media accounts, the content, style, timing‚ volume, and identifying information of the posts also make obvious that the posts are authored by the same person‚ Respondent.” Therefore, SISS should have observed that all the accounts, with the exception of Parker's, 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 states that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of …the social media accounts at issue,” but they only included posts that they obtained from Ms. Grant’s Declaration. Worse, Ms. Grant’s Declaration was dated on July 14th, and SISS’s Declaration was dated July 13th.

Note: If SISS prepared and signed her Declaration on July 13, 2020 - how did she know what was contained in Ms. Grant’s Declaration, let alone what Exhibit # evidence would be, dated and signed a day later? Did SISS investigate, or did they base their evidence on hearsay from Ms. Grant’s unsigned Declaration? Parker was advised to file a Motion to Strike the SISS Declaration from the Exhibits as it brings into question the credibility of the investigation but she did not know how to do this.

Post #12: RO FILING: Just a refresher

(Original post in Lipstick Alley)

RO FILING: Just a refresher - in case anyone still believes Parker runs the 11 social media accounts and went to Reeves' house to stalk Grant. 

(2) Encroaching or trespassing on Mr. Reeves’s home and property (or coordinating with others to do so), to publish photographs of Ms. Grant's vehicle on the Internet.

RESPONSE: The first Exhibit attached to Ms. Grant’s Declaration is a screenshot of a post from the first social media account named as belonging to Parker – YouTube account Catharine1967. It is a photo of Ms. Grant’s car parked at Mr. Reeves’ home around June 2020.

For proof that this is Parker stalking Ms. Grant at Mr. Reeves’ home, Ms. Grant relied on SISS’s investigation that concluded all the accounts were run by Parker.


Even though SISS stated in their Declaration that they conducted a “comprehensive investigation that included detailed analysis of… the social media accounts at issue… and criminal records,” they failed to notice that the Facebook account Catharina Monica had posts made while Parker was incarcerated. This brings into question their entire investigation – Parker obviously could not have made posts while she was in jail so this social media account could not be hers. Copies of Parker's criminal record were included with the RO filing.

Below are screenshots of posts from the Catharina Monica Facebook account uploaded between June 5, 2015, and February 23, 2016.

Further, the YouTube account Catharine1967 has the same photo avatar as the Catharina Monica Facebook account, which is a strong indicator they are run by the same person.

Post #11: RO FILING: “The Opportunity for Good” from the Named Social Media Accounts

 (Original post in Lipstick Alley) 

The RO Hearing is tomorrow so I thought I would write about one of the posts at issue that Grant included as her evidence of being harassed to the point of feeling threatened and afraid.

The ability to get a Restraining Order against someone relies on how California defines harassment. The part of the code that appeals to me is where it says “and serves no legitimate purpose.” Essentially, for the online posts, you are making them for no other reason than to threaten, intimidate and harass the person who is targeted.

In looking at the RO filing, I read the posts at issue that were included as Exhibits to Grant’s Declaration – these were the posts that Grant personally chose, those that served no legitimate purpose except to threaten and make her afraid.

(Note: SISS also included posts at issue as Exhibits but they were a only a subset of Grant’s, nothing new or different.)

The post at issue below caught my attention when I read it because it involved an innocent child.

(Note: whitewitch2019 has 9 posts in total that Grant included in her Exhibits – some are reposts where the original account is not named in the filing or posts that do not have any mention of Grant in them. I will show each of them in a later post.)

A stolen tombstone? Kept for 11 years? Put on t-shirts to make money?

I dismissed these claims as being false, or at least taken out of context. It’s common to see inflammatory statements on the Internet. People post them to begin dialogue, find answers, and follow threads to what else is out there worth looking into. It’s a way we learn and grow using our thoughts and our emotions.

Frankly, I could not wrap my mind around why Grant would choose this post to define how she feels threatened and afraid. I assumed the claims were patently false and that is why she included this post.

The phrase, “Desecration of the resting place of the dead in many religions means the dead are not at peace,” struck me as poignant and deserving of attention because our world today is so divided by religion.

So I gave this post my attention.

To me, the purpose of this post was to touch a chord in people to be disturbed by the lack of compassion displayed by Grant towards baby Lena and anyone who has ever suffered the death of a child. Perhaps the person making the post had a tragedy in their life and was deeply offended at the mere thought of these events.

And I found the judgments of Grant’s actions in this post are accurate. My feelings are more mild but nonetheless affected and my morals affronted.

I am not going to split hairs on details – anyone can listen to Grant in, “Taking Lena Home” where Grant provides the proof that the tombstone was stolen and she kept it for 11 years -- Taking Lena Home.

This post at issue thanked rosescented1 for the photo so I checked out that Instagram account for more material on the veracity of the claim about the t-shirts to make money.

(Note: I found rosescented1 to have diverse and useful/sometimes not-useful information layered with spurts of emotion and peppered with pithy insults and dark humor. I will write a post on her account as it applies to the RO filing soon.)

The rosecented1 account led me to look to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for Serial number 77753946, which is Grant’s file for her stylized LOVE symbol –

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

I looked in the public trademark file to get a general idea of how Grant conducts business since she appears to funnel everything through her private for-profit grantLove project.

GrantLOVE project is a private business so there is no money trail. I have no idea how much money Grant made from selling t-shirts with baby Lena’s tombstone on it or what she did with the money. This is not illegal or fraud on Grant’s part.

I do find it tasteless and insincere to lack transparency for funds that were generated using Grant’s own PR where she posed herself as the benevolent caretaker of baby Lena’s tombstone.

I did NOT think I was going to find baby Lena’s t-shirt information in a trademark file.

Trademarks are for commerce – they increase value and allow a company or person to charge more money for their product – and explicitly guard an investment by preventing anyone else from making money off of the “trademarked product.” It’s the business equivalent of a dog marking their territory.


Below is from Grant's file showing dates she used her trademarked merchandise in commerce.

When I clicked on the specimen file links, expecting to see a t-shirt with Grant’s love mark, I was upset and offended to see a t-shirt with baby Lena’s tombstone on it. Both files had baby Lena’s t-shirt as a representation of how the trademark was being used in commerce. This gives the impression that Grant, not a family member of Lena, holds a trademark on her tombstone.

This prompted me to write an email inquiry to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to get clarification and some semblance of an explanation as to how and why this occurred. All consumers have a right to know what business practices are being used or exploited to sell products and how the USPTO may be contributing to any issues.

Grant's trademark file did not contain any commerce use of the actual trademark – the stylized love logo – except as a hangtag to put on merchandise.

The hangtag is confusing; shouldn’t it only be used in conjunction with merchandise that is trademarked – in this example a t-shirt with the love logo on it?

The other category that Grant has the trademarked love logo for is shopping bags. The specimen file links for the shopping bags were also not for the love logo -- but for Born to Love Not to Hate.

Thus, I also included a paragraph regarding Antigone as a commerce use for the stylized love logo. Again, because this is in the trademark file, it gives the impression that Grant, not a descendent of Sophocles, holds a trademark on a famous line in his Greek play.

It has been almost 60 days and I have not received a response back but find this understandable with Covid-19 and the U.S. election. I will check back in 90 days.

In the meantime, any consumer is deserving of clarification on policies and procedures of a federal agency that registers trademarks based on the commerce clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

I invite anyone to write an email to the USPTO and question them in regard to this file and any other file you deem relevant to ensure their policies are not so ambiguous or flawed as to lead to consumer ethics questions and/or possible consumer fraud. 

Not all countries allow public or private criticism of their governmental agencies and institutions.

I know this to be true from being a veteran of the US Navy and the Iraq war.

It is a right we have in the US that we should not take for granted.


I consider exercising this right to question a federal agency and demand answers to possible questionable polices and practices to be “the opportunity for good” that came about from this post at issue by whitewitch2019.


For Grant, "the opportunity for good" here may be to understand that criticism is a perception that others hold about us and it can be valuable for monitoring self-awareness and for cultivating empathy.