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.