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.