A healthy and happy New Year to everyone!
Warm wishes that most people had a pleasant holiday season, prayers and blessing to those who were not so fortunate.
Under the umbrella of those who were not so fortunate stands Cathryn Parker.
How did she lose in the Restraining Order hearing when all she had to do was prove she was not operating 11+ social media accounts?
The answer is she was not prepared for the hearing because Alexandra Grant and her lawyers made deceptive statements, even lied, in their last pleading and this ensured Cathryn Parker did not have the one piece of evidence she needed to prove her innocence.
Alexandra Grant wanted the judge to determine that "convicted identity thief" and overall "felon" Cathryn Parker is relentlessly attacking her, a successful and well-known artist, by operating 11+ social media accounts to carry out this attack.
An obvious way for Cathryn Parker to prove this allegation is false is to have the company who owns the social media platforms provide information on the operators of the accounts at issue.
So Cathryn Parker sent a subpoena to Facebook, who owns Instagram.
Facebook replied to the subpoena stating they need more time.
Cathryn Parker filed a third request for continuance on October 23, 2020, after she was informed by Facebook that they would need more time to gather the account information.
Additionally, Cathryn Parker requested a suspension of the TRO in the interim because the other social media accounts named in the TRO were continuing to post negatively about Alexandra Grant, giving the appearance that Cathryn Parker was violating the TRO, so she was afraid she would be arrested and jailed.
Alexandra Grant’s attorneys filed a 21-page response, “PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT PARKER’S THIRD REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON RESTRAINING ORDER, AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF PARKER’S VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT’S JULY 15, 2020 ORDER AND ABUSE OF PROCESS.”
Michael McCarthy, one of Alexandra Grant’s attorneys, asked that Ms. Parker’s request for more time be denied and then accused her of asking for more time so that she could continue to harass Alexandra Grant in violation of the TRO.
That Cathryn Parker would have the luxury of time to create hundreds of posts from numerous social media accounts while she is solo defending herself pro se in the midst of Covid-19 is a ridiculous assertion by Mr. McCarthy and indicative of his disconnect from the majority of the human race.
Michael McCarthy is the second lawyer in an expensive legal team that also includes SISS to conduct investigations, a bevy of legal assistants and paralegals to conduct research, not to mention process servers for subpoenas and legal correspondence. The first lawyer on the case, Mathew Rosengart, is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig and a Super Lawyer with decades of experience.
Juxtapose this with Cathryn Parker who has no legal background, limited income and struggles with vision and other health issues, including mental health.
And Alexandra Grant and her attorneys were well aware of Cathryn Parker’s difficulties.
In September, Michael McCarthy received a Proof of Service of Response by Mail. The paperwork showed that the process server for Cathryn Parker was her Caregiver. She was forced to rely on help she had at hand during Covid-19 to comply as best she could with the lawsuit Alexandra Grant filed against her - filed against her with no advance warning.
Knowing that Cathryn Parker is at an incredible disadvantage and fraught with figuring out the legal process and conducting her own investigations to defend herself against all the accusations, Michael McCarthy filed a response designed to deny her request to move the hearing date to give her more time.
By denying a request to move back the hearing date, Alexandra Grant's lawyers were ensuring that Facebook would not find the operators of the other 10+ social media accounts in time for the hearing. (Note: Cathryn Parker already stated that IG account uiamalgmated was her account in a previous filing so this was not at issue.)
To support the denial for more time, Alexandra Grant's lawyers set up a situation where it appeared that any extension of time granted would be an act complicit with violating the TRO. They set-up dual issues:
(Issue 1)
Cathryn Parker is using the time until the hearing to continually harass Alexandra Grant by posting on social media via her numerous accounts and in violation of the TRO, and
(Issue 2)
The subpoenas Cathryn Parker is saying she needs more time for – they are abusive to the recipients and a vehicle to further harass Ms. Grant and, therefore, in violation of the TRO.
Ironically, they can only prove Issue 1 if all the accounts are proven to be Cathryn Parker – yet their objective with this filing is to ensure Ms. Parker does not have the Facebook information to prove the accounts are NOT all hers, thus denying her the ability to defend herself against this charge. Worse, Alexandra Grant's lawyers misrepresent how the court's online system operates and lie to make another fraudulent allegation against Cathryn Parker that puts her in disfavor with the judge.
Not ironically, Alexandra Grant and her attorneys attempt to prove Issue 2 by misrepresentation and misleading information.
Issue 2 - the SUBPOENAS
MISREPRESENTATION & MISLEADING INFORMATION
They censure Ms. Parker for being “delusional and harassing” in issuing 9 subpoenas that are “abusive and invasive” to Alexandra Grant’s colleagues and personal contacts. To support this theme, the first two subpoenas they list are Keanu Reeves and Eve Wood. This is by design because both were included by Alexandra Grant in the original RO filing as additional victims of Cathryn Parker.
According to Ms. Grant, Cathryn Parker is obsessed with Mr. Reeves and trespassed on his property while she was at his home and took photos of her car and posted them online using one of the 11+ social media accounts run by Ms. Parker. Also according to Ms. Grant, Cathryn Parker showed up at Eve Wood’s studio and harassed her to the point that Ms. Wood was forced to send a Cease and Desist Letter.
The Keanu Reeves allegation is false. The Eve Wood allegation is spurious and unproven. The only mention of it in all the filings and the hearing is Grant saying that it occurred. Nothing from Eve Wood, no statement, no testimony and no copy of a Cease and Desist Letter. (Both of these are handled in previous posts. And Post #15 has the court Minutes for the Hearing which lists all witnesses and evidence offered by both sides.)
Alexandra Grant's attorneys list 9 subpoenas and complain in a footnote that Cathryn Parker did not serve them properly by law (in person by a process server) and they "independently discovered" the subpoenas on the court docket.
So that I could see what Mr. McCarthy saw, I checked the same court docket at www.lacourt.org under Online Services, Family Law, Case Access, and Case Number 20STRO03597.
The system shows 9 court subpoenas filed by RESPONDENT, Cathryn Parker.
It is logically tidy that Alexandra Grant’s opposition to the continuance filing shows 9 “abusive” subpoenas and the court docket also shows 9 subpoenas issued by Cathryn Parker.
Recalling that Alexandra Grant and her attorneys have a propensity to misrepresent information to the court, I ordered each subpoena from the court. I should have seen 9 matches and Keanu Reeves and Eve Wood's names on the first two subpoenas.
Only 8 matched.
In their pleading, Alexandra Grant’s attorneys intentionally do not mention the Facebook subpoena and instead state that artist Eve Wood was sent an “abusive” subpoena.
If Alexandra Grant’s attorneys have a subpoena to Eve Wood, they did not get it from the court docket, which would imply that if it existed, they received it from Eve Wood directly.
This begs the question: if Alexandra Grant’s lawyers were able to get a copy of a subpoena from Eve Wood then why were they never able to get a copy of the Cease and Desist Letter Alexandra Grant used as an allegation against Ms. Parker in her sworn Declaration to support the RO filing?
This misrepresentation that the subpoenas were simply a harassment vehicle violating the TRO coupled with repetitive statements maligning Ms. Parker undermined Cathryn Parker’s legitimate request for more time so that she could disprove the allegation that she was the other 10+ social media accounts.
A BLATANT LIE?
What supporting statements about the subpoenas were given to show the judge that Cathryn Parker was exploiting the system and that the subpoenas were abusive and fraudulent?
Alexandra Grant’s attorney stated that in these 9 subpoenas, Cathryn Parker, the convicted felon for identity theft, “demands that the non-parties ‘[l]eave account numbers and endorsement on the back of any [such] checks.’”
I have not seen any Eve Wood subpoena but going by the documents I obtained online, this is a lie to mislead the Judge into believing that the subpoenas issued by Cathryn Parker are a "sham" and abusive and an extension of the harassment of Alexandra Grant. In other words, that the subpoenas themselves were a violation of the TRO.
The Keanu Reeves subpoena clearly states, "with your account # blacked out" and none of the other subpoenas mention account numbers.
Note: For court ordered subpoena #2 - the Facebook subpoena does not ask for any financial information and I have not seen any Eve Wood subpoena.
Issue 1 - violating the TRO by online posts from the 11+ social media accounts
MISREPRESENTATION COUPLED WITH A LIE
With their claim that Cathryn Parker is using the time until the RO hearing to harass Alexandra Grant in violation of the TRO, Alexandra Grant’s lawyers also make the fraudulent allegation that Cathryn Parker is mocking both Ms. Grant and the court.
They misrepresent a new re-post by one of the accounts Cathryn Parker is trying to prove is not hers, rosescented1, as evidence to support their allegation.
This allegation that she is rosescented1 is designed to deny Ms. Parker the opportunity to prove the account rosescented1 is not hers. Ludicrous.
The lie: that the post was made before any third party was aware of the continuance thereby making it appear as if Cathryn Parker had to be the person making this post.
The truth: the LA Court system updated their website on September 8th and a member of Lipstick Alley named Bordeleau took a screenshot of the new court date and posted it. From there, another Lipstick Alley member named Antifragile made a satire post. Finally, one of the named accounts, rosescented1 (who is also a member of Lipstick Alley), re-posted the satire in her IG social media account on September 9th.
Note: Alexandra Grant's legal team should have known the court docket was updated on September 8th since they should be checking it as part of their duties, also recall they found the subpoenas on the court docket so it's not as if they were not looking there. Regardless, when they saw the RE-POST by rosescented1, they made a new allegation without making any effort to check the veracity - and they did this because it fit their false narrative and they were hoping no one else would bother to look into it. It took me very little time and effort to trace back to the origin of the RE-POST. This is not casual error on the part of Alexandra Grant's lawyers, this is willful misconduct. They just didn't care they were committing a breach of duty because they believe no one will hold them accountable.
Are there any more reasons given to mislead the judge into thinking that Cathryn Parker was using the requested additional time to violate the TRO instead of needing the additional time for subpoena information to come in? Is there any way to further muddy the subpoena waters?
Yes. Alexandra Grant alleges Cathryn Parker made a post as IG account free_keanu_from_fake_news and the information in the post matches information sought in the subpoenas.
Ms. Grant's attorneys state the subpoenas confirm Cathryn Parker's guilt in harassing Ms. Grant “by falsely accusing Petitioner of financial crimes to incite third-party harassment with malicious lies.”
So again, Alexandra Grant is using an old post made by one of the 11+ accounts she is alleging is run by Cathryn Parker as evidence to support her request to deny Ms. Parker the opportunity to prove this account is not hers. Utter nonsense.
IF Alexandra Grant was telling the truth and Cathryn Parker was operating all 11+ social media accounts – then Alexandra Grant and her attorneys should have wanted the continuance in order to get the information from Facebook to definitively prove her outrageous allegation since it was the linchpin of her RO filing. It holds everything together and without it, there are no grounds for a RO.
And even more so because this was a strongly contested allegation - Ms. Parker has stated from the beginning that ONLY the IG account uiamalgamated is her account.
Instead, Alexandra Grant undermined the request in a deceitful manner to ensure that the information from Facebook showing who was responsible for operating each of the social media accounts would not be available for the RO hearing.
My last point is this: Cathryn Parker was at an extreme disadvantage representing herself while trying to find a lawyer with reasonable fees during Covid-19. Alexandra Grant and her attorneys took advantage of this at every opportunity and misused a court system that benefits those with financial means and treads on those of meager means. Their descriptions of Ms. Parker in their filings were vulgar and needlessly cruel, but my real issue with them is that they made sure she was at an even further disadvantage than her economic status and lack of power and influence placed her in.
How so?
It is common courtesy for lawyers to send filings via email to the opposing parties’ lawyers so they receive it in a timely manner and have adequate time to respond. In this case, that lawyer was Cathryn Parker. They never extended to her this basic courtesy.
Alexandra Grant's lawyers sent notice of filings, during Covid-19, via US mail.
So Cathryn Parker could wait on pins and needles and hope the filings were delivered or she would be forced to go online and pay out of her own pocket for documents she desperately needed to defend herself.
To do this to a woman with health issues, during a highly contagious pandemic, who lives in affordable senior housing?
Despicable.
Wrongful convictions are rife with deception and manipulations.
Disreputable lawyers resort to duplicity when they don’t have a case.
Dishonest clients allow it out of desperation when their allegations are false and cannot be proven.
I say, “allow” because no lawyer files any pleading in a case without her or his client authorizing it.
In a nutshell, Alexandra Grant was aware of and signed off on every deception that was written in every filing in this case.
OR
The alternative, in my opinion, may be even worse -- that as a "Telepathy is One Step Further than Empathy" artist who is fascinated by words, she simply never bothered to read the words her lawyers wrote at her behest that would have the power to ruin another human being's life.
She just signed off on the pleadings without reading them.
After reading the Orange County Museum of Art (OCMA) webpage on Ms. Grant's latest exhibition, I have some thoughts on the framing of an innocent person by Alexandra Grant and her attorneys:
To be a loving, selfless person who treats others as equals and explores ideas about mutual generosity and exchange is the reciprocal of a person who is so devoid of empathy that they not only file false accusations against another but go "one step further" and knowingly use lies and deception to wrongfully convict a marginalized woman.
A woman you victimized solely to preserve your PR-driven reputation.
Your reputation that is so seemingly shallow that it may be in tatters long before the 5-year clock on the Restraining Order ends.
The "opportunity for good" here is an admission of wrongdoing followed by contacting the court to ask that the fraudulent RO against Cathryn Parker be cancelled.
I would truly like for Alexandra Grant to be the person she observably aspires to be and do the morally responsible deed of amending her wrongs against Cathryn Parker.
Soul searching takes time but it has been six months already, so I won’t hold my breath.
There is more to unravel from the last pleadings filed prior to the RO Hearing so I will circle back around to it later. Additional lies and deception in my next post – which will focus on Ms. Grant and artist Eve Wood.
