I contacted the court reporter on January 25, 2021, to inquire about purchasing the transcripts from the RO Hearing. She kindly replied that they must be ordered through her and asked if I was representing one of the involved parties because "transcripts have previously been ordered" and she didn't want me to purchase a duplicate. I assured her I was not representing anyone in the case.
I received the RO Hearing transcripts from her on February 6, 2021.
The transcripts show a proceeding that was rife with misinformation, fabrications and outright lies regarding allegations critical to the issuance of the permanent RO.
No legal system can be a justice system without transparency to the public.
The transparency here is to unveil ALL of the misconduct and misrepresentations.
I will start at the beginning...
A major player in this hearing was the JUDGE.
The ORIGINAL JUDGE, Emily Spears, had read all the filings and was very well versed in social media so she had a logical grasp of the specific allegations in this case. Judge Spears had the skill set and experience needed to properly adjudicate this hearing.
There was an interim judicial move that occurred just the week before the hearing. On November 2, 2020, Judge Spears was moved to another court. Her replacement was Judge Warren.
Judge Warren started as a public defender in 1989 and worked her entire career in the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office. In 2017, she was named Head Deputy Public Defender.
Judge Warren was probably not as social media savvy as Judge Spears. However, she is a judge who would have understood Cathryn Parker’s struggles in representing herself and then finding an attorney at the very last moment. She also would have immediately recognized that Cathryn Parker’s criminal history was minimal and not proof of the current allegations.
The morning of the hearing, the courtroom was reassigned.
WHY was the courtroom changed at the last moment?
Because Alexandra Grant’s attorneys advised the court that they had called a witness, Sergeant Gore, and they would need more than 5 hours for both his and Alexandra Grant’s testimony and to question Cathryn Parker. FIVE is the magic number – it changes the proceeding from a short cause case to a long cause case.
This change in the courtroom resulted in a change of the JUDGE. A brand new judge unfamiliar with the record in this case.
So the hearing was moved to the long cause courtroom of Judge Gould-Saltman. She graduated from college in 1979, before the advent of personal computers and decades before social media. She is highly regarded for her work in Family Law and most likely has a soft spot for children in traumatic circumstances since she writes on child custody laws.
Noteworthy, is that twice in her testimony Alexandra Grant referred to children in a way that would resonate with this judge. The second instance was a manipulation – no child has been targeted in this case, much less multiple "children" of her friends.
Note: Ms. Grant’s behavior of using a deceased child named Lena to create an image of herself as a humanitarian caretaker was the subject of a post at issue by someone who had lost a child and was grievously offended by Ms. Grant keeping the dead baby's tombstone for over a decade as a good luck charm. This woman who lost her child is not Cathryn Parker. From what I know of Ms. Parker, she is highly conscious of helpless ones and advocates for populations usually left on the fringe or uncared about – not someone who would use a child, much less target one, for her own selfish purposes. (See Post #11: RO FILING: “The Opportunity for Good” from the Named Social Media Accounts)
Attorney Rosengart took measures to ensure that this case would be moved to a judge who would be sympathetic to his client rather than Cathryn Parker. Ms. Grant's mention of children twice, early on in her testimony, was something that her legal team would have prepped her to do to sway the judge further in her favor.
Honestly, that is attorney Rosengart's job, to handle these critical aspects. And he is very good at his job which is why he is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig. He is paid big money by his clients to win for them-- and this is to the exclusion of anyone else who is not his client.
This brings me to the subject of anyone else in the vicinity who becomes collateral damage. Collateral victims dragged into this court battle are one of the truly emotionally upsetting aspects of this case.
For those who process information through their heart, some of the information I will be publishing in the blog over the next several weeks will be disturbing and maddening. Please make an attempt to leave your pitchfork and torch keyboards in the distance so you will have time to think before your emotions start posting.
BUT YOU SHOULD POST.
Opinion based posts are vital because it is a view into what is going on inside of people that may not be seen or known about until it is past the point of mediating or resolving. Hurtful, harmful, ugly, or profane speech are forms that I generally do not participate in but that I defend as a right to freedom of expression.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' wrote that the best remedy to combat harmful speech is “more speech, not enforced silence” and that the danger of serious evil is the only justification for suppressing free speech.
Justice Brandeis wrote his opinions a century ago and they are still relevant today.
Your voice is important. Don't be afraid to use it.
Last minute NOTE: Every weekend, I scan the named SM accounts that are still posting. Today I did not find one of the IG accounts which was central to the RO being issued against Cathryn Parker. I searched for a similar name.
This IG account was disabled/deleted today by Facebook/Instagram.
WHY and HOW?
The account Alexandra Grant Artist Fanpage reported rosescented1 for using photos from their fanpage without their express permission. They contacted IG and said that rosecented1 infringed their intellectual property rights - their copyright of the photos they took and posted online.
There are two interesting aspects of this - the timing and the hypocrisy.
The posts that were reported were made last year. No action was taken against these posts until recently. And strangely, after reading the transcripts, I sent a DM to this particular Alexandra Grant Fanpage IG account and asked them questions about a book party they hosted in Venice for XAB and Ms. Grant. I also inquired about the genesis of this fan account since their email contains the name Keanu Reeves and not Alexandra Grant. I wanted to give them the opportunity for their voice to be heard when I posted in this blog. They never responded to me. They will be a part of my next post - Post #18 - a post about Alexandra Grant as the Manager of XAB.
The hypocrisy is that I asked rosescented111 to send me a screenshot of a post from them. The post revealed that all their content comes from online. SO, they are reporting someone for using a photo from their online account when their account is exclusively comprised of photos from other people's online accounts.
The conundrum for me is how much time do I spend on this angle? Clearly this is a strategic move that came from attorney(s) for Alexandra Grant and Keanu Reeves.
Cathryn Parker could not be arrested for the rosescented1 posts since that would result in a hellacious civil lawsuit against both Alexandra Grant and Keanu Reeves - because Ms. Parker does not, nor has she ever had, a coordination or partnership with rosecented1. They are two different people who don't get along.
Because of this, the false RO against Cathryn Parker could not be used to shut down the rosescented1 account which has continued to post consistently, without any delays or interruptions.
So this backdoor method was their next best strategy to silence the criticism and appear uninvolved in the process of getting the account deleted.
I sincerely hope Ms. Grant and Mr. Reeves do not attempt to violate my rights and muzzle me. My voice here is meant to be of public service to report and educate using criticism of our legal system based on case study research that can be shared and disseminated for comment.
It would be bad PR since Alexandra Grant is an advocate for Human Rights according to a story by PageSix in December of 2019, "Inside the Life of Keanu Reeves' Girlfriend Alexandra Grant."
The United Nations is also an advocate for Human Rights. They adopted a resolution in 1948 called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration has 30 articles affirming an individual's rights. One of my most treasured is number 19.
This is not a freedom anyone should be willing to relinquish for themselves or others - including those who we disagree with and even those we vehemently disagree with.
Again...
No comments:
Post a Comment