Disclaimer: I made time for a post on crazy because that is the usual fare with this blog, unfortunately, I did not schedule for bat-shit-crazy so this post will not deeply address the latest circus of misinformation and intimidations. I will get to as much as I can today and in upcoming posts...
I have not blocked ANYONE on my blog, just one person on my email about a while ago. Anyone can leave comments and criticisms as long as they are respectful. I welcome the discourse. If anyone states I have blocked them, ask them for proof. If anyone makes threats in comments here, I won't bother engaging with a reply, I will report them immediately and I will follow up to ensure it is handled.
Along those same lines of misinformation, I did not make a fraudulent account (or any account) to get back into LSA. I am not back on LSA. However, this is a serious accusation that should be followed up upon with the LSA moderators. They should be able to check my old account with any new account that is being stated is also mine. I welcome anyone to follow up on this.
Housekeeping 101: only Cathryn Parker was served with the RO so only Cathryn Parker is bound by the conditions of the RO; she is the Restrained Person listed on the RO.
The other named social media accounts in the RO filing are not prohibited from posting unless they are Cathryn Parker and were served with a Restraining Order. Any nonsense about Cathryn Parker not being served legally or properly and the judge not caring is irrelevant to the RO now in place, nonsense and a diversion to intimidate and bully other people, namely the other 10+ social media accounts.
The final RO clearly shows Cathryn Parker was legally served by attending the hearing via phone and that the RO was transmitted to law enforcement to be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS).
The signed RO is filed with law enforcement and they are responsible for investigating any infractions involving THE RESTRAINED PERSON = Cathryn Parker. They are tasked with enforcing the RO. The judge has nothing to do with this. The hearing is over and she made her decision and described her ruling prior to signing the Restraining Order against Cathryn Parker.
Social media accounts are not served with Restraining Orders, they are shut down. Human beings are served with Restraining Orders - and arrested when they are investigated and found to have violated them.
As shown below in the screenshot of the RO, if the officer has probable cause to believe the restrained person has disobeyed the order, the officer must arrest the restrained person.
Attorney Rosengart was clear during the RO hearing that the TRO and the RO are about Cathryn Parker, the person. He even states, "this has nothing to do with any individual account" because a RO is served on a person. It is up to law enforcement to investigate PRIOR to arresting anyone for violating a RO.
Next, I interrupted my post on Sergeant Gore to have dialogue with another social media user who has criticisms of my blog. She feels I am too harsh on Keanu Reeves and too nice to Cathryn Parker (I will go into specifics on this in my next post).
There was a bit of a language barrier but one key take away was that because I am posting facts with screenshots of court documents, it lends credibility to what I am saying and that credibility leaks over to my opinions. She wants me to be more forthright about direct evidence statements versus informed opinions versus opinions. Since the Internet is global and many people do not speak and grasp English well, I will try to be more aware of this while I am writing.
My next post will be dedicated to what myself and this other person agreed upon and disagreed on incorporated into more aspects of the RO hearing. Hopefully, it will ease some of the tension between social media fans of Keanu Reeves who I didn’t know I was triggering.
During our exchange, she sent me a copy of a comment made by someone called investigativenewsa.
I do not know this company that is circuitously mentioned, Investigative News A, but I do have some pretty strong suspicions about this company.
(1) Our company was able to get all the Court Documents in the Grant vs Parker case, including a transcript of the Trial. It cost about $1000 for all the documents.
It does not cost about $1000 for all the documents, this is an exaggeration - I paid less. You can verify this with the online court system for each of the filings and the court reporter, which is who you go to for the transcript of the RO hearing.
(2) We also got copies of the tape-recorded testimony, which was not provided by the court.
This is correct -- tape-recorded testimony is not provided by the court.
WHY?
Because testimony is not tape recorded in family law in Los Angeles Superior Court. The court provides live court reporters. There is not any tape recording available.
The court reporter for this proceeding was kind enough to confirm this when I asked if a recording was available.
Which led me to wonder: how did this company got recordings of testimony?
Unlike all of the attorneys involved in the RO hearing who would know the answer to this question immediately, I do not know what the laws are for recordings in the California court system. So I looked it up on 2021 California Court Rules.
For court proceedings, anyone directly involved would have needed to get advance permission from the judge if they wanted to audiotape the procedure for note taking purposes only.
For an outside company, such as Investigative News A, access to record or audiotape requires written permission from the judge. This involves filing a Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (from MC-500) 5 court days prior to the proceeding. No such filing exists in the court record.
Plus, media coverage is prohibited for proceedings closed to the public.
Either investigativenewsa is Cathryn Parker and she approached the judge PRIOR to the hearing to gain permission to tape record the proceeding for personal note taking purposes only OR investigativenewsa is not Cathryn Parker and illegally obtained a recording from goodness knows where since it was a closed court proceeding where other than the lawyers, only Cathryn Parker was present for the entire hearing.
And I just don't see any of the lawyers opening up an IG account and blog under investigativenewsa on behalf of Ms. Parker.
Hence, it may be wise for investigativenewsa to clarify their public (mis)statement that they investigate various public figures and keep an archive, plus they have copies of tape-recorded testimony from the RO hearing.
According to the California court rules, any violation of the rules is considered an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court and can result in a citation for contempt for court or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions.
(3) …As far as the conclusions expressed by the author, they are conjecture and may not be accurate or correct. Only a party to the action could clarify said statements.
This is partly correct and part of my conversation with the social media account who had criticisms of my blog - that I am reaching a conclusion about the length of time of Keanu Reeves' involvement in the RO process when I don't have specific information such as his financials or a copy of the legal representation letter where Mr. Reeves hired attorney Rosengart to ascertain when he was hired and for what purpose.
This is a reasonable criticism- I do not have direct proof of the date Keanu Reeves hired attorney Rosengart. But he did hire him as evidenced by the hearing transcript.
Those who choose to believe Mr. Reeves is not represented by attorney Rosengart, you may prefer to move on to another blog.
Those who choose to believe Keanu Reeves only hired attorney Rosengart when he was made aware there was a subpoena for his financials, I respect that you are within the realm of reason. I disagree with you but understand that this is a possibility. My disagreement is mainly because that scenario does not explain the liberal use of Mr. Reeves name throughout the proceeding if the only connection was the subpoena. Secondly, I believe Keanu Reeves is intelligent, grounded and experienced, not an ignorant rube who would be oblivious to the implications of the RO proceeding on him and his career.
Any conclusions I reach are based on the information provided in the documents filed and the testimony at the hearing – which by law should be the facts of the case with accompanying evidence by Alexandra Grant to prove her allegations. And then secondly, Cathryn Parker's evidence disputing what she was charged with.
This is noteworthy:
As much as Ms. Grant and her legal team would like to rely on hearsay because it is permissible in this proceeding, providing only testimony by Alexandra Grant with no corroborating evidence to show that her words are true and correct should not pass the litmus test for any court in America – Family or otherwise.
In America, the onus is on Alexandra Grant to provide evidence to prove guilt of stalking and harassment under California law, not Cathryn Parker to provide evidence to prove her innocence.
In addition to the court filings and testimony, I make the effort to investigate further when the evidence provided seems patently false, such as the Eve Wood-Robinwood correspondence that proved the SISS exhibit offered by attorney Rosengart was fraudulent and misleading. (See Post #18)
Both parties to the RO had months to obtain evidence. The time to clarify anything was during the proceeding process - RO filing through hearing, plus the time allotted for an appeal. During this process, Cathryn Parker was at a huge disadvantage that is built into the justice system that favors money and influence.
The decision by the judge was based on the evidence presented -- and that is the heart of this blog because it goes beyond Cathryn Parker and extends into the lives of everyone touched by the justice system in America.
(4) As an example, the blogger uses the words, “Wrongful Conviction.” The Respondent was not “Convicted,” she was ordered to have no contact with the Petitioner…It is not a “Criminal Proceeding,” therefore the word “conviction” is misleading and an exaggeration of the facts.
As far as the terminology used – Cathryn Parker was wrongly accused of stalking and harassing Alexandra Grant using 11+ social media accounts.
When the TRO was changed to a permanent RO (5 years), Cathryn Parker was found guilty by the judge – convicted -- of the allegations made by Alexandra Grant. Investigativenewsa commenting that "conviction" is misleading and an exaggeration of the facts, is an exercise in using semantics to diminish what happened in this court of law and more importantly how the court system as a whole was affected by this order. And for those who have a personal bias against Ms. Parker due to her cantankerous nature and aggressive actions defending herself (I am not immune to her rants and accusations), try substituting the name "Jane Doe" or "John Doe" whenever I mention Cathryn Parker.
This is the true damage of this case - it affects us all.
My conclusions about the nature of this RO are not an exaggeration – a regular RO would simply be “she was ordered to have no contact with the Petitioner” but that is not the case here.
Cathryn Parker is not only prohibited from having any contact with Alexandra Grant but she is prohibited from referencing Alexandra Grant by name, tag or hashtag on ANY social media.
Add to this the allegation that Cathryn Parker is the other 10+ social media accounts.
How does this translate into Cathryn Parker’s life specifically or the other social media accounts tangled in this web? My last count, nearly 80 news outlets worldwide and Twitter picked up The Blast RO article because Keanu Reeves’ name and hashtag was used. Writers routinely post their articles on their social media pages in Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
Here's a great example:
The other social media accounts have been painted with a tainted brush that encourages readers to dismiss out of hand the information in their posts because Ms. Grant can point to a TRO/RO that leads everyone to believe that critical posts are from "hate accounts" by one convicted felon stalker who is delusional and posting false information about Alexandra Grant due to jealousy of her relationship with Keanu Reeves.
Anyone who posts an online criticism of Alexandra Grant can now be lumped into this category of a "hate account" and dismissed as having no credibility by an unsuspecting public.
Ms. Parker herself is prohibited from even commenting, much less posting, to adequately defend herself against the false accusations and lies that Ms. Grant herself disseminated to the media within 24 hours of the RO filing - beginning with the tabloid The Blast. Her defense is limited by not being able to mention Alexandra Grant or use tags or hashtags. This is like showing up at a gunfight with a knife.
Most people have no concept of the mental, emotional and psychological struggle involved with being prevented from speaking out about being railroaded in a court of law, being prevented from defending yourself against false accusations. Living in fear of being arrested and jailed for speaking the truth. That is barbaric. Most people could not handle that pressure.
This pain that Cathryn Parker is experiencing extends to what others are writing online that she doesn't agree with - myself included.
So why would I continue to write if I may be causing someone else pain?
Because this type of muzzling is system wide – this is not just Cathryn Parker who suffers from this wrong.
And I know first hand how devastating the effects of this type of injustice can be.
Cathryn Parker is one case that bleeds into and feeds the corruption. It continues, unceasing, if it is allowed to be. Unless people speak out.
The BIGGEST error in the comment by investigativenewsa was to ignore the damage to our protected rights under our Constitution by this judge’s findings and issuance of the RO.
With this PR motivated legal debacle, there is now a dangerous precedent in the California court system that undermines free speech by threatening someone with a possible RO, arrest, or imprisonment -- for speaking out on social media.
At the end of the hearing in his argument to the court, Attorney Ellicott specifically brings up the First Amendment.
Attorney Rosengart responds and initially states how low the burden is under the California Code for Civil Procedure (CCP) for harassment.
Attorney Rosengart then implies he meets the burden by Cathryn Parker ONLY being Uiamalgamated, Ann Maria Reeves, and Catharine1967 – because the three accounts together are alarming and annoying. No direct evidence was ever presented showing Cathryn Parker was Ann Maria Reeves or Catharine1967 so this is a red flag that the low burden of proof to convict Cathryn Parker needs these two additional accounts to be met.
Note: I mentioned in a previous blog post that I would get to the emails that Cathryn Parker sent to Alexandra Grant; the above screenshot from the RO hearing shows attorney Rosengart characterizing the emails as alarming and annoying - the emails are located under Pages and include analysis of the evidence used to connect Rosescented1 to Cathryn Parker-- https://grantvsparker-restrainingorder.blogspot.com/p/analysis-of-emails-sent-from-cathryn.html
Next attorney Rosengart makes the statement that there is no First Amendment protection for alarming, annoying, or harassing conduct -- and then re-frames and corrects this statement by saying “within the meaning of section 527.6 is not constitutionally protected.”
So the First Amendment does not protect speech if that speech meets the requirements of harassment under 527.6.
Section 527.6 legally defines “course of conduct” and "harassment." The important areas for this case are sending harassing correspondence to an individual & the course of conduct serves no legitimate purpose.
When the judge made her decision, it was inferred that she believed Cathryn Parker was more than social media account Uiamalgamated because of her wording, “includes consideration of posts that were sent to Petitioner’s business associates” and “the Respondent tagged or used hashtags.” She formed this belief with no direct evidence that Cathryn Parker was operating ANY of the named social media accounts other than Uiamalgamated.
Cathryn Parker made 3 online comments that were deemed posts and she never used tags or hashtags.
The only business associate you could say was sent a post was Oscar de la Renta because Cathryn Parker commented on their page. Oscar de la Renta is the only business associate, so this is not plural.
To sum up what Alexandra Grant and her attorneys think the new bar should be for defining harassment and what is considered "very, very alarming disturbing and harassing posts" = a comment on a colleague's account where Alexandra Grant is accused of fraud and of stealing from grantLOVE, plus her relationship with Keanu Reeves is mentioned. Alexandra Grant is NOT tagged - but she learns of the comment from her colleague and is embarrassed and humiliated.
This is the actual comment:
Troubling to me was the judge’s reasoning regarding comments where she loosely defines a form of harassment termed, “indirectly harassing Petitioner.” Judge Gould-Saltman stated this was when posts were sent to Petitioner’s business associates with the probability that those business associates would inform Petitioner.
Per this ruling, as long as the Petitioner shows a pattern over a period of time, no matter how short, and a continuity of purpose-- they can accuse one person of being multiple online accounts and never be required to directly prove that the accounts are one real person.
Protected speech is no longer protected if the person you are referring to is made aware of your speech because you tagged them or used a hashtag - and the person is seriously annoyed or alarmed by what you say – because this is the equivalent of direct harassment.
Namely, any public figure that does not like criticism aimed at them on social media using tags and hashtags – can now haul someone into court and have a RO issued that prevents the other person from speaking out publicly online about them.
And now, there is the additional legal snafu for any public interest activist or simply a regular person informing business associates via a post that someone they are doing business with may be dishonorable or a fraud who may damage their credibility. This has now been legally defined as a form of indirect harassment if the business associates inform the person you are warning them about.
HOW DOES THIS ALL RELATE DIRECTLY TO ALEXANDRA GRANT?
I am wondering where the Section 527.6 “serves no legitimate purpose” fits in here because there are laws protecting whistleblowers and “see something, say something” protocols where we encourage people to speak up when they see something amiss.
We are a society who protects individuals for doing the right thing and sounding the alarm for others when we see something unfair, unjust, corrupt, illegal, dishonest, or immoral.
This brings me to Cathryn Parker’s post, or comment to be more accurate, about Alexandra Grant’s management of XAB where she accuses Ms. Grant of committing fraud and even embezzlement.
Alexandra Grant also deemed the comment that she is capable of unethical or fraudulent behavior to be inciting other people. I CANNOT STRESS THIS STRONGLY ENOUGH: incitement is to encourage violent or unlawful behavior - this is a ridiculous exaggeration by Alexandra Grant to equate public criticism with a call to violence.
Since this was asked of Alexandra Grant from attorney Rosengart, it was a pre-planned question and a pre-planned answer. I would surmise it was to show that Melanie Cook, Keanu Reeves' attorney, decided no legal involvement was necessary - the implication being that the allegations against Ms. Grant were false.
However, what this does show is that Keanu Reeves was aware of the allegations against Alexandra Grant as the Manager and Publisher for XAB and decided his lawyer did not need to do anything - including sending a courtesy reply back to the person lodging the complaint.
I do not know the totality of Ms. Parker’s evidence on this matter, only the contract and correspondence between herself and Eve Wood. This alone is enough to raise eyebrows and ask questions; in my opinion it warrants a closer look at XAB and Alexandra Grant.
XAB offices are no longer at NeueHouse, where they launched in July of 2017 with Keanu Reeves, Jessica Fleischmann and Alexandra Grant as founders.
Ironically, Alexandra Grant says, “There is a strong sense of politics and social interest that goes through each single one of the books.”
Perhaps their next book should be about framing innocent people and then stripping them of their civil liberties as a public threat to silence critics– The Scapegoat’s Prison.
And although XAB was still reportedly at NeueHouse in August of 2018 and Keanu Reeves was centrally focused for name recognition, it was now a coworking space for only Keanu Reeves and his business partner, Alexandra Grant, to use as their office according to the piece done by The New York Times Style Magazine.
First, XAB is now sharing office space with three other businesses – all managed by either Alexandra Grant or her mother. Since XAB artists are not paid royalties until publisher operating expenses are paid, this may be a good thing to share costs. However, these are not independently owned companies that are sharing the costs– they are all associated with Alexandra Grant. And one of them is grantLOVE Project which Alexandra Grant has stated repeatedly is her charitable organization where she engages in philanthropy by raising funds for artists and artist projects. It is her love branding that she started years earlier but that only received notice after she merged it with Keanu Reeves (#keanureeves), her business partner and romantic partner, if the PR is to be believed.
Second, employees are resources; financial resources who are paid a salary for performing a specific job. For XAB, these salaries are part of the overhead for running the publishing house -- so these salaries are paid before artists are paid royalties.
Addy Rabinovitch was hired by XAB in May of 2019 according to her LinkedIn profile.
She worked at a popup shop for grantLOVE in Feb 2020.
Andrea Vocos was hired around the RO hearing timeframe in November 2020 as a Project Manager for grantLOVE and a Project Manager and Editorial Associate for XAB. Some of her strongest skills are writing and social media. She is a media and communications professional according to her LinkedIn profile.
So it is a tad confusing when despite a writing and social media specialist being hired by grantLOVE in November of 2020, that XAB employee Addy Rabinovitch was writing social media posts for grantLOVE in January and February 2021.
Then Addy Rabinovitch wrote another piece for grantLOVE in March 2021 entitled Alexandra Grant + grantLOVE featured in Pasadena Magazine.
NOTE: Ms. Rabinovitch did not write the actual story featured in Pasadena Magazine, she wrote the social media portion and created the link for grantLOVE on their IG page.
Employees are financial resources - they are paid a salary. Alexandra Grant hiring an employee who works for both XAB and her private business, grantLOVE, is confusing enough. Using a supposedly dedicated XAB employee for her private business - this is where criticisms about fraud and embezzlement come in.
Maybe Keanu Reeves doesn't care that the employee he is paying to do XAB work is actually doing grantLOVE work so this salary money pilfering is ok with him. But is he keeping track of how this is affecting his XAB artists being paid their royalties or has he relegated this to his Manager, Alexandra Grant? The same Manager at the center of contractual and monetary issues in the past.
My point regarding Cathryn Parker’s post is this: after Eve Wood told her she had not been paid nor given any annual statements and showed Ms. Parker her XAB contract, it was obvious that something was not kosher between Alexandra Grant, finances and XAB.
Keanu Reeves is not on any of the XAB paperwork – artist contracts or XAB filings – only Alexandra Grant and her long time attorney, Alexandra Darraby show up.
I believe Cathryn Parker had a legitimate purpose for these posts: getting Eve Wood paid and apprising Mr. Reeves, through his attorney, that there was an issue with XAB artist Eve Wood, and potentially others, who felt they were a victim of unethical behavior by Alexandra Grant, his co-founder, Manager and Publisher at XAB.
A legitimate purpose is NOT harassment.
This brings us to the other aspect of this RO proceeding - allegations on social media about Ms. Grant's character and business practices related to her philanthropy.
Note: there is a relevant blog post regarding Alexandra Grant's character:
Questioning of why Cathryn Parker would have maligned Ms. Grant's character were a main overtone of the RO hearing because fraud and dishonesty were central themes of the other 10+ social media accounts.
And Ms. Parker was accused of being ALL of those social media accounts so she was accused of all the critical posts.
During this questioning, Attorney Rosengart asked Cathryn Parker if grantLOVE was “Alexandra’s Charitable organization.”
Ms. Parker took exception to the word “charity” and proceeded to tell attorney Rosengart that grantLOVE is not registered with the IRS, has no business license in the city of Los Angeles AND it doesn’t have a fictitious business name filing so the money is not separated from Alexandra Grant and her personal bank account.
So my last query is this:
If Ms. Grant found Cathryn Parker so crazy and deemed her delusional, wouldn’t it be odd for Ms. Grant to take business advice from Ms. Parker?
And yet she apparently did.
Alexandra Grant, within one month of Cathryn Parker uttering those words in court about a fictitious business name filing, filed for a fictitious business name filing.
The Pasadena Weekly confirms this is an Original filing - meaning it is the first time it was filed. It also states that according to Alexandra Grant she started doing business as grantLOVE in January 2013.
I am truly only interested in the effects of this RO process on our justice system and our civil liberties. However, a large part of this case is about non-profits and charities where I have little expertise. So I had to go looking...
There is a wonderfully informative and lucid blog that I used for some of the information in this post. I mentioned the Post 7 regarding Alexandra Grant's history and character. The entire blog is very well constructed, deeply researched and informative, plus it includes a list of references for where the information was found.
The name is:
grantLOVE Project - An Investigative Eye on Charity Fraud
I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to take a look at this blog.
I believe C Parker is at least 2 or 3 people. I followed for long time one of them but after a threat I unfollowed. "She was going to ruin me" LOL wrong person to do that to. I personally do not know any of them but one claimed a lot of things prior to Grenat them became totally obsessed & & basically she owned him. It was like & I asked her if she had cameras in his home. Now if the RO if understanding this correctly cannot stop her the perhaps maybe she needs to sued for slander. Other words shut the F up or put you evidence where you big mouth is. She really loves to be a BULLY!
ReplyDeleteI did attempt to make a comment on blog #18 and was unable to do same. I'm not sure if you temporarily blocked our account, or if it was a technical glitch. We too have been getting inundated with people asking us questions about the RO Hearing.
ReplyDeleteSo, I will clarify. Last summer, Ms. Parker lost her caregiver to COVID. You are aware of this due to your ongoing correspondence with Parker. I will also note, that correspondence did not in any way violate any TRO or RO as you are a qualified legal researcher. If I understand correctly. You may or may not have a law degree in the State of Texas. However, you told Ms. Parker you are not a lawyer. Bottom line, when Cathryn lost her caregiver, I stepped in. I was with her throughout the court hearings and helped her. I'm the one who recorded the court proceedings. Now I have to admit I did it without asking Cathryn. So, if anyone is going to go to jail for it, it will be me.
As you are aware Ms. Parker founded a legitimate Non-Profit in 2017. I've worked with her on various philanthropic projects she's funded over the last 35 years. She is not an uneducated, marginalized person. She does care about you; but she stopped communicating with you and lashed out at you by email, because she felt you condescended to her, demeaned her and threatened her on more than one occasion.
You were "Banned" from LSA as a result of a direct threat you made against Ms. Parker. The Moderator of LSA alley labeled you as a "Stalker" based on a demeaning and threatening PM you sent to Ms. Parker. Cathryn also felt, that you used her to get information you promised to keep confidential that you are now publishing on this blog, while inferring the work was authored by your own hand. Again, painting an inaccurate picture of the truth. To justify your "means to an end", sort to speak. In addition, there is ongoing written proof of accusations that you used Ms. Parker. Through out your contact with her you kept making promises related to getting her legal help. You told her on more than one occasion, which conversely asking for confidential documents and information, that you would get her an attorney. You never in any way followed through on numerous promises of legal help. As a result, you strange her along for 4 months and when she realized you were never going to do as you promised, she at the last minute had to scramble to find an attorney. That happened at 4:40 PM on the Friday before the hearing. So, you, as a result of the games you played with her, to get information, caused her to be almost completely unprepared for the hearing. I imagine your response now will be to "throw Parker" under the bus again. Say it is her that is posting, over and over, so you can be responsible in her being arrested. Shame on you, shame on you! Time that checks egos at the door.
ReplyDeleteI believe the GrantProject blog WAS PUBLISHED BY YOU. Why everything you have listed there is Parker's research and work. In fact, some of what is written is word for word what Parker wrote in an email to you. So, is this your agenda, you get Parker arrested and take credit for her years of research. Your sell the book and make millions? Is that your fantasy? SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, shame of fools.
ReplyDeleteSo, everyone, let's get real. Parker feels your condescension and threating behavior toward her is ego based. You're need to control, is a product of a damaged ego. None of us are perfect; but that was her observation. She also feels, that in order for you to be balanced in your view you need to work on your "ego" issues. She understands your goal is to fight for "freedom" and everyone constitutional right. In addition, she believes because your job involves work with the "Justice System", she knows and understands your motivation. The system is no longer a system of Justice, and that bothers you, just as it bothers her. Our government no longer serves, "We The People", and the egregious wrong being done by our Justice System by stacked courts, is indictive of the failure.
Cathryn knows these things because she worked for people who have used their money, influence and power to stack the decks against and middle class, not only in the United States; but all over the world. She knows these things, and has worked for more than 35 years research and getting evidence, to being the lies, propaganda and false narratives to light. What exists in this country is "reverse Robin Hood", and every citizen of the world who puts their head in the sand, participates in the lie. What Keanu, why him as a social metaphor? The Matrix. That is no game. "As above, so below" is real.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the definition of the word "conviction". This is it from the Dictionary: "a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law". Ms. Parker as you well know, is not quality of a criminal offense, even though the verdict was not in her favor. She did not do any of the acts alleged in the RO Complaint, with the exception of UIamalgamated. You are fighting for free speech and the restoration of our constitutional rights; yet you follow along and paint Parker as "convicted" person. Why not say "framework for a wrongful verdict" then, you show respect for the person who helped you make your point and gave you’re the information you now publish as your authorship alone. If you are truly an advocate for truth then fight the word "conviction". According to the" Innocence Project", more then 1/3 of all convicted individuals in the USA are likely innocent. At least 12% have been proven to be innocent by DNA evidence alone. That is a fact. Enough said. Yeah, a lot to think about.
Sorry for all the typo's. Didn't have time to proof read. too late now. We'll publish a corrected version on our blog or IG account later. @investigativenewsa investigativenewsa@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI will write one reply to you, Ms. Parker. Please read what you have written before you post it. This was the main reason for why I was unable to find a lawyer to take you as a client - few attorneys have the time to deal with a client who is off-leash on social media. At some point you will have to decide whether you want your credibility damaged because you tell stories when it is convenient or because you are mentally ill and believe what you are writing. I know you are very intelligent and creative and I do not believe you think you are a friend of Parker's. I will ignore your other insults because we will simply not agree on them. As for the other blog about charities - this is not my work at all. I have a very full life and keeping up with all the bullshit associated with this Wrongful Conviction blog is all the spare time I have.
ReplyDeleteMost people want to help you because you were given a raw deal and you are innocent of the charges. Sometimes you make it challenging. I understand, I really do. But not everyone does. You need friends and supporters, not enemies. I hope you are well.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/the-keanu-reeves-discussion-thread.3269068/page-1275#post-69991368
ReplyDeleteSheep in wolves clothing are not friends. Your story changes yet again. Everything Parker testified to at the hearing was true, and no one who truly gives a dam about Cathryn cares about what you think. So, stop with the put downs. Stating Ms. Parker is a marginalized person, mentally ill and all that, is slander as it is not true. Ms. Parker comes from great wealth. Her family had 5 homes in three states. They had their own jet and traveled from home to home her whole life. In addition, her family did business with US Government departments, as well as with the Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Japanese Governments. As a child, she traveled to all those countries, as well as Israel, Jordon and Saudi Araba.
Parker lost everything when she was falsely accused of ID theft in 2015. She created and is the executor of a Land Preservation Trust which holds over $20,000,000 worth of land, which she purchased at tax sales and donated to the trust. The trust holds land in perpetuity so it can never be clear cut. You are a fool. You do not know her, you do not speak for her, and you do not speak truth. End of Story.
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/the-keanu-reeves-discussion-thread.3269068/page-1275#post-69991368
We are her friends and family. We care about her. We have not been in her life since September 1, 1984. That is the day she went to work for a foundation co-founded by David Hamilton Koch. He life and liberty ended on that day. If you don't think we have proof, bitch, think again. You’re a liar, and a user. End of story. So even if you cause her death by incarceration, through your nasty vindictive overblown ego, you will never silence us. Not having her in our life for all these years has been a painful process. Not knowing whether she was dead or alive for more than 35 years was hell on earth. Her mother dies never knowing what happened to her child. Enough said. You betrayed her trust, plain and simple. You are not a fan, who went out of her way to help Parker. You are a self-serving user. That will be obvious when people see the evidence. There is one thing about Cathryn which has always been true. She extremely organized, she keeps records and she knows how to cover her ass. That she learned from one some of the richest, most evil men on the planet. Einstein once said, "There is a thin line between genius and insanity." Genius see reality and are not suck in The Matrix, sort of speak.
ReplyDeleteMs. Parker, enough. Each time you rant at me, you simply harm yourself. Your penchant for attacking people who call you out or disagree with you shows an immature ability to accept criticism. I was not belittling you or your story - I have no earthly idea whether or not you are affiliated with any of the people or organizations you testified to at the hearing. And I do not care, truly. You can write your own life story however you please. I like your passion for the environment and social issues and there can never be enough warriors in those areas - so carry on.
ReplyDeleteI was making it clear that no one - and I do mean no one - believes you are not Cathryn Parker. You are not a new caretaker/friend/family member/ who showed up and furtively recorded the RO hearing. You are Cathryn Parker. You were foolish enough to record the hearing and then even more foolish to post that you had done so. Rather than thinking long term and simply admitting you made a tactical error and taking corrective measures, you forge ahead and go on a rant. Unhealthy behavior that serves no one. I WANT YOU TO HAVE A PLACE TO POST but what you are doing is not helping your cause. Please reign yourself in and control your anger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou said, " I was making it clear that no one - and I do mean no one - believes you are not Cathryn Parker". I thought you don't talk to all the "crazies" or follow any one? Too busy with the kids, isn't that what you told Parker in the past? I'll say it again, I AM NOT CATHRYN PARKER. Our group has 242 people who've reached out in the last 7 days. All of them know I'm not Cathryn Parker. I got 11 PM's from people who think you're a "control" freak because you won't just post the whole transcript and let them decide for themselves. None of them think I'm Cathryn Parker. We got 23 likes, smiles, hugs, & 3 WTF's. Three of them thought I'm Cathryn Parker, 20 of them DO NOT THINK I'M CATHRYN PARKER because I'M NOT CATHRYN PARKER. The rest really don't give a fuck about this blog or looking at this stuff anymore. They reach out to Parker on her IG accounts once in a while, just to say hi and wish her well. They know she is Cathryn Parker. There were also 3 or 4 thumbs down from the same person, in her case I don't care who she thinks I am. She has a live and let live attitude. I don't know her because I am not Cathryn Parker; but her attitude was she would never purposely do anything to hurt Cathryn. Unlike you who likes to win at any cost, even if it includes costing someone their life. Much like Rosengart.
DeleteThere is a good reason why you're Blogspot profile only had 3 views, when I looked at it yesterday. I already have 22 views, none of them think I'm Cathryn Parker. Frankly my dear, I don't think anyone really gives a dam. This is not rocket science, it will not cure cancer, it will not enhance anyoes life and it won't end COVID. The only person who seems to really love this stuff is Mommy Matrix who will likely call the police again, to make sure Parker is arrested. Especially since she's turned the Eve Wood check you posted (after deceiving Parker to get it) into some kind of African money order scam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWe got four more thumbs up overnight. They don't think I'm Cathryn Parker. One of them is a new LSA user named NANA BOO. So did you sneak back on LSA after they banned for you stalking Parker? So why does nana boo think I'M NOT Cathryn Parker if Nana Jones thinks I'M Cathryn Parker? IS Nana Boo Jones mentally ill? Does Nana Boo Jones have split personality disorder?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog. I found it thoughtful, insightful and alarming at the same time. I can't imagine that, in this 21st century, the dollar could sway our justice system. Only in CA can the Bill of Rights be so disregarded. Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteI do have my doubts from reading the comments that your time is well spent or deserved by Ms. Parker. Even more incredible is the notion that any credible "Investigative News Agency" would resort to foul language and the continual barrage of insults on any social media platform. I was feeling sorry for Ms. Parker before reading the myriad of comments. Maybe your time and research would be better served on another's wrongful conviction.
Thank you, I appreciate your kind support and I am pleased you find the blog "thoughtful." Your read into the investigativenewsa organization is spot on. I understand your feelings regarding Ms. Parker's responses; there is really no way for me to convey how I exactly feel about it because it is a mixed bag containing my own life experience. Ms. Parker isn't an ideal "victim" that you can extend your heart to and feel empathy for - she's feisty and resilient and fights her own battles in an aggressive, exasperating manner. At times, she epitomizes the essence of what must have been the inspiration for the "block user" functions on social media.
DeleteThe ruling out of the court is a terrible injustice because it was based on false accusations that were buoyed by money and influence - your statement about the Bill of Rights is perfect. And that encroachment on civil liberties is worth my time and research. Again, thank you for your comment. It meant alot to me.