Thursday, August 20, 2015

lots of detail to the Nick Kroll led Tig Notaro framejob/railroading... there is a better complaint but I can't find it just yet.


 Note: This was drafted two years before I stumbled upon the reason why, Tig Notaro, was able to "commandeer the legal system," and now she can get away with one of the most devious cancer scams in American History... She had some backing. And, there was huge effort made to preserve, "her brand."

All along, we had no clue why we faced such lawlessness and not stop,outrages( Public Pretender Alissa Malzman Sterling's words.)  

Alas, it was all due to the machinations of a homely wannabe comedian AKA Nick Kroll AKA Jules Kroll's disturbed and desperate son. 

He was able to place calls and pull strings to decimate law abiding citizens, and by all evidence he did so with pleasure. His forming and funding of the "Bentzen Ball." is just one of the incredible lengths he would go to to bribe open mic comedians, Martha Kelly, Jeff Klinger, and Jackie Kashian so he could assure their perjury.


 This all (below) was filed with hundreds of pages of documents that proved every allegation. I plan to add these documents to show that every allegation is supported by evidence. It is taking awhile because of a computer crash but I do have all the documents in other places but it is harder to work with. The disposition of this case and how that went down is coming soon. A troll on twitter(likely nick kroll) seems to think that It's taking me a long time. And, the troll(hi nick kroll) has a lot of nerve to give me PTSD and then complain. HARRUMPH. 

I also plan to add parentheticals to explain how Nick Kroll figured into to every allegation and how he obtained Lavely and Singer and Gregozek to essentially try to bury me in Patton or Jail.


Alisa Spitzberg,Henya Spitzberg, and Lauren Spitzberg
7513 Fountain Ave #203
Los Angeles, CA
90046
323-378-5801
In Pro Per

                                                 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


Alisa Spitzberg, Henya Spitzberg.Lauren Spitzberg


Plaintiffs,


vs.


Mathilde Notaro, Stephanie Willen, Reeta Piazza,John Gregozek, James Hoffman, and DOES 1-100


Defendants


Case No. BC460899
The Honorable Richard Fruin
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Malicious prosecution
Conspiracy
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Intrusion into Private Affairs
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
False arrest
False imprisonment
Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Defamation
Violation of and Conspiracy to violate fourteenth amendment rights under 42 U.S. C 1983- Malicious investigation
Violation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983.Deprivation of Property Without Due Process of Law
Trespass



PARTIES 
  1.   Plaintiff Alisa Spitzberg was, at all times relative herein, a United States citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California
  2. Plaintiff Henya Spitzberg was, at all times relative herein, a United States citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  3. Plaintiff Lauren Spitzberg was, at all times relative herein, a United States citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  4. Defendant Mathilde Notaro was at all times herein, a United States Citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  5. Defendant Stephanie Willen was, at all times herein, a United States Citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  6. Defendant Reeta Piazza was, at all times herein, a United States Citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  7. Defendant John Gregozek is a United States Citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  8. Defendant James Hoffman is a United States Citizen who resides in Los Angeles, California.
  9. DOES 1-100 might or might not live in Los Angeles
STATEMENT OF FACTS
  1. In January of 2007, Alisa Spitzberg (hereinafter referred to as “Alisa”) met defendant Stephanie Willen.(hereinafter referred to as “Willen”) Three months later they had a falling out.
  2. Upon information and belief, in 2005, Mathilde Notaro (hereinafter referred to as “Notaro”)had broken off all contact with Willen.
  3. Notaro is a well connected comedian and actress. Notaro makes it known at every opportunity that big names in comedy and film are very good friends of hers.
  4. Notaro also hosts and curates comedy and entertainment shows . Evidence will show that she was in the position to assist struggling entertainers and comedians in realizing their show business aspirations.
  5. Notaro writes about how she lets struggling comedians stay in her home . Evidence will show that Notaro would give jobs and “gigs” to those who would agree to lie for her in the underlying case.
  6. When Alisa knew Willen, Willen was a down and out actress, who often bemoaned the fact that she had lost all her friends, the acting and other show business opportunities , and the rent-free accommodations, Notaro provided her with before Notaro had cut off all contact with her.
  7. Notaro has a history of feigning fears and harassments and of making false accusations. Evidence will show that Notaro seems to enjoy the pretense of police being called upon to protect her, in the face of invented harassments.
  8. Notaro writes on her blog of accusing a girl of drug addiction when she admits she doesn’t have any idea if it’s true, and Notaro would tell a writer, Annabelle Quezada, for “The Comedians Magazine” this about two recent hecklers who were offended by Notaro’s jokes about Cancer:“So, they left and started yelling with the owner of the bar, it turned into a brawl and the cops came. I was still on stage this whole time. A fist fight broke out. This is all during my set. I had to stay focused and talk to audience while people were pinning each other down and screaming. And one of the guys that left, the police broke his leg while they were holding him down.”
  9. Evidence will show that, Notaro has made a lot of enemies due to her bad character. Therefore, many negative things were written about her on internet long before Alisa ever knew she existed. Yet, Notaro would pretend to her lawyer and then she would urge Gregozek and then prosecutors to file criminal charges against Alisa when others wrote something negative about her on the internet.
  10. When Alisa knew Willen, Willen wrote Alisa an e-mail in which she relayed a recent get together with Notaro .Willen claimed a girl began hitting Notaro and calling Notaro a “ Bitch Cunt. Dyke.” Upon information and belief, no such incident took place . Note that the alleged assailant, in that alleged incident, would use almost identical expletives, as coming from Alisa, when Notaro would perjure herself at a hearing to obtain a permanent restraining order on May 28th 2008.
  11. Willen also often spoke of being harassed by nearly everyone she met. Willen also would invent tales where police kept arriving. She would claim to Alisa that the police kept coming to the place where two women let Willen stay without paying rent. Willen claimed that one of the women was beating the other and the police kept coming. These too were lies.
  12. On, or before April 7th 2008, Notaro and Willen would begin to lie about and feign fear of Alisa.
  13. Notaro and Willen would promote the pretense that Alisa was either stalking one or the other, at various times. Then, Notaro and Willen, in order to cover up their lies, would begin to pretend that one or the other was being “cyber stalked” by Alisa.
  14. Upon information and belief, the idea of having a stalker imparted both Notaro and Willen with a sense of the fame and attention they both long desperately sought.
  15. Notaro would request “green rooms” be appointed for her as she spread the reckless and malicious lie that Alisa was stalking her. Notaro would begin to claim that the sister and mother of Alisa were stalking her too. Notaro would also begin to tell anyone that would listen, that all three plaintiffs were beating her up, and/or were beating up members of Notaro’s family.
  16. When such defamatory lies formed the basis of a defamation suit filed by Alisa against Notaro, on August 13th 2008, Notaro through an attorney friend of hers, Allison Hart(Hereinafter referred to as “Hart”) came up with a plan-- to call upon , John Gregozek( “Hereinafter referred to as “Gregozek.”)
  17. Gregozek, having an alliance with Hart, due the longstanding working relationship with the Threat Unit Management has with Lavely and Singer, would assist Notaro, in his capacity as an LAPD Detective,
  18. On August 29th 2007, Alisa saw Willen and Notaro at a well attended open mic poetry and comedy night, at a small coffeehouse.
  19. It was the first time Alisa had ever seen Notaro. Aside of some awkward conversation, nothing memorable occurred. No argument or fight of any kind took place. There was no violence.
  20. Eight months later, on April 7th 2008, Willen and Notaro would invent that on August 29th 2007, they had been accosted by Alisa. They would allege to Gregozek that Alisa then pushed Notaro outside this coffeehouse. Notaro would tell the court at the hearing to get a restraining order that Alisa called her a “disgusting bull dyke cunt.” Soon Notaro would describe same “incident”, to an investigator and now claim that Alisa never said that but “pushed Notaro inside the coffeehouse after “getting in her face” with “very much a verbal tirade.”, as an open mic took place on the stage. Notaro would tell the prosecutor many months later that Alisa had said nothing to her and only “focused on Willen.”
  21. Willen too would make many allegations in four versions she would give over two years. one to police, one in court, and two to prosecutors.
  22. Anyone viewing of the five wildly conflicting versions Notaro would then give, and the wildly conflicting four versions that Willen would give, as to August 29th 2007, would be convinced that Willen and Notaro are lying recklessly and with obvious malice. Such versions were in the possession of Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 throughout.
  23. Yet, Gregozek ,and then Hoffman, would only include the verbatim the statements made by Notaro to Gregozek “via phone” on April 30th 2008, and that Willen made “via phone” on May 6th 2008, in the coming two years as they sought charges to be brought and exigent and blanket search warrants be issued them.
  24. After such false accusations formed the basis for a criminal charge brought in August of 2008, Alisa went to the coffee house to find witnesses that might have been present on August 29th 2007.
  25. Alisa soon spoke to a man, Sam Consuegra (hereinafter referred to as “Consuegra”) Consuegra would tell her that he was a manager, had worked that open mic for five years, and had worked it on the night of August 29th 2007.
  26. Consuegra told Alisa that he could attest that not only had nothing at all unusual occurred but that he could get “lots of people who could say the same thing,” since it was small place and verbal tirades and violence, as people read poetry on stage, would not go unnoticed.
  27. Consuegra signed an affidavit, on December 19th 2008, which said, “There was no activity or fight at all.” Consuegra then appeared to grow nervous and said that his boss would not like it if he became involved with “any drama.”
  28. When an investigator for the public defender approached Consuegra in February of 2009, Consuegra told the investigator that he did not want to get involved, but still said to the investigator, as he was out the door, “I did not see any violence on that night.”
  29. Soon after obtaining Consuegra’s affidavit, Alisa sent defendant Hoffman a copy of it. Hoffman did not respond. Alisa called detectives John Gregozek and James Hoffman (Hereinafter referred to as “Gregozek” and “Hoffman,”) and pleaded with them to just talk to this one guy because these false accusations had essentially destroyed Alisa’s life.
  30. Gregozek said “ Let it go, it’s not a murder” and Hoffman said that he was just a “ride along” on May 7th 2008 ,when he came to her home, and not involved in this case. Alisa actually begged Hoffman to just please talk to Conseugra. Hoffman laughed, politely, and said, “We’re not going to go to coffee houses to interview witnesses … for this.”
  31. Civil Temporary and permanent restraining orders were obtained by Notaro based on this evening. Criminal protective orders and then criminal charges were obtained, for alleged violations of these orders on July 14th 2008, and January 7th 2009. Six exigent circumstances search warrants, and then two charges of stalking would be added on January 21st 2010, based on Willen and Notaro’s accounting of this evening.
  32. In late February of 2010, a deputy public defender, Alissa Malzman (hereinafter referred to as “Malzman”) called Consuegra before trial. Consuegra told Malzman, “I can’t believe this is still going on.” Conseugra no longer feared getting involved, and appeared very willing to testify to the fact that nothing alleged by Notaro or Willen, as to August 29th 2007, had been remotely true.
  33. On April 7th 2008, eight months after August 29th 2007, Alisa and Lauren Spitzberg (Herein after known as “Lauren”) were interested in doing a show together and wanted to see a sibling comedy team called, “The Walsh Brothers.”
  34. When they looked online and saw that the show featuring this comedy act was hosted by Notaro, they had no reason to believe that this was any cause for concern.
  35. Lauren couldn’t make it that night. Alisa decided she’d go alone. The show was very good and Notaro was a very good emcee.
  36. When the show was over, Alisa was signing a credit card receipt, and felt someone standing over her. She looked up and saw that Notaro was standing over her. Alisa instinctively said, “Good show” and Notaro said, “Thanks.” Notaro’s face looked malicious as she said, “Uh… Uh… you … pushed me. Yeah, you pushed me… the last time I saw you.”
  37. Notaro immediately scrambled away, and began talking to a woman it would later be learned was Notaro’s talent agent at the time. The agent’s name was Heidi Feigin and she would turn out to be a witness for Alisa’s defense.
  38. Alisa got off her seat and went to where Notaro stood, and politely said, “Did you just say that I pushed you?” Notaro said nothing, and ran to a man to say, “Remove her. She’s being aggressive with me.”
  39. The man seemed perplexed, but said in so many words that Alisa had to leave if Notaro said so. Alisa did not want to be further publicly humiliated and left without argument.
  40. Notaro’s malicious expression and these false accusations upset and scared Alisa. Still, it was assumed that somehow this could be cleared up, and so the next day she tried to contact the management at Largo but no one responded.
  41. There are very few venues in which to see or perform what is called “alternative comedy” in Los Angeles. Largo (and the Improv) are two of the very few and they are the premier venues catering to the less conventional acts labeled “Alternative comedy.”
  42. Alisa wrote Notaro and Willen emails expressing her upset and confusion as to why Notaro was falsely saying she was pushed by Alisa, and having her thrown of comedy venues. Since Willen was present on August 29th 2007, when now a push was being alleged, it was anticipated that Willen would attest that Alisa never pushed, or even said a harsh word to Notaro.
  43. Notaro would edit these emails and omit all of the exculpatory content from them in order to instigate and then persist in a malicious civil restraining order and then a criminal protective order. By May 7th 2008, Gregozek and Hoffman would be given the full e-mails and yet they would omit too all exculpatory content in order to get criminal charges brought against Alisa and then in securing seven illegal search warrants that would harm Henya, Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg.
  44. Notaro would make five statements regarding this April 7th “incident.” Two were made under penalty of perjury. These five statements, as to April 7th 2008, read alone, contain enough glaring inconsistencies, and obvious lies, to convince anyone that Notaro is lying with malice.
  45. Though four of the five statements (Another one was made pre-trial) made by Notaro as to April 7th 2008, would be known to Gregozek and Hoffman as early as February of 2009, Gregozek and then Hoffman would only include the verbatim accusations Notaro would make to Gregozek, on April 30th 2008, in the reports and “statements of probable cause” they would submit up until March of 2010.
  46. Notaro had told Gregozek that her agent were talking when Alisa “stepped in front of her and said only: “Do you remember me.” Notaro had repeated a variation of this lie in her affidavit to get the ex parte emergency temporary order but now alleged Alisa “approached her”. Yet, Notaro would then state to Judge Rosenberg, under oath, at the hearing to obtain a permanent restraining order, this: She showed up, and after she showed up , I was speaking to my agent….she got in my face -- If you will excuse me I will tell you what she said. She called me a crazy dike cunt. Got in my face and at that point I had security remove her,”
  47. On February 4th 2009.Neil Spector(hereinafter referred to as “Spector") the investigator for the public defender’s office, would go talk to the “agent” that Notaro mentioned to Gergozek, then in her affidavit and in the hearing, and that Gregozek mentioned in all the reports he’d submitted thus far to the city attorney.
  48. Heidi Feigin (Hereinafter referred to as “Feigin.”) , the agent in question, would make a two page statement. Feigin would state that not only did Alisa not say “ Do you remember me,” or get in “Notaros’ face” before calling Notaro a “Crazy bitch dyke cunt,” but that Alisa never made any contact with Notaro at any time and that and that, “ Spitzberg caused no problems at this show whatsoever and just sat at the bar watching the show.”
  49. Feigin went on to tell the investigator how she was aware of Alisa and watching her closely since Notaro had told Feigin that Alisa was “stalking her” and that Notaro, had a restraining order against Alisa.
  50. Evidence will show that Alisa only met Notaro once eight months previously and had never seen or before or after.. Yet, Notaro was defaming Alisa as early as April 7th 2008 . Notaro’s confidence that her agent would lie for her is not as farfetched as it might seem, considering how Notaro was able to get Gregozek, Hoffman, Piazza, and DOES 1-1000, to lie for her in the two years that followed April 7th 2008,but it shows Notaro’s tremendous arrogance, recklessness, and twisted pathology.
  51. Since this alleged incident would underlie the first three criminal charges brought ,and then would underlie two stalking charges brought, nearly two years later, Malzman ,the deputy public defender ,then representing Alisa, contacted Ms Feigin in February of 2010.
  52. Feigin agreed to testify at the upcoming trial. Feigin reviewed the statements of Notaro, and told Malzman, “I don’t understand why Notaro is just lying and lying like this. Nothing Notaro is saying is true at all.”
  53. Feigin further told Malzman that Feigin was getting increasingly upset as she was getting phone calls from Notaro’s new agent, Hunter Seidman. Hunter Siedman was saying to Feigin, “Why are you testifying for the other side,” as a means to intimidate her out of testifying at the upcoming trial.
  54. Gregozek having never interviewed Feigin, and then having willfully ignored the reports sent him will write verbatim what Notaro would allege to him by phone and add that the “agent” stood right there to help lend credibility to his reports submitted to the city attorney for filing, and then to request s for 6 exigent circumstance search warrants and then one blanket search warrant.
  55. Gregozek would make it look too that a report he filled out after speaking to Notaro via phone, on April 30th 2008, was made on April 7th 2008, and that the threats were made and that Willen was a witness. Yet, no threats were alleged by Notaro as to that date, and Willen was not present according to any account.
  56. Lauren had read her comedic stories at two selective venues since moving to Los Angeles in 2007. She was planning an act with her sister before this occurred, and therefore felt that Notaro’s lies had not only harmed her sister, but would cause her damage too.
  57. On April 12th 2008, Lauren attempted to get in touch with management at Largo. Largo only has a voice mail system and no one answers the phone there. When she received no response to her messages, Lauren said they should go there and talk to management and have management have Notaro explain why she was doing this.
  58. Michael Griffee would later confirm in his statement to the investigator and to a prosecutor that on April 12th 2008, “They came that night to talk to management.”
  59. Notaro would make five wildly false and wildly malicious statements regarding April 12th 2008, over the course of the coming 23 months. Yet, only the verbatim statement she would make on April 30th 2008, to Gregozek “via phone” would be included in any report he’d submit to the city attorney, or in his “statement of probable cause” to obtain six exigent circumstance, and then one blanket search warrant.
  60. Notaro’s statement as to April 12th 2008 would be consistent about only one thing: Police were called and arrived, and that Notaro saw them but that the Spitzberg sisters had left before these police arrived. Notoro also would claim to the Gregozek that such police arrived because the various actions of the Spitzberg sisters caused the club’s owner, Mark Flanagan, to have to call the police because the club was in “lockdown for 1-2 hours.”
  61. In an appellate brief, Allison Hart, Notaro’s friend and attorney, would tell the appeals judges that not only had such police come at the behest of the owner, but they had seen the sisters and visa versa.
  62. Hart would tell the same lies in order to get a defamation suit dismissed. The judge, Elizabeth Grimes, would cite the arrival of the police that night as one of the reasons she would grant Hart her Anti Slapp motion.
  63. A bouncer at a bar directly adjacent to Largo, Julius Quinn Roberts (hereinafter referred to as “Roberts”) stood right there. It should be noted that Mr. Roberts works by day as a parole officer.
  64. On December 19th 2008, Roberts would read what Notaro was saying in her affidavit to get the emergency ex parte temporary order, and then her testimony at the hearing, and then what she would tell Gregozek on April 30th 2008.
  65. . Roberts was disgusted. He wrote out and signed an affidavit that said: I am the door guy at the Dime which is no more than 16 feet away from where Largo once was. I remember the day in question and remember nothing happening. I talked to the ladies about a minute or two and invited them inside the Dime for a drink. These ladies are good people to be around and everything that woman said is a lie.”
  66. In August of 2008, Gregozek submitted a report to the city attorney in order to file a criminal charge of stalking and one for an alleged violation of a restraining order. In this report, he stated all accusations made by Notaro as if they were fact. In regards to her allegation that the police were called and arrived, Gregozek wrote: “The police were called but Spitzer (sic) had left before they arrived.”
  67. Gregozek would include the verbatim allegations made to him by Notaro and Willen by phone on April 30th and May 6th 2008 as the sole basis for all subsequent reports and search warrant applications though he was long made aware of the witnesses and other accountings and statements being made that made it clear that Notaro and Willen’s accountings were both false and malicious.
  68. Gregozek would assert too that he and two partners drove to the residence of Notaro on May 2nd and then that he talked to Notaro on May 29th 2008 but according to his reports, such encounters yielded absolutely no statements or any other documentation other than “after responding to a residence Notaro identified suspect by one photograph.”
  69. Upon information and belief, Notaro was changing her stories from moment to moment and what she would tell them on May 2nd 2008 had been so exculpatory that all her statements had to be omitted.
  70. Alisa and Lauren knew that, on April 12th 2008, they hadn’t done anything to warrant police intervention, and they had not seen police. Gregozek, on May 7th 2008, would question Lauren and Alisa as to why police had to be called and they expressed that they never saw police and did not see why police would be called.
  71. Gregozek would submit reports affirming Notaro’s allegation that she saw police after police were called, and would reassert that police came in order to get charges filed and search warrants issued him whereby he could invade the privacy of the plaintiffs on seven different occasions.
  72. Lauren and Alisa couldn’t imagine that a Detective would write as fact that police came, if it weren’t true. They assumed these unnamed police officers must have come and just left after seeing that they were not there.
  73. Such allegations would cause criminal charges to be brought, so after August of 2008, the sisters asked Mr. Roberts if he had seen police that night and Mr. Roberts forcefully, said, “Bullshit.”
  74. At another time the sisters were told that the investigator could not reach Mr. Roberts, and had given up and would try no more. The sisters sought Mr. Roberts out. They found him easily outside the Dime bar. Mr. Roberts told them that he got a letter and repeatedly called the investigator as he was anxious to tell him the truth, but no one ever got back to him.
  75. When Notaro‘s accounting of this evening would lead to charges of criminal threats and stalking in January of 2010, Malzman, the public defender, who took this to trial, was able to reach Roberts.
  76. Roberts came into the downtown courthouse to speak to both Malzman and the third city attorney official assigned the case, Katie Ford. Roberts told them, “Everything that Notaro was saying was a lie,” and that, “Anyone saying any different was a total liar.”
  77. In discovery it was learned that a city attorney, Martin Boags (hereinafter referred to as “Boags”), on September 10th 2009, ordered the records of April 12th 2008.
  78. Notaro and Gregozek and Hoffman and even Allison Hart were stating that police were called and came that night and yet Gregozek and Hoffman had not provided Boags with the name of the arriving officers or any other records relating to police involvement.
  79. On September 14th 2009, a year and a month, after the first charge was filed, Mr. Boags received documents from the LAPD, in response to his requests for the records of April 12th 2008 and April 29th 2008.
  80. Anita Bilal would certify that no such 911 call had ever been made and therefore no police ever dispatched to Largo.
  81. Not only had Notaro lied about something so easily verifiable, but Gregozek and Hoffman either made no attempt to verify this, or did find out that she had lied about this too, and they had hid it in order to be able to persist in the malicious prosecution.
  82. In report after report, search warrant application after search warrant application, they would write that the police were called and had arrived at the alleged scene, that night.
  83. After Boags was taken off the case on March 4th 2010, the city attorney, who took his place, would write a trial brief on March 9th 2010 where she would tell the judge that the police were called and came on April 12th 2008, though she had known this was absolutely false since September 14th of 2009.
  84. When Gregozek had no choice but to include the names and badge numbers of officers that did arrive on April 29th 2008, he would, but he would create an incident number when one didn’t exist. He would do so to further give false impression to the city attorney so they would file charges.
  85. Later it would be learned that no incident report or incident number existed-- only a printout of the time log and the transcripts of two 911 calls existed.
  86. In April of 08, Alisa hoped that the damage and defamation begun by Notaro was contained to Largo. She kept going to other shows and performing at open mics.
  87. On April 29th, 2008, Seventeen days after April 12th 2008, Alisa went to an open mic she’d been attending regularly at the Improv comedy club. It began at 4 P.M.
  88. Once there Alisa saw a flier that said that Notaro was performing that night but this didn’t concern her as Notaro wouldn’t be there till 9 PM. She figured if the open mic ran that long Notaro might see her, profusely apologize to her , and tell this was a case of mistaken identity.
  89. Alisa put her name on the list and talked to people as she waited to perform.
  90. At some point Alisa went outside of the club . There she was approached by a man, Brian Whitaker (hereinafter referred to as "Whitaker") who she recognized from his performance at a previous open mic at the Improv. Whitaker asked her, “Is your name, Alisa?” She said, “Yes, why.” This man then took out something from his shirt pocket, looked at it, and said, “Tig send us a picture of you and told us not to let you into the club.” (The forty year old, Mathilde Notaro, gave herself the nickname “Tig” and that is the name that is used to refer to her.)
  91. Alisa at no time tried to enter the club or at no time was removed from the club though such false allegations would later be made. Alisa argued that it wasn’t fair and told Whitaker that Notaro was out of her mind etcetera. At no time would anything Alisa did in response to such unjust and upsetting circumstances be construed as criminal.
  92. It was later learned that Whitaker was an aspiring comedian and a doorman at the Improv. Though .Whitaker and had never been paid for his “act’ , and had never met Notaro before, a short time after he would lie for Notaro at the restraining order hearing, he would write Notaro a public thank you saying, “ Thanks Tig for letting me open for you at the Improv.”
  93. Alisa went home and tearfully told her mother Henya Spitzberg (hereinafter referred to as “Henya”) and her sister, Lauren, what occurred.
  94. Henya, aware of the recent removal from Largo, and now this banning from the Improv, insisted that she, as on older woman, could clear things up.
  95. Against, the strong wishes of Alisa, Henya, insisted that she is the only person who could resolve this and demanded that Alisa drive her to the Improv, since Henya could not drive at the time due to health issues.
  96. It should be noted that this was not a matter of personal feelings. Alisa had been going to these clubs to perform for years in New York, San Francisco, Austin, and Los Angeles and resolving this sudden blackballing seemed urgent. All three women drove the short distance to the Improv comedy club.
  97. When they arrived outside they encountered a comedian who seemed to be poisoned against them. After speaking to him though this man softened, and said, “This can be resolved. Let me go in and talk to Tig and she should talk to you.”The woman agreed and waited on the sidewalk.
  98. This same comedian came out five minutes later, and said, “Tig refuses to talk to you.”
  99. The plaintiffs saw that Notaro was very destructive and very malicious and they just had no choice but to accept that a stranger, for no understandable reason, had decided to ruin the name and reputation and to destroy the career prospects of Alisa (Plaintiffs would later learn that Notaro was doing the same thing to Lauren and defaming Henya. ) At no point did they do anything that would cause any reasonable person to call the police.
  100. Henya, Alisa, and Lauren were walking to their car when they were stopped by two female police officers. One of the female officers roughly told the woman they could not leave, and that they had wait on the sidewalk while her partner , “checked it out.”
  101. The other female officer went inside the club for approximately 20 minutes. When this officer came out of the club she had a quizzical expression on her face. She then conferred with the other female officer, who then very warmly said to Henya, Alisa, and Lauren, “There has been no crime here, ladies. You are free to go home.” Then this same officer told them, “If I was you I’d get a lawyer.”
  102. The plaintiffs had no idea, then, why this policewoman would suggest they needed a lawyer, but would later deduce, from much evidence, that she had learned from the officer who had investigated that Henya, Alisa and Lauren were dealing with malicious liars like Notaro and Reeta Piazza(who it would later be learned had called 911 twice) willing to allege assault and trespassing and disorderly conduct and stalking and threats, when it was obvious that no crime of any kind had been committed
  103. The investigating officer, Montalvo, would be a witness for Alisa’s defense
  104. These officers were aware that Reeta Piazza( Hereinafter referred to as “Piazza”) had claimed in her two 911 calls that the plaintiffs were “about to come to blows, and that, “three crazy ladies are stalking my comedian, and it’s about to get really physical,” and that “They are circling the block and trying to get into the club” and at the same time, “ They won’t leave the club and were in the club for 2-3 hours,” and “were in the faces of my staff.” Yet, real officers, like these two officers, had concluded that no crime had occurred.
  105. It would be learned that these officers felt no need to even fill out an incident report or a police report.
  106. The transcripts of these two 911 calls show that Piazza is tailoring her malicious lies in order to bring about arrests as she alleges assault, trespass, disorderly conduct, and stalking.
  107. Piazza viciously states to the 911 operator that Henya is wearing a nightgown when Henya would never leave the house if not in either a dress or a suit.
  108. Notaro would make five very conflicting statements about this night .In her affidavit to obtain the ex parte order she would invent that a “Sherrif assisted her to sneak into a side door,” in the midst of the alleged mayhem. Gregozek never sought out the “Sheriff.There is no side door at the Improv.
  109. In January of 2009, the investigator for the public defender would talk to Piazza. The statements she would make to him conclusively show that her lies are malicious and that she did not seek out the police to for any reason other than to harass and punish innocent people, as a favor to Notaro, whom she saw as helpful to her business and career prospects since Piazza is a comedy manager.
  110. Piazza abused the system and aimed to inflict severe emotional distress on plaintiffs for no acceptable reason.Piazza would not tell the investigator that she made the 911 calls that night. Piazza will now claim to him that she never saw Henya and Lauren on that night. In her 911 calls Piazza implores the police to come because both Henya and Lauren “are about to come to blows’ and are “stalking my comedian, “and are “in the faces of my staff.”
  111. Piazza will completely change her story and now invent new lies that Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg have come to “her club” on unspecified times and unspecified dates and have “harassed her workers” in unspecified ways.
  112. Piazza would now invent that Lauren and Alisa had come to Notaro’s shows too and harassed Notaro in spite, we’d presume, of the restraining order in place at that time, January of 09.
  113. Lauren has never entered the Improv on any occasion. Alisa has only gone to their open mic, has never seen a show of Notaro’s other than the one on April 7th 2008, and has never harassed any staff or anyone, at any time.
  114. Piazza will also make claims to the investigator that contradict all statements made by Notaro and Whitaker, and herself--as to the events of that evening.
  115. On March 12th 2009, a city attorney, Jennifer Waxler, told the judge that these 911 tapes were her evidence, and yet such tapes were never produced though a transcript would be produced after January 21st 2010, nearly two years after the calls were made, when a prosecutor, Martin Boags, was brought in to do whatever it took to make sure Alisa does not get a “favorable termination.”
  116. On January 21st 2010, Piazza’s calls to the 911 operator, were used by the prosecution in order for them to try and justify the bringing of two stalking charges, and a charge for “criminal threats.”
  117. Piazza’s malicious lies encouraged and assisted a malicious prosecution in that her lies were used to substantiate seven baseless charges.
  118. Though public policy aims to protect those who to report a crime, no reasonable person would entertain any reasonable belief that the plaintiffs had committed a crime.
  119. Piazza abused the system in the worst ways. Her reckless deceptions and malice are very prevalent when seeing the evidence. Unluckily for her, Piazza’s malicious lies would assist and encourage criminal charges.
  120. Malzman, the public defender who took this to trial, would even tell Alisa that the prosecutor had told Malzman the lies of Piazza and it took Malzman awhile before she could learn the truth.
  121. Malzman was under the degrading and very false impression that Alisa had been going to No taro’s show and lurked around comedy clubs.
  122. Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 would never interview Piazza. According to recent discovery, Notaro provided Gregozek’s with Piazza’s number , as early as April 30th 2008, but either he never tried to contact her or he did contact her, found out what she said would prove exculpatory, and hid it.
  123. Gregozek would present only the verbatim statements made by Notaro to Gregozek via phone on April 30th h2008 as fact, in order to get charges added and search warrants issued, long after he was given the evidence and told of the witnesses who disputed everything said by Piazza or Notaro and the statements of Notoro and Piazza taken by the investigator for Alisa
  124. At an early stage in what would become a nearly two year long malicious prosecution, Gregozek said to Alisa, “ We checked it out and you were going to these comedy clubs to do comedy… not to see Notaro.”
  125. Due to this statement , and then according to later actions, and reports by Gregozek, it becomes clear that early on, Gregozek and Hoffman, did check out some things and discovered certain facts that would lead any reasonable Detective to conclude that Alisa was innocent of any crime, and that they were being lied to by Notaro and Willen. However, none of their reports or search warrant applications would, in any way, reflect their discovery of such information and would only repeat the obvious malicious lies told them via phone by Notaro and Willen.
  126. Gregozek and Hoffman, rather than submitting reports to the city attorney or district attorney with evidence that Notaro and Willen were filing false reports, lying to the police, and committing perjury, instead chose to do what they could to mislead the city attorneys and then many judges in the underlying case.
  127. It was later discovered that, Gregozek, had drafted a report on April 30th 2008, where he would omit the names of the officers who came the night before, April 29th 2008, and he would not name the officers we now know don’t exist, but he would include an incident number for the night of April 29th 2008.
  128. In order for Gregozek to obtain the the incident number he would have had to make some calls or ordered some records and he would naturally learn the names of the officers and wish to include them in reports. Instead, he would omit the names of the officers .It would be learned that no such incident report existed .
  129. From the time Gregozek and Hoffman discovered the names and badge numbers of these officers till all charges were dismissed, neither they nor any prosecutor would attempt to contact these officers. Or in the alternative, they did, saw that what they would have to say would prove exculpatory to Alisa and omitted any and all exculpatory information.
  130. Later, when Gregozek knew that the Spitzbergs had learned the names of these officers, “Jaqueline Montalvo and Janelle Badar”, Gregozek would include their names, badge numbers, and a fake incident number in his applications to get exigent search warrants issued. By doing so, he made it look as if these officers were inculpatory when in truth what they would say would be very exculpatory.
  131. 23 months later, the prosecution, based on the representations of Gregozek and Hoffman, would list Montalvo and Badar as witnesses for the prosecution when witness list was made up a month before trial.
  132. On February 23rd 2010, the deputy public defender representing Alisa ,would tell her that Montalvo came into court, and would not be a witness for the prosecution, but would be a witness for the defense.
  133. Malzman told Alisa that Montalvo, the officer who had investigated on the evening of April 29th 2008, had arrived at conclusions that would be beneficial to Alisa’s defense. Montalvo was put on call for trial and this is listed in the minutes.
  134. On February 26th 2010, three days after Officer Montalvo offered to be a witness for Alisa, and against the prosecution, Officer Montalvo got into a fatal car crash and she died.
  135. As of May 7th 2008, the plaintiffs would learn from an affidavit submitted by Notaro to the court on May 5th 2008 that Notaro had obtained the services of a lawyer named Allison Hart.
  136. According to this same affidavit, Notaro “believed” that Alisa was writing things critical of Notaro on an internet message board, According to this same affidavit, Notaro wrote ‘My attorney Allison Hart Sievers wrote many cease and desist letters,” to the websites where Notaro believed Alisa had written such things.
  137. According to evidence ,On April 30th 2008, Notaro was given access to Gregozek, via Hart, after Notaro failed , the night before, to engage genuine police professionals such as Officers as Montalvo and Bader.
  138. Upon information and belief, Notaro, seeing that Hart’s cease and desist letters could not cover up Notaro’s destructive and malicious actions against the plaintiffs; felt she had to take measures to stop such internet postings.
  139. Hart ,with Notaro and Willen’s complicity , made it so those Hart knew in a specialized LAPD unit, The Threat Management Unit, would then do whatever it took to have Notaro, now a client of Lavely and Singer , be satisfied.
  140. Allison Hart is a high powered defamation and entertainment attorney for the law firm of Lavely and Singer. Lavely and Singer represent Arnold Shwartzenneger, Tiger Woods, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, John Travolta, Quentin Tarantino, Demi Moore, Jennifer Lopez, and other very famous and powerful individuals in Hollywood.
  141. When Celebrities and other “high profile” individuals get into trouble they hire Lavely and Singer. These individuals count on Lavely and Singer to utilize “scorched earth” or “mad dog’ tactics in order to clean up the messes they’ve made.
  142. Marty Singer, one of the two founders of this firm, is credited with allowing Shwartzenneger’s Governership as Singer’s “mad dog” tactics succeeded in shutting down allegations of the former Governor’s alleged improprieties.
  143. Lavely and Singer are notorious for their threatening cease and desist letters and other intimidating tactics used against any journalist or blogger who dare write anything critical about their high paying and high profile clients.
  144. Though the plaintiffs never heard of Notaro before Willen mentioned her in 2007, and are not under the impression that Notaro is famous, when Piazza called 911, she told the operator that Notaro was a “high profile comedian.”
  145. When an author, David Waddel, wrote a book critical of the money driven celebrity threat management business and hinted that there was something shady about the founder of the Threat Management unit, a Robert Martin, and his unit, Robert Martin sued the author and publisher for defamation, using the law firm, Lavely and Singer.
  146. Upon information and belief, Waddel’s book implied that big money was being made based on manufactured stalking hysteria and that those that purported to be “ Threat Management professionals.”could make a fortune if they were in good with the right Hollywood law firms , and that LAPD detectives in this unit could make a killing either moonlighting as “threat Management professionals” or after they retired from the LAPD given lucrative positions in threat management firms such as Gavin Debecker and associates.
  147. When a journalist, Anita Busch, wrote about Marty Singer, and his connection to Anthony Pellicano, and a wiretapping scandal, where an LAPD officer, Mark Arneson, was implicated, it is alleged that Singer made it so this journalist, Busch, was terrorized. Busch ultimately left journalism due a nervous breakdown resulting from being terrorized.
  148. Gregozek and Hoffman are “Threat management professionals,” in an “Elite Hollywood Anti Stalking Unit” who work with Lavely and Singer often, since this firm’s celebrity clientele often have stalkers, or believe they have stalkers. It is common for Lavely and Singer to use the Threat unit management to help their clients secure restraining orders and criminal charges.
  149. The threat management unit deals in cases of felony aggravated stalking.
  150. Gregozek and his partner Hoffman have been the lead detectives on at least four recent high profile cases.directly involving Lavely and Singer. Recently Gregozek has been the lead detective assigned to Jennifer Aniston, Kim Kardashian, ,Halle Berry, and Sharon Stone.
  151. In all the cases involving clients of lavely and singer the restraining order application asks that the law eforcment agency involved identify themselves In each case the threat management unit identifies themselves and the names of the detectives involved.
  152. Notoros application for a restraining order asks the same. Notoro will only write “LAPD” .Gregozek, Hoffman and a Detective Defoe are never mentioned and she never mentions in her declaration that she contacted them.
  153. In every case where Gregozek and The Threat management unit are directly involved with Lavely and Singer the applications to get the R.O is typewritten, the lawyer signs it It also contains notes on their investigation, affidavits from the detectives involved, all police reports, incident, reports, mental health and criminal history reports as well as the cease and desist letters from Lavely and Singer, if such letters are sent.
  154. In every case assigned to the Threat Management Unit and handled by Lavely and Singer the file is at least ninety pages long.
  155. In this case, Notaro will obtain her order based only on her one page declaration. Despite the fact that on May 27th 2008 , Gregozek would hand deliver the proof of service to the Santa Monica Court, nothing will be given by him and his name and any involvement of his unit will be omitted.
  156. When a person wants to report a crime it is normal procedure to call 911, or to go down to a station house. OnApril 29th 2008 , Notoro had made Piazza call 911 twice. Montalvo and Badar , having no stake in the case, had done their jobs and saw that no crime had been committed.
  157. According to discovery( since it was not included in any file to obtain restraining orders,)Notaro would directly contact Gregozek, on April 30th 2008, the very next day, and make to him a series of false and malicious allegations.
  158. Gregozek, would in turn, write up a report based only on her allegations,and then lie to the city attorney in his filing report when he’d state: “ Between April 7th and April 29th Suspect Alisa Spitzberg confronted and threatened victim several times at the club where she performs.”
  159. Gregozek would state in the April 30th 2008 report he’d submit to the city attorney that on April 7th 2008, “Threats” would be made to Notaro by Spitzberg. He would also write and submit to the city attorney, “due to the violent and unpredictable actions of Spitzer(sic) Gregozek recommended that Notaro get a restraining order.”
  160. When Gregozek would submit this report to the city attorney, for filing in August of 08, he would describe that report only this way: “On April 30th 2008, Detective Gregozek interviewed Notaro via telephone and completed an investigative report. Gregozek advised Notaro to obtain a restraining order against Spitzberg.”
  161. Gregozek would say that these allegations were all made “via phone” .Yet; the report would be signed by Notaro.
  162. Gregozek would whine to Alisa by phone that “She didn’t get how it worked. That he knew that the city attorney wouldn’t file his stalking charge but he had to file it anyway if Notaro wanted him to. Gregozek would state to Henya Spitzberg “ What could I do. You sued her didn’t you?” as a response to why he was pressing criminal charges he knew to be baseless.
  163. Gregozek would later tell Alisa Spitzberg, by phone, that Notaro made him file the stalking charge on August 12th 2008.
  164. At trial the public defender explicitly stated to Gregozek, “ You are a detective for nine years. How did you file such charges.” Gregozek had no answer and didn’t dispute that he was the one who got those charges filed, not the city attorney.
  165. According to the court file, Notaro would try to get an emergency restraining order on May 1st 2008, but she would fail to do so, for unknown reasons, but it appears she did not bring any supporting documents.
  166. According to the same file, Notaro would return to the court, on May 5th 2008. This time she’d attach only a one page declaration full of malicious lies, and she would write even more falsehoods on the judicial council form used for such orders. In these judicial council forms she was now asserting that Henya, Lauren and Alisa “pushed people in line” on April 29th 2008.
  167. Notaro would write that, Allison Hart Sievers and the law firm of Lavely and Singer is representing her for the temporary and permanent order. And, the docket will reflect this.
  168. Notaro does not however include Hart’s bar number or even include the firm’s phone number and the order is signed by Notaro, not the attorney and the allegations are all made in first person.
  169. Later it would be learned that Notaro had not retained Hart for her restraining order matter, but had only written her name and the law firm, in order to influence the judge, who they knew would preside over this case.
  170. Notaro will write that she couldn’t give any notice to Alisa because she was so in fear of the “violence reoccurring,” and Notaro requests and is granted a fee waiver since she alleges that she is a victim of violence and stalking. when stalking and violence are said to have occurred the court waives the fees.
  171. The plaintiffs would learn, only after August of 20008 , that Gregozek,Hoffman, and a Detective Defoe had driven to Notaro’s residence on May 2nd 2008 ,and that Gregozek had driven to the “law offices of Lavely and Singer” to “pick up forums and e-mails written by Spitzberg.” And that on May 6th Gregozek had spoken to Willen “via phone”. None of this would be mentioned much less included until the criminal charges were brought.
  172. Nothing relating to any of these Detective’s activities was attached or mentioned in Notaro’s declaration. None of the Detective would show up for the hearing.
  173. On May 7th 2008, there was a knock on plaintiffs’ door. The men at the door said they were “LAPD.” Gregozek and Hoffman would then speak at length to Alisa, Lauren, and Henya Spitzberg over the course of two hours and tell them they were responding to a “crime report.”
  174. Only in March of 2009 did the plaintiffs learn that this two hour interrogation or interview was taped without their permission when such a tape was included in discovery.
  175. During the two hours, Gregozek said, at some point, “Just stay off the internet and you won’t get in trouble.” During these two hours Gregozek and Hoffman were told of witnesses and e-mails that existed. During the two hours much was said of consequence.
  176. Yet, when Gregozek would include this date in the reports submitted to the city attorney he would not only invent actions and statements on the part of Alisa and Lauren but he would entirely omit any discussion that was exculpatory. The many statements made by Henya Spitzberg were entirely omitted and she was not even mentioned- as if she never was present and made statement at all.
  177. After speaking at length to Henya, Alisa and Lauren Spitzberg, Gregozek brought out a small sheaf of papers and handed it to Alisa . Gregozek then provided his phone number and e-mail address and requested that he be sent the e-mails that were mentioned to him by the plaintiffs.
  178. Such emails and other exculpatory evidence were sent to Gregozek, immediately. He never responded but by phone Gregozek kept saying things like “Let it go. It’s not a murder.”
  179. The sheaf of papers handed Alisa were an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order that Notaro had managed to obtain without notice or hearing, in the Santa Monica Court.
  180. The hearing for the permanent order was scheduled for May 28th 2008.
  181. In these papers, Notaro was asserting, under penalty of perjury, a series of malicious lies and detailing all sorts of scenarios and scenes that never took place.
  182. Notaro also wanted Alisa restrained from three men, Thomas Sharpe, Chris Fairbanks and Kjell Bjorgen, that she claimed were her roommates though no detail at all as to why these three men should be protected was provided. No allegation was ever made that Alisa had ever called Notaro at any time much less had ever gone to her home.
  183. Evidence will show that these three men never lived with Notaro and that Notaro just made it up.
  184. When it was discovered that a Thomas Sharpe had written that he never lived with Notaro, at any time, such information was sent to Hoffman. By all indications, Hoffman ignored the fact that Notaro just makes up imaginary roommates and manages to get them to have restraining orders against someone they’ve never heard of or met etc.
  185. Alisa began to contact lawyers. Some of the lawyers looked at the temporary restraining order and told her that it was absurd, that no judge would grant anything permanent, and that they wouldn’t take her money. They told her to just show up to the hearing, and not worry because they couldn’t see any judge granting anything permanent based on what Notaro was alleging in her declaration and the judicial council forms.
  186. In the ensuing 21 days before the May 28th 2008 hearing, Alisa did what she could to respond to the series of false accusations in this emergency order. She filed a lengthy response disputing Notaro’s false allegations on May 27th 2008.
  187. On May 27th 2008, John Gregozek came to court to hand deliver a proof of service for this order, but not one other document. It is very strange and unusual for a Detective of an elite unit to drive all the way from downtown, Los Angeles, to Santa Monica, and not file one affidavit or police report, but only hand deliver a proof of service.
  188. At the hearing, on May 28th 2008, the lawyer and law firm Notaro would list as the ones who filed the applications did not show up .No substitution of attorney was filed.
  189. The matter proceeded with both Notaro and Alisa as pro pers without the judge inquiring about the substitution of attorney issue or perhaps Notaro wanted to wait to see if her Lawyer was running late .
  190. In this hearing Notaro changes her story completely from the affidavit. Notaro is now alleging that Alisa is not stalking her but Willen. In this hearing, Notaro’s stories are radically different from the ones she would tell in her sworn declaration, to obtain the ex parte order. At this “hearing,“ Judge Gerald Rosenberg, repeatedly abused his discretion, denied due process to Alisa, and allowed Notaro to get away with her fraud on the court, and to perjure herself and to suborn perjury.
  191. By all indications, Judge Rosenberg, made no effort to conduct the hearing in any fair manner and appeared to be coaching Notaro. Rosenberg also had a witness for Alisa removed by a bailiff prior to them testifying, without any cause.
  192. The lengthy answer filed by Alisa Spitzberg, by all indications, was completely ignored and the judge would not let her give her side of the story or let her witnesses testify in any meaningful way.
  193. Judge Rosenberg would grant a three year order to Notaro, and to three men who were never mentioned, not present in court, and who never wrote any declarations etc.
  194. After the hearing, Lauren called Gregozek and told him about how Notaro has now completely changed her story, in this hearing, and how amongst other lies, Notaro had told the judge that Alisa came to Largo on April 7th 2008 to “stalk Willen” and how now Alisa was not saying “Do you remember me” to Notaro but it was now: “She got in my face called me a Cunt. Dyke. Bitch,”
  195. Gregozek sounded amused and said to Lauren “Well, she didn’t tell us any of that.” And then told Lauren that a restraining order means nothing, everyone gets them, and to “let it go.”
  196. Alisa Called Gregozek and Hoffman too and pleaded with them that her life was being ruined and to just talk to the witnesses. Hoffman laughed, asserted again that he was just a “ride along” and said, “We’re not going to go to coffee houses and talk to witnesses…. For this.”
  197. On June 24th 2008 , seeing that Gregozek and Hoffman would not investigate nor did they care what the truth was or how her reputation was destroyed, and feeling as if nothing resembling a fair hearing took place on May 28th 2008, Alisa filed a notice of appeal.
  198. In July of 2008, Alisa could not pursue comedy and in whatever venue she could go where she wasn’t being banned, she’d get dirty looks. She soon learned that not only had Notaro faxed pictures of Lauren and Alisa to the Improv comedy club but had faxed these documents to many other clubs, and told those getting the faxes that all three women were her “obsessed stalkers.”
  199. Low level and ambitious comedians, intent on getting in good with Notaro, were going on well trafficked comedy message boards and spreading such lies all over the internet.
  200. Poisoned with the defamatory per se lies of Notaro, these characters were feeling that they had to warn comedians about this Alisa S who was now, according to them, not only stalking Notaro but many comedians all over the country and lurking outside comedy clubs.
  201. A Scott Boxenbaum ,whose Youtube comedy videos get an average of 3 hits a year, called for the hundreds to thousands of individuals who accessed those comedy boards to “shun” and “ban” Alisa Spitzberg if they got the chance and spoke of her as the “town weirdo.”
  202. Alisa filed a complaint for defamation on August 13th 2008. Notaro was served with the complaint on August 15th 2008.
  203. Approximately a week after Notaro was served with the complaint for defamation, a summons dated August 19th 2008, came in the mail saying that Alisa Spitzberg was being charged with a crime and had to come court to be arraigned on October 1st 2008.
  204. Later it would be learned that the criminal charge was filed on August 25th 2008, and that it was strange that a letter dated August 19th 2008 would inform Alisa of charges not yet filed.
  205. Since she had not committed any crime, Alisa could have no idea why she was being now summoned for a criminal , or criminal charges.
  206. Alisa had to pay a lawyer five thousand dollars to help her with this and with the civil suit for defamation. It would turn out that this lawyer , Richard Fine, was disbarred and not allowed to practice law. Fine would go to jail , soon after being paid the funds, and be unable to do what was promised Alisa. Eventually, the five thousand dollars paid him was returned to Alisa by the state bar’s special fund.
  207. This disbarred lawyer, Richard Fine, would tell her to get the police reports,get affidavits from witness and request the signed statements that must exist considering the police reports. He told her to call the city attorney to find out what they were charging her with and why.
  208. Alisa called the number for the city attorney was given a man named Ed Gaultier. When she gave him the case number on the summons the man said, “ Oh. I can’t wait to get you,” and hung up.
  209. Not believing her ears, Alisa called back, and was put in touch with a few individuals who told her, “ Just ignore Mr. Gaultier that’s just the way he acts.”
  210. This experience was very upsetting . From August 19th 2008, to October 1st there didn’t seem anything Alisa and her family could do but wait till this arraignment to find out why she was being charged with crime or crimes( since the summons indicated that more than one crime might exist.)
  211. Since October 1st 2008 was Rosh Hashana, a jewish holiday, the arraignment was advanced to September 25th 2008.
  212. On September 25th 2008, Alisa was greeted warmly by a man named, Anan Desai. He was to be her public defender for the arraignment. His first words to her were, “Is this a joke? What is going on with female comedians in L.A?”
  213. He then read her the reports made out by Gregozek in order to get the charges filed. Alisa was very pleased to hear that Notaro had now given three very different versions: The declaration, the hearing testimony, and now a statement Notaro had made to Gregozek.
  214. This was the first time Alisa was aware that Notaro had spoken to Gregozek “via phone” on April 30th 2008 and Stephanie Willen had spoken to Gregozek “via phone” on May 6th 2008.
  215. It was the first time Alisa was aware that Gregozek was stating in such reports he, Detective Martha Defoe and James Hoffman had “responded to Notaro’s residence” on May 2nd 2008 and yet would provide only one detail as to this response to a residence, “ Victim identified suspect by one photograph.”
  216. Three three elite Detectives had driven all the way to Venice from downtown and all the had to say about this first in face meeting with their “victim” was “ Notaro identified the suspect by one photograph.”
  217. Later a documents would be altered to make it appear that Defoe was not involved.
  218. Sometime after May 2nd 2008, Alisa called the office of the Threat management after she spoke with a witness and Martha Defoe got on the line and was friendly before she said, “You should get a restraining order on her,” referring to Notaro.
  219. Upon information and belief, Defoe, and even Hoffman, very much wanted nothing to do with Notaro, but were pressured at certain times to please Lavely and Singer.
  220. Anan Desai then advised Alisa “I would be happy to take your case to trial.”He then saw Henya who accompanied her daughter to the arraignment, and said, “ I told your daughter, and I’ll tell you. I would be happy to take this case to trial.”
  221. Alisa and Henya did not know what that meant, but they’d soon learn that Anan Desai is a rare public defender, in that courthouse in that he wouldn’t pressure defendants to plea when innocent ,as was the practice in that high volume misdemeanor court.
  222. Alisa learned from Desai too that Gregozek was saying that Notaro had contacted him by phone, on August 1st 2008, to tell him that she had been called by a friend, Martha Kelly (Herienafter referred to as “ Kelly,”) on July 14th 2008 -- 18 days before-- August 1st .
  223. Notaro in this same call, told Gregozek that Kelly had told her that Alisa had approached Kelly at a comedy show and said to Kelly, “ Tell her to drop the restraining order or I’ll never let this go.”
  224. According to Desai this allegation made by Notaro to Gregozek was being construed as a violation of the restraining order since the allegation said “Tell Tig” and the order prohibited “third party contact.”
  225. In fact, Alisa had spoken at length to Kelly on July 14th 2008, and in the course of that long conversation, to the best of her recollection, she had said, “ She should stop doing this. It’s killing my mother.”
  226. Alisa had no desire nor would she attempt to “contact Notaro via third person.” She had been working on her complaint for defamation, and an appeal of the order, and a motion to set aside a void judgement ( since the order was based on both extrinsic and intrinsic fraud). It did not make any sense that she would try to pass messages via third person to this Notaro.
  227. After going to a comedy show and speaking to many people, including Kelly, on July 14th 2008, Alisa never for a moment said anything that would violate the order . When a summons came in the mail charging her with a crime she had no idea how this could be happening.
  228. If Notaro indeed believed that the order had been violated on July 14th 2008, why would she wait the alleged 18 days mentioned by Gregozek in his reports. Note that Kelly would testify that she did not believe Alisa committed a crime.
  229. Upon information and belief, Notaro angry that she was sued for defamation got her friend Allison Hart to approach Gregozek and insist that whatever be done to not lose this suit against Notaro and do whatever It took to clean up the mess made by Notaro -- to twist the innocent conversation with Kelly into a crime
  230. Then, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100, would play act that they were on this case, and use the name of their hot shot unit and the seriousness implicit in such involvement to influence the city attorney to file a criminal charge sometime in August(The date of such an addition is in dispute according to the city attorneys who handled the case)
  231. Upon information and belief, Gregozek , Hoffman and DOES 1-100, were convinced that when faced with baseless criminal charges, Alisa, would be sufficiently intimidated to drop her suit against Notaro and a common design would be agreed to by Notaro, Gregozek, Hoffman (and then the others when they feared suit) to press the city attorney to file this criminal charge after the defamation suit was filed.
  232. Though Gregozek would write reports where he would claim to be contacted by Notaro on and that he then submitted the reports on August 12th 2008, Gregozek’s later statement to Henya Spitzberg, “ What could I do . You sued her didn’t you,” as the only response to her query about how he could do this when he knew Notaro was a liar etc, is compelling evidence that he was only contacted by Notaro after August 13th 2008, when the defamation suit was filed and that he wrote false dates on the reports he would submit.
  233. Gregozek was falsifying reports to make it seem that he was applying for criminal charge right before the suit, when he wrote up the reports and submitted them after August 13th 2008.
  234. At the time the charge for violation of a restraining order was filed by a deputy city attorney ,Phyllis Henderson, a charge for “stalking” was submitted by Gregozek, and rejected by a city attorney named, Webster.
  235. Though this wasn’t known by the plaintiffs. They only learned this after they went to a station house looking for Montalvo and Badar, as it was not included in any reports submitted in discovery that “Webster rejected the stalking charge on August 22nd.”
  236. At the time, the charge for violation of this civil restraining order was filed, the city attorney did not have in its possession the temporary or permanent restraining order before filing such a charge.
  237. By all indications the charge was filed only on the word of Gregozek, since not one witness statement was attached to his reports. No attachments—the temporary or permanent order,witness statements or any other evidence-- was submitted by Gregozek. The orders were only ordered from the Santa Monica court by the prosecution on October 31st 2008
  238. Upon information and belief, the city attorney’s office was unduly impressed by the fact that Gregozek was a Detective of an Elite LAPD unit ,that only handles serious stalking felony matters, and that he often dealt with celebrities, or other high powered individuals.
  239. Gregozek also would make it clear to them in the coming year and a half that not only did he protect celebrities but he protected “ City workers and judges.”
  240. According to all proof Gregozek had no probable cause to believe Notaro would tell him any truth and no reasonable person would attempt to file charges against Alisa based on her representations on the phone as to this alleged third party contact with Kelly, as well as the lies that formed the basis of the stalking charge that had been rejected.
  241. At trial, Kelly would testify that she did not regard any statements made by Alisa as a “crime.” Notaro would only twist into a crime when sued for defamation.
  242. It was not Kelly who called Gregozek. It was Notaro who would call him and invent a crime, and use Kelly , who was in her debt, to assist her.
  243. Later Notaro managed to suborn the perjury of two desperate aspiring comedians , Jackie Kashian, and Jeff Singer, to back up her lies so the malicious prosecution may continue.
  244. Gregozek never interviewed Kashian or Klinger or mentioned them in his reports and never obtained any statements from them, signed or unsigned, and yet they were able to go on the stand and just make up stories and not be challenged by the public defender.
  245. As a reward for their complicity , Notaro would give all three , Kelly, Kashian, and Klinger, a spot at a large scale comedy event ,”The Bentzen Ball,” that Notaro would create in Washington D.C. Absent their complicity no such “gigs” would be given them
  246. The public defenders investigator would locate the manager of the club ,Tobin Shea, who told him he was there on that night and nothing noticable happened or he would have noticed it. Tobin was never interviewed by Gregozek.
  247. The city attorney viewing Gregozeks lies, omissions, and misrepresentations approved the charge on either August 18th or August 25th, without even having the order.
  248. Also, on September 25th 2008, without notice or hearing, Judge Dennis Landin, signed a criminal domestic violence protective order against Alisa restraining her from Notaro.
  249. When Alisa discovered such an order in the file, months after it was issued, she would complain and question the public defender, or the private lawyers , about how was it possible when she didn’t know Notaro, she now had a domestic violence order granted against her without any notice or hearing? They all would say that due process just wasn’t followed by many judges in those courts , and it is common for judges to grant such orders without any notice or hearing.
  250. Such a domestic violence criminal protective order, once issued, would be used by Gregozek and Hoffman, and then certain prosecutors, to improperly influence judges and even to try to add more charges at trial.Katie Ford, tried to add more charges , using this order, when she felt she was losing at trial.The trial judge, H. Randolph Moore admonished her, and the system, and expunged the order Nunc Pro Tunc.
  251. Upon information and belief, such an illegally granted criminal domestic violence order allowed a Judge Mary Lou Villar to characterize the charges facing Alisa as “serious and significant” and then a judge Maria Stratton, to characterize the non violent informal diversion charges against Alisa as so “serious and significant” that she would completely deny any bail and force Alisa to be coercively confined in jail, from November 4th to December 4th of 2009.
  252. The criminal domestic violence protection order is made out in the exact same handwriting as the one granted in the civil court. Upon information and belief, it was filled out by Notaro and is in the handwriting of Notaro.
  253. Desai informed Alisa that the city attorney was offering a plea of ten days in jail if she pled guilty and that this was very “harsh and strange” considering that Desai thought this was a “joke” and since Alisa had no criminal history at age 38.
  254. After pleaing not guilty, a pretrial was set for October 16th 2008 in Division 40 of the downtown criminal courts building.
  255. On October 16th 2008, rather than being met by the assigned public defender, Alisa was met by a woman not assigned her case, a Nicky Meehan. Ms. Meehan proceeded to tell Alisa and Henya that her assigned public defender, Jose Ruvalcaba, was running late but that she would handle the matter since she just found out that Alisa had been offered a “great and rare deal -- informal diversion.”
  256. According to Meehan, Alisa would not have to make any plea on the record, attend 12-24 hours of anger management, stay out of trouble for a year, and the case would be as good as dismissed and she could continue to have no criminal record.
  257. Alisa knew she had committed no crime—had not violated any order, whether void or valid.Had not gotten into trouble and had no problem managing her anger .She rejected this offer.
  258. Meehan began to appear very upset with both Henya and Alisa.She shouted at them how innocence and guilt didn’t matter in that court, and how one had get out if they got the chance. Alisa asked Meehan why she was being offered such a “great and rare deal.” And Meehan said, “Cause it’s a bullshit case.” Still, Meehan was very unpleasant about Alisa’s refusal to accept this offer.
  259. At the time, Henya and Alisa found Meehan irrational, pushy-- even paranoid. In retrospect, Meehan knew something of importance about the system, and that court. It isn’t known whether Meehan was trying please the judge that date or if she sincerely wanted to warn them.
  260. The assigned public defender, Jose Ruvalcaba, eventually showed up and told Alisa, after some discussion, to send him her evidence. Alisa sent him her evidence and he never responded.
  261. During the interval between October 16th, and the next scheduled pretrial of November 6th 2008, Alisa obtained the transcripts of the hearing of the restraining order, and discovered that the alleged roommate of Notaro, Thomas Sharpe, had confirmed that he never had lived with Notaro at any time.
  262. Alisa contacted Hoffman by phone and despite him claiming that he was only a “ride along’ and not involved in her case he agreed to give Alisa his e-mail address so she could send him the materials she told him of.
  263. Alisa send Hoffman such exculpatory evidence in large e-mail attachments, on October 17th and October 31st 2008. By all indications, Hoffman either totally ignored it or he saw it, and had to discard it as it proved that Gregozek and him were actively instigating and encouraging a malicious prosecution along with Notaro and Willen.
  264. For the first time too, in this time interval, Alisa was given copies of the reports made up by Gregozek and submitted to the city attorney .
  265. Such a report that Gregozek would draft and submit to the city attorney for filing should have contained many things that would be regarded as exculpatory had Gregozek been acting in good faith, but instead these reports just repeat verbatim the malicious lies told to Gregozek by Notaro on April 30th and Willen would make “via phone” on May 6th 2008.
  266. In such reports Gregozek lied about May 7th 2008 and seemed to do all he could to twist the truth in order to have a criminal charge brought. He invented “angry outbursts” on the part of Lauren and Alisa and for some reason lied about Alisa saying “ Sarah Silverman sucks,”When the tape made makes it clear that there was no angry outbursts on May 7th 2008 on the part of Lauren or Alisa and the tape makes it clear that Gregozek says “ Didn’t you say to Tig that Sarah Silverman sucks” and Alisa said, “ I never said Sarah Silverman sucks.” Sarah Silverman is a comedian who Notaro says is her best friend and though Alisa is not a fan of Sarah Silverman ,Gregozek wrote in police reports that Alisa said, “Sarah Silverman sucks” for no understandable reason.
  267. Later, in Gregozek’s notes, obtained for this civil rights suit, it would say that he interviewed Notaro again by phone on May 29th 2008 but like with his,” response to Notaro’s residence,” on May 2nd 2008, no detail is provided and no statements are included.
  268. Then, the report submitted to the city attorney would say that Gregozek drove to the office of Lavely and Singer on May 6th to “pick up e-mails and forums written by Spitzberg” and that on May 6th 2008 too he spoke to Willen “via phone.”
  269. The forums and e-mails he picked up were never included as any discovery in the criminal case and Gregozek is lying when he says he knows they are “written by Spitzberg.” Such forums were handed over in discovery and most of what is there was not written by Alisa.
  270. No evidence has ever been presented that Alisa wrote any e-mails or forums that had any evidentiary value to the malicious prosecution, and no such e-mails or forums were included as any discovery in the underlying criminal case.
  271. Not one witness statement is included though so many witnesses are indicated as Gregozek writes “the agent” was right there, and “security” removed Spitzberg and a “friend” called Notaro or a “manager” called Notaro.
  272. These reports for filing consideration were very interesting for other reasons. For the first time it was learned( since nothing was attached to Notaro’s application for a restraining order,) that on May 2nd 2008, Gregozek, Hoffman, and a Detective Defoe drove from downtown to Venice and “responded to a residence” where “Victim identified Suspect by one photo.” Yet, no witness statements were made and no signed or unsigned witness statements are attached.
  273. In other words, three detectives from an elite unit drove from downtown to Venice and finally were able to perceive their “victim” in the flesh and see her body language which is important to see in a “stalking victim” according to this unit’s policies . Yet according to Gregozek not one thing occurred other than Notaro identifying the alleged “suspect” by “photo”, and not one statement, signed or not, would be provided. Notaro’s alleged three roommate are not mentioned.
  274. These reports spoke too of how Gregozek and Detective Defoe drove to Redondo Beach to talk to Kelly on August 8th. But, again no witness statements, signed or unsigned would be attached.
  275. The report submitted to the city attorney in August of 08, would say that only Gregozek was a “reporting officer.” The same report would have to be resubmitted much later on, and the same report would now be altered and Hoffman’s name be penned in as another “reporting officer”
  276. The alleged drive to and then the alleged discussion with Martha Kelly was said to have been conducted by Detective Gregozek and Defoe, not Gregozek and Hoffman.
  277. Upon information and belief, Detective Defoe knew this was a malicious prosecution and made sure that her name not be attached to it. Hoffman submitted and agreed to have his name used.
  278. Evidence will show that police reports were altered in the course of the malicious prosecution.
  279. Defoe would re- appear when a large scale raid would be made on the home of Henya, Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg on November 4th 2009. Defoe and Hoffman did not show up to the trial.
  280. The alleged statement made by Kelly would contradict later statements made by Notaro to a prosecutor as well as her own statements. At trial Kelly would change her story in ways that suggested further perjury and the subornation of perjury.
  281. At the next pretrial hearing, on November 6th 2008, Franica Tawn was the public defender assigned . Tawn approached Alisa and said, “ Do you see Notaro in court?” Alisa did not and said, “ No. Why?” Tawn told her that Notaro had been subpeona’d to court today by the city attorney. Ms. Tawn also told Alisa that she’d learned that Notaro’s lawyer had been contacting the city attorney an inordinate amount of times. Ms. Tawn found this, “very interesting.”
  282. Notaro never showed up and later it would be seen that she and her lawyer , Allison Hart Sievers, had written e-mails to a prosecutor in order to get out of this subpoena.
  283. In these e-mails Notaro again would maliciously lie in order to further encourage and assist the prosecution that she, Willen Gregozek.Hoffman etc, had instigated.
  284. Notaro wrote this to a prosecutor , Carlos Ramirez, on Novemeber 5th :
    The following is my recount of being harassed by Alisa Spitzberg via third party. My friend and fellow comedian, Martha Kelly, informed me of being singled out and Harrassed by Alisa Spitzberg regarding the permanent restraining order I was awarded against Ms. Spitzberg on May 28th 2008.Martha described at being at venue called El Cid in Sileverlake to do stand up comedy and Ms Spitzberg approaching her and saying such things as “Tell Tig I said to drop the restrtaining order, she’s a pathological liar, my mother can’t sleep at night because of this.I can’t buy a firearm now. I don’t see her as a human being and I will never let her rest as long as she’s alive. Comedian Jeff Singer witnessed the interaction and contacted me about the scene Ms Spitzberg was causing at the show. Mr. Singer said that Ms Spitzberg’s behavior comments were extremely disturbing and offered to be awitness if I needed . Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter.
  285. Her lawyer, Allison Hart, wrote to this to the prosecutor:
Dear Mr. Ramirez,
further to our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon below is Mathide(Tig) Notaro statement concerning the substances of what her testimony will be in connection with the action against Alisa Spitzberg resulting from her violation of Ms. Notaro’s restraining order against her. This will also confirm that Ms. Notaro will be on call to testify in connection with Ms. Spitzberg’s trial and consequently Ms. Notaro will not be required to appear tomorrow morning pursuant to the Subpeona served by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office on Ms. Notaro on November 3 2008.


  1. Note that now Notaro, is now claiming not only harassments and “targeting” but is inventing that Alisa is talking about “firearms.” Alisa has never owned a firearm or would talk about firearms and if she was why would Notaro wait 18 days to report this alleged “violation.” Notaro is a very vile pathololgical liar and this would be clear to any reasonable person .
  2. A witness, Tobin Shea, would be found by the investigator as to this date and time. Tobin Shea is the manager of El Cid and present on July 14th 2008. Shea would state to the investigator that he never heard anything about this and would have if it occurred as he was the manager and present that night. At trial, the public defender claimed she could not find Mr. Shea.
  3. When the prosecution flew in Kelly from Texas, to testify at the trial. Malzman, Alisa’s public defender” said “ You are being railroaded. I can tell that they are all being coached.” Kelly and the other two desperate comedians lied repeatedly on the stand and tried to create intent to violate the order when no such intent existed and when no such violation ever even occurred.
  4. Any viewing of the statements to be made by Notaro, and her false witnesses , as to this first charge , would convince any reasonable person that this charge would never have been brought absent malice and evil intent .
  5. No signed witness statements, of those who would turn out to be witnesses , were ever included in discovery. No signed witness statement by any prosecution witness would ever be made nor requested by the lawyers that represented Alisa.
  6. During this time period, Alisa requested that Gregozek or Hoffman, tell her the names of the officers that came on April 29th 2008, since these officers names were omitted from the reports when an incident number was included.
  7. Gregozek and Hoffman refused to supply these names. Alisa was forced to go to various police stations inquiring as to who they were so she could talk to them and clear her name and try to put an end to this now 6 month malicious prosecution.
  8. At the Hollywood Police station someone agreed to assist her and looked at their computer. They said, “Stalking charges were rejected by Webster on August 22nd 2008.” But, the officer who assisted her would not tell her what police had arrived on either April 12th 2008 or April 29th 2008, and told her she could only find out their names by subpoena.
  9. Alisa was very upset to learn that Gregozek had attempted to press stalking charges. She called him and Gregozek said something to the effect that Notaro made him do it, but he had known the city attorney wouldn’t go along with that charge due to the reports he’d submitted for that one.
  10. Henya then got on the phone and said, “ Gregozek, How can you do this? You were in my house, you know that Notaro is a liar.” Gregozek replied with only this, What could I do. You sued her. Didn’t you?”
  11. Later in a Search warrant application made out by defendant Hoffman, Hoffman would write that Notaro “filed a stalking report,” In a later search warrant application Gregozek would now begin to write about Notaro filing the report, not him.
  12. To further show Gregozek’s complicity and ruthlessness, In the file too was an application that Gregozek had made out and signed for an arrest warrant on August 19th 2008.
  13. In this application for an arrest warrant, Gregozek says he attaches things yet there are no attachments. No evidence of any kind is introduced in support of his lawless attempt to arrest Alisa .
  14. Though the charge was for a misdemeanor , not committed in his presence, no arrest could be made, yet Gregozek still sought an arrest warrant . This does not make sense if not regarding his admitted reason for his participation, “What could I do. You sued her. Didn’t you?”
  15. Since Alisa was not arrested, and she was allowed her own recognizance at the arraignment it is clear that such an arrest warrant was denied, but the fact that Gregozek would so desire to arrest Alisa without any cause to believe such an arrest was warranted shows the implicit malice.
  16. In late December of 2008, the public defender was able to get an investigator to work this case, after urging on Alisa’s part, and this investigator, Neil Spector, began interviewing some of the many witnesses that were present during any alleged incidences of August 29th 2007, April 7th 2008, April 12th 2008 and April 29th 2008. Alisa theorized that when so much lies are out there interviewing the adverse witnesses could only benefit her and this theory proved very correct.
  17. The interviews with the investigator for the public defender began in January of 2009. Such interviews would conclusively show that Notaro and Willen were malicious liars and that anyone who backed up their stories had lied too.
  18. When talking to the investigator, Notaro would again completely change her stories. She would also tell the investigator a host of new lies. Now, she would talk of how Alisa had harassed another restrained person, Christopher Fairbanks, but omit that had this been the case Alisa would be prosecuted for a violation of the restraining order since Notaro had made up that Fairbanks was her roommate who was included in her restraining orders.
  19. Notaro would tell the investigator that she was “desirous of prosecution.”
  20. Willen would evade the investigator . Kelly would hang up on him when he questioned her and a Mark Flanagan would refuse to talk to him.
  21. The stories told by a Griffee and a Seccia that helped secure the restraining order for Notaro completely fell apart when speaking to the investigator as it appears they just forgot all that they’d said in the hearing. Any viewing of the statements they made versus what they would testify to in the restraining order hearing shows clear perjury on their parts.
  22. Sometime after calling internal affairs, Alisa, still not being able to digest that police detectives would be so uninterested in what is right and wrong and just being able to let someone’s career prospects and reputation get destroyed, called the Threat Management Unit to plea to Gregozek or Hoffman or anyone to just take a look at the investigator statements she now had in her possession.
  23. A woman picked up the phone at the office of the Threat Management Unit . Alisa asked to talk to Gregozek or Hoffman, and this woman, Suzanne Lopez, asked who was calling. After hearing, “ Alisa Spitzberg” Lopez said , “ Oh, now that you called internal affairs we can go into your computers,” and hung up.
  24. On February 14h of 2009, shortly after this phone call where a Detective Suzanne Lopez would say to Alisa “ Now that you went to internal affairs we can go into your computers,” a call was made to the home of the plaintiffs.
  25. The woman calling introduced herself as Sergeant Angela Lucie( Hereinafter referred to as “Lucie.” ) Lucie told Alisa that she was calling from Internal affairs. Lucie said that she wanted to inquire as to whether Alisa was interested in “Mediation with John Gregozek.”
  26. Alisa said to Lucie, “ Sure, Sure. I just want justice and for the the truth to come out .” Lucie talked about how she was wrongfully accused and how it had damaged her The conversation lasted in excess of two hours. About midway into the conversation , Lucie said, “ You sound perfectly normal to me.” Alisa regarded this as strange, but brushed it aside.
  27. At the end of the conversation, Alisa implored Lucie to just look at her evidence. Lucie, reluctantly agreed to provide her e-mail address ,and told Alisa she would call her in one week in reference to “Mediation with John Gregozek.”
  28. Much evidence was sent to Lucie via the e-mail provided by Lucie .These existing e-mails, sent from Alisa to Lucie, contain enough evidence to convince any reasonable person that Notaro, Willen, Gregozek , Hoffman and DOES 1-100 are acting in bad faith, and that Alisa was both a victim of restraining order fraud, corruption on the part of Gregozek and Hoffman and DOES 1-100, and is now being maliciously prosecuted in the criminal courts.
  29. Lucie did not respond to such e-mails . She did not call back in one week, as promised.
  30. On February 23rd 2009, Alisa finds a number on the internet that provides a number for Seargent Lucie . She calls and is connected not to internal affairs but an LAPD unit called the SMART unit.
  31. Sergeant Lucie really worked for an LAPD unit called the SMART unit. The SMART unit is a specialized unit that handles very mentally ill defendants, and they work closely with this Threat Management unit on almost all the cases handled by the Threat Management Unit.
  32. When Lucie realized she’s been caught she hung up the phone on Alisa.
  33. Alisa wrote Lucie and e-mail trying to have her explain and did not get a response. Alisa then contacted internal affairs to find out what is going on. She was stonewalled and lied to repeatedly by various individuals who’d say that that Lucie works for the SMART unit and for internal affairs.
  34. Upon information and belief, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 here realized that they’d been wrong to presume that specter of this Unit and baseless criminal charges would cause Alisa to run away in fear . Now, Alisa was not only not pleaing, but had gone to internal affairs, had written about what she was witnessing on the internet, and had even threatened to sue them if they kept persisting in this malicious prosecution.
  35. As can be seen by the actions and reactions of Lucie, as early as February of 2009, Gregozek et al began conspiring to cast doubt on the sanity of Alisa as a means to effectively discredit her so she could not able to hold them accountable in a civil action, for the serious damages, they had already inflicted on her as of February of 09.
  36. Upon information and belief, Lucie, could not in good conscience join such a conspiracy to discredit Alisa by making her out to be a nutcase, when it was clear that she was just a righteously indignant individual . Lucie was not heard from again , but the scheme to try to make Alisa out as insane would not end when Lucie refused to participate, and would be revived in a few months.
  37. In March of 2009 , a public defender, Kratu Patel, told Alisa that he believed that “ The public defenders office and you have,” a conflict of interest.”
  38. Later in the file an extensive formal motion to compel discovery was found in the file . It was drafted by Alisa’s public defender at the time, Franica Tawn. On that filed copy it says that a hearing on this motion was set for Febrary 12th 2009. No such copy of this motion would be found in the file till sometime in 2010 and therefore Alisa was not aware that Tawn had attempted to help her .
  39. Since Alisa could not afford a private attorney, at that time, and the Mr. Patel had told her of a “ conflict of interest” , and the public defender by all appearances had only filed continuances and told her nothing, and the judge would not allow an alternate public defender, even when informed of Patel’s statements that there was a conflict of interest, Alisa, for a short time in March 2009, went Pro per.
  40. Only after becoming her own lawyer was Alisa able to see that four exigent circumstance search warrants had been issued and executed on January 21st, 23rd, 29th and February 5th of 2009. The search warrant’s “Statement of Probable cause” included verbatim the long disproven and stale allegations made by Notaro and Willen to Gregozek on April 30th and May 6th of 2008, via phone, when so much exculpatory information was long known to Gregozek before he drafted his statements and affidavits.
  41. Pages and pages of documents then were attached to these search warrants. These pages didn’t seem to appear as any evidence of any crime on the part of Alisa. At trial it was proven that all these pages meant nothing and were a con job that ultimately failed for Gregozek.
  42. On March 23rd 2009, Alisa was informed that something went wrong with the court’s computers and her Farretta waiver would have to be made again as it wasn’t showing up as existing.
  43. Alisa was set to sign and initial another Farreta when she saw a “Supplemental” police report written by Gregozek on February 5th 2009, in the discovery recently given her.
  44. This document talked of How Notaro’s lawyer , Hart, contacted Gregozek because Notaro had contacted her and told her that she’d received four posting on her facebook page and “ Due to the content and writing style of the messages. Notaro strongly believes that the messages originated from Spitzberg
  45. The document then discussed how Gregozek went and secured four exigent circumstances search warrants where he went into the internet accounts of Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg .It is unclear what he found but it appears that he believed that Lauren Spitzberg’s Aol account in Forest Hills, NY was linked to one of the four messages.
  46. In this same “Supplemental” he says that upon this information Kelly Boyer, City attorney, added four charges of violation of a restraining order on Janaury 27th 2009. In the form it also says Action taken:” CA Boyer added four charges based on information provided by Gregozek.”
  47. It was now March 23rd 2009, and though Boyer is listed as the prosecutor on the January 28th 2009 minutes , that pretrial had come and gone and Boyer never brought up the fact that she planned to amend the complain to include the four charges she had apparently added on January 27th 2009,on “information provided her by Gregozek.”
  48. Alisa told the court that she could not initial the Farretta if she was not aware that she now faced four more charges. The city attorney, then assigned, a Jennifer Waxler, began shuffling through her papers and finally came up with something and said, “ Uh.. Your honor we want to add two charges.”
  49. Judge Ricz then sent them to the courtroom of a judge Terry Bork and there the prosecution added two charges: One for violation of a restraining order and one for telephonic harassment . There had never been any allegations of telephonic harassment but it would be told Alisa at a later date that since the allegation was that Alisa someone used a computer to write something that since a computer has a phone line the prosecution had managed to wring such a charge.
  50. Alisa never called Notaro on any occasion . She had never written anything on Notaro’s facebook page. She could not understand how when there appeared to be no link to her as to any of these alleged facebook postings, two or four or any charges could be added, at any time.
  51. Alisa could not understand too why it was saying that Kelly Boyer added four charges on January 27th 2009, based on “information from Gregozek,” when no evidence of any crime committed by her could exist and no evidence was presented that a crime existed .Yet now, on March 23rd 2009 ,due to Alisa mentioning that she was confused by the document that said “four charges were added on January 27th 2009” ,two charges had been added. In other words, this all made no sense.
  52. Alisa , now as her own lawyer on March 23rd 2009, was able to contact the prosecutor ,Waxler, and send her the evidence that proved her innocence. Much exculpatory was sent her.
  53. Alisa had the chance to look at the search warrant and all the other discovery and to try to figure out why four charges were supposed to be added, but weren’t, and then two charges were added when the non-existent four charges were noticed by her.
  54. According to discovery, available on March 23rd 2009, Notaro contacted Sievers sometimes after January 7th 2009, and told her that she,” believed” that Alisa wrote things on her Facebook pages.
  55. These are the things that Notaro “believed” surely must have originated from Alisa and that Hart would characterize to Gregozek and Kelly Boyer, as” threatening and highly disturbing”
1) Is it true that you’re going to be prosecuted for perjury and you’re your career will really suffer.
2) I heard that you will do anything to get rid of competition and you have done some really ugly things? What’s your side of the story -
3) She’ll do well in jail that’s for sure.”““Falsely testifying will win her over and get you gigs. That’s the story.”
4) “for someone who claims to have a stalker you seem pretty unscared. Shame on you.”
  1. In discovery, not provided in the criminal trial, but only handed over in response to this civil rights case, e-mails send to a city attorney, Kelly Boyer on January 7th 2009 and then to Gregozek on January 13th 2009 were found.
  2. Hart writes in the subject of such an e-mail ,to the city attorney and Gregozek “Cyberstalking by Alisa Spitzberg” and Hart would address her e-mail to the city attorney, Kelly Boyer” like this, “ Dear Kelly.”In this e-mail, Hart appears to forward Gregozek an email she sent the city attorney, Boyer, a week before.
  3. None of what Hart will write in this e-mail is true and no reasonable person would think it is true. Hart will provide absolutely no evidence of any threat or violation of any order and no probable cause to believe that Notaro or her would believe crimes were committed, or that Alisa ever wrote anything , before writing this to the city attorney and Gregozek,
Dear Kelly,
As I said, based on the statements, the writing style and language used on the foregoing posts, we are certain each of the posts are made by Spitzberg, there for these are additional violations of the restraining order. In particular, the threatening statements made to Ms. Notaro’s facebook page yesterday are highly disturbing. After you have reviewed this information, I would appreciate it if you would give me a call to discuss what the City attorney’s office can do to prosecute these additional violations of the restraining order, including issuing a subpoena to inspect Ms. Spitzbergs home computer and serving a subpoena on Facebook, as well as possibly zetaboards.co, dataloungecom and blogspot .com so that the City attorney’s office can obtain evidence proving that each of the posts was made by Ms. Spitzberg. Thank you for time and attention in this matter. I look forward to speaking with you.
  1. In such e-mails Hart characterizes these statements (paragraph 350) allegedly made to Notaro’s “facebook page” by Alisa a “very disturbing and threatening” Hart prefaces the introduction of these alleged statements by stating that she is sure anything she lists could only have been made by “Spitzberg”, Then Hart continues with a series of lies and allegations about other things that Notaro has found written about herself online that are “threatening and disturbing.”
  2. Hart includes all sort of links and quotes she and Notato have allegedly found on the internet and insist that such things are crimes committed by” Spitzberg .”
  3. The e-mail must be seen in its entirety to be believed. Hart asserts with deranged levels of arrogance, that police and prosecutorial actions must be taken because she and Notaro “believe” that Alisa wrote such things based on the “content and writing style.” . Hart then implores “Kelly” and Gregozek to go into the computers of Alisa, Henya, and Lauren and subpeoana records from all the assorted websites she lists, in order find evidence of this so they can both add more charges.
  4. None of these links or statements Hart includes, in any way, supply any probable cause much less evidence to have any reasonable person assert that Alisa wrote such things . When you consider that Gregozek knows that Alisa shares a computer with Henya and Lauren then it is clear that even had such statemens and posts found on the internet been linked to an IP address in the home of the Spitzbergs, it still would not confer probable cause. Yet, none of it was linked to any IP belonging to the plaintiffs.
  5. Hart proceeds to tell Gregozek and Kelly Boyer of blogs written by Alisa that were “disturbing and threatening .” Very suspiciously, Hart, does not produce them . Hart then claims they have been “deleted.” Alisa had never deleted any blogs and never has written anything threatening or disturbing
  6. It can be inferred by later actions and inactions, that all she would include in those e-mails in order to further maliciously encourage the malicious prosecution, was in no way linked to Alisa.
  7. Hart too alleges, absent reasonable belief or any evidence, that Alisa closed down her facebook page and reasserts that such a facebook page belongs to Alisa. Alisa has never opened a facebook account . Therefore, she has never shut down any facebook account.
  8. When one views the letter she has sent, in order to help Notaro procure more malicious and baseless criminal charges against Alisa, it is evident that any detective or prosecutor acting in any good faith would have told Hart to take her malicious nonsense elsewhere.
  9. Any reasonable detective or city attorney would recommended to Notaro and Hart that they should file a defamation suit if they were so convinced that Alisa and Alisa alone had written things unfavorable to Notaro. Instead, all evidence shows that Gregozek and then Boyer would seem to just cave to Hart and Notaros’ wishes soon after such e-mails were sent them.
  10. Rather than tell this unreasonable attorney and her unreasonable client to hit the road, such emails then appear to have mobilized Gregozek to begin to draft up affidavits and “statements of probable cause,” that would consist solely of the stale and long disproven allegation made him by Notaro and Willen eight months before.
  11. In these applications, Gregozek, will not only state lies as facts, but add dd his own lies and try to present them as fact, and completely omit all the exculpatory evidence in his possession and he will also now tell the issuing judge that he protects her in the instance she is in jeopardy.
  12. Gregozek will not be satisfied with procuring regular search warrants due to his perjury and bad faith, but he will desire that exigent circumstance warrants to be issued, and will write this in bold: There is probable cause to believe that disclosure of these records would impede the investigation, and place victims and witnesses in danger. Therefore, it is requested that the aforementioned web site not notify the subscriber(s) of the request of these records
  13. Despite no evidence being produced by Gregozek to substantiate such alleged circumstances, five judges will appear to oblige Gregozek, and allow him access to search the internet and e-mail accounts of Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg.
  14. Gregozek, Hoffman, and DOES 1-100 will then be able to search the private e-mail and internet accounts of Henya , Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg, without notice to them, based on no exigent circumstances and no probable cause. They will search AOL, FACEBOOK, AT and T, Peer One Network to attempt link these messages to Alisa.
  15. Despite all these illegally obtained exigent circumstance searches, and despite the serious violation of the civil rights of all plaintiffs by Gregozek’s illegal actions, pursuant to, and then during these searches, and after these searches, Gregozek found nothing at all to link any of these facebook postings to Alisa. At trial it was learned he found nothing linking any of them to Lauren Spitzberg either though the pretense was made that he somehow had.
  16. According to another Supplemental drafted by Gregozek on February 5th 2009, this failure to link any such alleged posting to Alisa, prompted a city attorney named Kelly Boyer( the city attorney also contacted by Notaro’s attorney and lied to repeadly by Hart, ) to add four charges of violation of a restraining order on January 27th 2009, “Based on the information provided by Gregozek.”
  17. Upon information and belief, some supervisor, or anyone with the power to deal with such things, must have stepped in and realized that one cannot add four criminal charges to Alisa when one finds no evidence that Alisa ever wrote anything on Notaro’s facebook page.
  18. Though such charges were never added, Gregoek would keep submitting “Supplementals” where he would write that such four charges were added up until November 12th 2009 .
  19. By November 12th 2009, it appeared to the judges and the newest city attorneys viewing these Supplementals that CA Boyer had added 17 charges of violation of a restraining order, when in fact she had not added a single charge.
  20. Such judges would begin to represent that Alisa was facing “serious and significant charges” and then make choices and rulings, based on the false impressions that Gregozek had managed to impart.
  21. On March 30th 2009, the fact that she had been told by the deputy public defender, Kratu Patel, of his belief that there was a “conflict of interest” and then fact that she had not been permitted an alternate public defender by the judge, and due to the facts that Notaro, Gregozek and the city attorney were acting in ways that left no doubt as to malicious prosecution, Alisa felt she had to get a loan from her sister to get a private attorney.
  22. On March 31st 2009 a lawyer, Howard Williams (Hereinafter referred to as Williams”) was retained for four thousand dollars.
  23. Williams spoke from the start of how outraged the taxpayers would be when they saw what this Notaro and Gregozek ,and all the others now involved, had done. He spoke of how the search warrants were illegal and had to be “traversed.”He wrote Alisa,“Notaro is commandeering the legal system, and it has to stop.”Williams spoke of all the motions he intended to write and how anxious he was to get started on the civil actions that “necessarily must result,” when he got the charges dismissed, or after an acquittal, though in the beginning , he said he couldn’t imagine this would go to trial. Williams commented often that .” something is very wrong with Gregozek.”
  24. Williams spoke of dates where he’d come in and file many necessary motions.
  25. On April 21st, as a response to Williams typo laden informal discovery request, The deputy city attorney, Jennifer Waxler, sent Williams a two page curriculum vitae of a computer expert named Sam Moreno that Waxler had listed in her witness list.
  26. Sam Moreno , the city’s purported computer expert, apparently worked for homeland security and the FBI and every other daunting sounding agency ever invented.
  27. Sam Moreno and Jennifer Waxler gaveno information as to what Sam Moreno might testify to but only included Moreno’s long and impressively scary “curriculum vitae.”
  28. Upon information and belief, this scared off Williams. Williams only recently had begun practicing criminal defense law. He did not want to jeopardize his fledgling practice by alienating judges and prosecutors when it was clear that such unusual measures were being taken to induce a plea bargain and that a malicious prosecution was occurring in this case.
  29. Mr. Williams told Alisa that he has never seen anyone as anxious as Waxler to have a defendant accept a plea offer of “informal diversion.”
  30. Nevertheless, at some time, and this cannot be known from the docket, because in case 8CA10541, the clerk simply was not entering any defense motions of any kind into the record, Howard Williams filed a motion to traverse the search warrants.
  31. While that motion was pending a hearing, A Supplemental would be found to be drafted by Gregozek in June of 2009. It appears from this document that Gregozek and Hoffman had linked a facebook posting allegedly written in January of 2009 to a family in Orange, California.
  32. In May of 2009, accordingly, Gregozek and Hoffman drove to the home of this family in Orange County, and questioned a Frederick and Frederick Brummer Jr. and then drove to the workplace of a Patricia Brummer and tried desperately to have any of these three people tell them that somehow they hadn’t written the facebook posting and Alisa had made them write it. The Brummers all denied knowing Alisa or Notaro and it appears the trip to Orange County was another waste.
  33. Hoffman had said that they,” would not go to coffeehouse to interview witnesses for this.” And, they had refused to go to Silverlake or West Hollywood or Hollywood to talk to the witnesses but were now driving from their offices downtown, on the city’s dime, to Orange County to try to somehow be able to add criminal charges to Alisa.
  34. What would become of the motion to Traverse is too murky to easily make sense of. But, evidence shows that something started going very wrong with Williams sometime after he cashed the check, and he was sent the resume of Sam Moreno.
  35. It would be discovered that Williams had not been filing any of the motions he was telling Alisa he had filed and was sending other attorneys to court and not informing Alisa of this.
  36. Such actions on his part would cause great emotional anguish to the plaintiffs, and later on they would further assist the malicious prosecution when the malicious prosecution sought to get the case to be resolved to their benefit by trying to make out Alisa to be insane, and would offer that Alisa had trouble with Williams as a means of supporting their plan to make Alisa out to be “a danger to herself and others” and “incompetent to stand trial.
  37. According to the transcripts ordered by the plaintiffs, it appears that though untimely filed a hearing for the motion to traverse the search warrants was scheduled on July 9th 2009.
  38. Then, in this same July 9th meeting , that was supposed to be a hearing on a motion, Jason Lieber, appears to make contact with Williams by blackberry. Jason Leiber then informs the court that Williams wants to subpoena Gregozek to the hearing on the motion to traverse that has now been “trailed.”
  39. Hearing that Gregozek might be subpeoana’d the assigned prosecutor, Jennifer Waxler, now wants to approach the bench with documents . She claims that such documents evidence that Alisa is contacting Notaro. Waxler wants the judge to “immediately remand” Alisa to jail.
  40. At some point Waxler tells the judge that she is working side by side with the “Threat Management Unit,” and that a criminal domestic violence order has been granted in this case.
  41. According to the transcripts, Waxler , approaches sidebar with documents. The judge being misled to believe this is a domestic violence case says that Alisa is “ facing serious and significant charges.”
  42. The transcripts show that the judge was not convinced that the documents shown her at sidebar were enough evidence to remand Alisa but that the judge was sufficiently influenced to schedule a “remand heairng’ for August 4th 2009. At some point Waxler tells the court that Gregozek can’t be subpoena’d to the hearing only after July 30th 2009, since he is on vacation.
  43. Later it would be discovered that Gregozek was not on vacation at that time.
  44. Alisa intended to see Williams argue the motion to traverse on July 9th 2009 but she arrived a little late and when she got there it appeared to have been over. She e-mailed Williams to ask him how it went and asked him to send her the motion dismiss that he had promised he’d send the night before.
  45. Williams wrote Alisa a very admonishing and foreboding e-mail in response . He told her that in court events occurred that might get Alisa jailed and even denied any bail until the September 1st trial date ,that was set, since the prosecutors had shown evidence that Alisa was “contacting Notaro.”
Williams warned in Capital letters that Alisa , TO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THIS CASE TO ANYONE.
  1. Alisa had never contacted Notaro, and felt very confident that no one in her family had contacted Notaro. Williams knew that Alisa had never contacted Notaro, and had often referred to Notaro as “that liar.” and so she said, “ Whatdo you mean “again?” You know I never contacted Notaro, what are you talking about?”
  2. Alisa asked Williams to forward her the documents he was referencing as presented in court, as some evidence of her or her family contacting Notaro.Williams then send her the documents that Waxler had presented to Judge Villar.
  3. These documents that Waxler and then Williams would present as evidence not only of contact with Notaro, but evidence that Alisa be remanded immediately to jail on July 9th 2009, were faxed to Waxler by Gregozek and from Notaro to Gregozek, the night before, according to what can be seen on top of the documents.
  4. These documents were printouts from a computer message board and included were posts made to this message board that discussed computers. The posts that Waxler had checked off to present to the judge were that a Lauren D. or someone using the screename “Lauren D. in the year 2005, had written to Notaro (who apparently was posting to this message board about computers .)
Me and my sister…. The ellipsis are made by either Waxler or Gregozek. After their ellipsis, an IP address for “Lauren D” appears to be included.
  1. So, according to Gregozek’s logic all and any Lauren that might have ever written anything in reference to Notaro must have been Lauren Joy Spitzberg, the sister of Alisa, and thus Alisa must be hauled off and remanded to jail at once since Waxler told the judge “ Alisa lives with her sister.”
  2. For reasons that should alarm any American, this profoundly absurd leap of logic appears to have been then incorporated by the deputy city attorney , Waxler, and then by the private attorney hired to represent Alisa.
  3. The judge then expressed concern about the “Victim” and said that Alisa faced “serious and significance of the charges,” but did not find that Waxler had presented her with sufficient evidence to remand Alisa, though she ordered a “remand hearing,”be set for August 4th 2009.
  4. Jason Leiber present in court on July 9th 2009, did not know the case since he wasn’t expected to, and so he made no attempt to counter the frauds on the court , and the gross mischaracterizations being made about the charges facing his partner William’s client.
  5. It is not in any dispute that Alisa, Henya or Lauren were only made aware of Notaro’s existence in early 2007 . Yet, even had Lauren Joy Spitzberg somehow known of her existence why would she call herself “Lauren D.” and go on some message board in 2005 and write something who’s first words were “ Me and my sister… why would that be in any way evidence of illegal contact much less lead anyone, in this case, Gregozek and Waxler, to request remands to jail for Alisa? Why would anyone tolerate some 2005 message board post with ellipsis inserted and content deleted by Gregozek?
  6. Upon information and belief, it was known to Gregozek and Waxler that if any fair trial would take place Alisa would get a favorable termination, and would file suit for the damages naturally resulting from malicious prosecution and illegal exigent circumstances search warrants executed the private properties of Alisa, Henya and Lauren Spitzberg.
  7. On July 9th 2009, when knowing a motion to traverse would have to be heard and now hearing that Williams intended to subpoena Gregozek, they devised that if they could just get Alisa jailed she would finally feel the weight of their power , wise up , and submit to the plea bargain .
  8. The August 4th 2009 “remand hearing” ,for no known legal reason, was never heard from again, and is never mentioned again by Howard Williams or anyone involved in the case. It can be inferred that Gregozek would check out that IP from Lauren D who wrote something in 2005, and that it was not Lauren Spitzberg masquerading as Lauren D in 2005.
  9. When transcripts were ordered it was learned too that no September 1st trial date had ever been set as Wiliams had claimed.
  10. On August 4th 2009, after failing to get Alisa remanded to jail ,due to the judge saying she needs more evidence, and then him being unable to find any evidence, Gregozek drafts another one of his “Supplementals.” He signs only some of these, and only some of them are signed by his supervisor, Jeffrey Dunn.
  11. In this supplemental, dated August 4th 2009, Gregozek is now omitting any mention of the “Lauren D evidence,” and is now asserting that on July 8th 2009 he was forwarded e-mails by Notaro wherein Notaro is alleging that she got messages on a Guestbook and that such messages were then forwarded to her e-mail address ,“ TigNation@gmail.com.”
  12. Notaro says that one message she or the guestbook allegedly received said, “ Poor piss stained Matilde. Thinks she can escape her sordid past by pretending to be powerful. You’re going down.” And then a second alleged guestbook message or posting says, “ You suck and you will never win looooooooser!”
  13. The document sent from Notaro to Gregozek related to these alleged messages would show that Notaro cut and pasted such message and forwarded them to Gregozek and the city attorney and wrote to them as preface, “ It’s obviously coming from that weirdo, Alisa.”
  14. Gregozek goes on to say “Notaro believes that both messages came from Spitzberg.” This time such an exigent circumstance warrant was issued to Gregozek and Hoffman as opposed to just Gregozek.
  15. In this application for a warrant, Hoffman states, under penalty of perjury, the same stale and long disproven lies as fact as his partner Gregozek has done. Interestingly, the allegation of the push in 2007 is now missing and now Hoffman is asserting that “Notaro filed a stalking report.”
  16. Nevertheless, Hoffman too acts obscenely when he asserts that there is probable cause to believe that “the victim and witnesses,” will face violence and danger if Alisa or Henya or Lauren are notified that such a warrant is requested or issued.
  17. Hoffman attempts, as his partner had, to improperly influence this judge to grant such a warrant by casting himself in some vague way as a hotshot stalking expert and domestic violence expert and a former homicide detective, and also telling this judge how serious a unit he belongs to and how such a unit protects judges in the instance they are in jeopardy. Hoffman does not include the many things he has been sent and that he has learned since April 30th 2008, though it is now July 28th 2009.
  18. After such another exigent circumstance search warrant was issued to Hoffman and Gregozek, prior to any hearing on the motion to traverse the first one, it was discovered, according to Hoffman and Gregozek, that the IP address belonged to someone named Gonzalez, who lived in the same building as the three plaintiffs.
  19. Later the manager of the building where the plaintiffs live told them that the pool was roped off for hours as these Detectives tried to confirm Notaro’s hunches in order to…
  20. Mr. Gonzalez, denied knowing Alisa or Notaro and Gregozek writes of log ins and routers that have expired and it is clear from this report too that he is trying to give some impression of a wrongdoing that doesn’t exist.
  21. The pool was roped off and now the neighbors were under the impression that Alisa, Henya and Lauren, were some serious criminals when in fact they are law abiding and good people.
  22. The manager in the plalintiffs apartment told the plaintiffs that he saw FBI on that day. The same manager would tell the plaintiffs after November 4th 2009, of how a neighbor tried to get out of her lease by saying that she didn’t want to live near criminals such as the plaintiffs.
  23. Gregozek or Hoffman nor the other officers, and FBI that the plaintiff would learn were present, came upstairs to interview any of the plaintiffs about these alleged postings that purportedly were originating from a neighbor they did not know.
  24. It should be noted that when Alisa knewWillen they often met by the pool. Upon information and belief, Willen or Notaro wrote such messages. Later, they would try this trick again.
  25. On this supplemental filled out by Gregozek on August 4th 20009, yet, again it will say, action taken, and then “Four charges added by CA Boyer,” when no charges would be added.
  26. On July 29th 2009, Williams came into court to withdraw from the case. Alisa had filed an opposition but the judge expressed, on the record, no interest in what Alisa had to say and said, “It just means you don’t get along with your lawyer.” The judge then let Williams withdraw at an unrecorded sidebar.
  27. After discovering that Williams had all along not filed or even written the motions he had said he did, and after being told by a public defender named, Kratu Patel, that he believed a “conflict of interest” existed between her and the office of the public defender, Alisa requested that the judge allow her the alternate public defender . The same judge refused to do so, as she had in that two week period in March where Alisa was forced to represent herself.
  28. On July 29th 2009, without the money to hire another private attorney and feeling as if she had no choice Alisa asked to go pro per. A Farretta Motion was signed . Judge Villar, who had seen her many times, granted it. At no time in court, or outside court had Alisa ever done anything that would lead any reasonable person to believe that she was in any way incompetent. She had always been respectful and had never missed a hearing( except for a short time when Willimas was retained) and had never even been late.
  29. As a pro per, Alisa filed all the motions that Williams had promised but had not filed , or had filed but so untimely that no hearing was had.
  30. She filed a motion to traverse with a franks hearing, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to recuse judge Villar since Judge Villar has repeatedly directed her clerk, Susan Rios, to not enter motions and hearings etc into the minutes , and just was acting in an outrageously biased ways throughout.
  31. Rios on one occasion told Alisa that the “Judge won’t let me file it.”
  32. Again, the clerk was directed to not enter the filing of these four defense motions into the docket, and though the file shows these motions as filed, and Alisa has conformed copies, no evidence of these filed motions exists in the court minutes of the underlying case.
  33. The clerk, Susan Rios, would not only not enter filed motions into the minutes, but when she would be called to set a hearing on these motions she would always tell Alisa that she was too busy and to call back . Alisa would call back, and again Rios would tell her the same thing or that Rios would get back to her. Rios never would get back to Alisa . Alisa would never receive any calls or mailings from that court though she was representing herself.
  34. At some point in August of 2009, Alisa called and implored Rios to set her motions for hearing. Ms. Rios said she had forgotten to tell her but she had set the motions for hearing on the next pretrial, August 12th 2009, but that Rios had just gotten off the phone with city attorney, Jennifer Waxler . Waxler had told Rios that she needed more time and Rios Told Alisa that Waxler was allowed more time and so the August 12th 2009 hearing would be taken off calendar and Alisa should not come prepared to argue any motions.
  35. Alisa then wondered if they shouldn’t just postpone the pretrial from August 12th 2009 to another date after Waxler was able to file her oppositions.Rios said “ No. No. Just come in on August 12th and we’ll have a…scheduling conference… we’ll schedule your motions.”
  36. In the interval between August 3rd and August 12th, Alisa felt that it would be wise to draft and file a “Pitchess Motion” for Gregozek, as she did only discovered Hoffman’s bad faith involvement on August 12th 2009, when handed discovery.
  37. Gregozek had already shot a man very early on in his career. And, the man was still suing Gregozek from prison, years later. Alisa also learned that Gregozek sued the city before being placed in this Threat Management Unit, and she believed that Gregozek must have done similar things in the past as she believed him to be a very corrupt individual who had committed perjury and lied repeatedly in order to instigate and then encourage the malicious prosecution against her.
  38. On arrival to court on August 12th 2009 for the “scheduling conference” Alisa saw that judge Villar was not present . A judge Samantha Jessner sat in her place. Alisa had never seen Jessner before but remembered that this was the judge who had issued the exigent circumstances search warrants to Gregozek in January of 2009.
  39. Though no motions were set for hearing, as can bee seen from the transcripts and the docket , Judge Jessner “ordered the motions to be heard in department 51 forthwith.”
  40. Alisa stated on the record that she had been told that no motions would be heard and this was supposed to be a “scheduling conference”
  41. Judge Jessner just ordered her to what would turn out to be the empty court with a judge. The records and transcripts will show that no motions had been set for a hearing and that these were to be illegal and unnoticed “hearings.”
  42. No opposition was filed by the prosecution to the motions as further evidence of the ex partes and other serious due process violations that kept occurring in this case.
  43. Another woman was now working side by side with Jennifer Waxler . Alisa recognized her name, Felise Cohen Kalpakian, from the untimely opposition to traverse motion, sent to Williams on the night of July 8th 2009.
  44. In the hallway, Alisa expressed more concern that no motions were scheduled, and she wasn’t prepared. Felise Cohen Kalpakian said it was just a “oral hearing” not a regular hearing. Kalpakian would then say, on the record, that it was an “evidentiary hearing.”
  45. What then would occur on August 12th 2009, in Judges Jessner and then John Martinez’s courts were not legal or just or fair and is evidenced by the transcripts
  46. Martinez ruled against Alisa, on all motions, without any legal basis, in this illegal and unnoticed “hearing.” Martinez then said that he’d been ordered to return the matter to Jessner’s court.
  47. After undergoing this illegal and unnoticed hearing , and while waiting to see Judge Jessner for reasons unclear, Alisa filed a Pitchess motion with the clerk, Susan Rios.
  48. Rios agreed to file it this time, but again told Alisa that she is too busy now to set a hearing and to call her tomorrow. Alisa then attempted to serve the motion on Jennifer Waxler but Waxler told her that when involving a Pichess motin, she couldn’t accept service
  49. A Martin Boags ( herineafter referred to as “Boags”) approached Alisa and her sister. Boags told them that he noticed that they filed a Pichess motion and that Jennifer Waxler refused to take it . He then explained to them that such a motion had to be delivered to a certain address for proper service.
  50. Martin Boags then began to talk Alisa and Lauren in a most solicitous manner, as he drew them a detailed map of where they would have to go to deliver this Pichess motion.
  51. It was later learned that Boags worked for the city attorney as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney for the police litigation unit.
  52. Upon information and belief, the malicious prosecution became increasingly malicious on August 12th 2009, when the prosecution saw the Pichess motion was filed ,after they managed to get a judge to rule against the traverse motion. In other words, Alisa was innocent and fighting for her name and her rights and appeared to not be giving up, and this didn’t sit at all well with Gregozek et al.
  53. Jessner then came to the bench and called the case of Alisa. The transcript of August 12th 2009, then shows the written proof of what faced Alisa in court on that day as Kalpakian and Waxler ,feigning urgency, asked to approach the bench. The judge, Jessner, then says, “ Ex parte?” Waxler and Kalpakian, reply “ Ex parte.”
  54. Alisa and her sister, Lauren, who was present, watched as the many public defender present made all sorts of horrified expressions.
  55. One public defender approached Alisa ,and said, “Get up there. They can’t do this. You have a right to be present at that sidebar.”
  56. Alisa made a move to approach the sidebar . A bailiff was sent by someone and stood menacingly by Alisa, and told her not to move. The same public defender urged her again to go up there . A city attorney Alisa never saw before came to this public defender and said to him , “Shut up!”
  57. After approximately ten or more minutes of helplessly watching such an illegal ex parte the matter went on the record.
  58. There Kalpakian and Waxler would say “ Your honor we believe she is a danger to herself and others,” and yet not tell the judge any supporting information that would provoke such an ex parte and now such code words for “ your honor please lock her up. “
  59. Kalpakian and Waxler then told the judge an series of easily disproven falsehoods. They claimed that Alisa had been pro per from the start , when she had only been pro per for two weeks in March and then two weeks now since July 29th 2009. They told the judge Alisa had trouble with her lawyers, had “bombarded them with motions.”
  60. Kalpakian even asserted that Alisa had threatened Waxler and again the “ Threat Management unit” has had to get involved. No specifics of such threats was offered. Kalpakian and Waxler continued on to cast Alisa as so terribly crazy that she didn’t understand the proceeding against her.
  61. All that was said by Kalpakian and Waxler was completely false .Alisa had said that the two charges added due to no link of any kind being established to the facebook postings “did not make sense.”
  62. Such charges would be acquitted by the trial Judge, H. Randolph Moore, before they could reach a jury, because, in fact, such charges made absolutely no sense.
  63. Waxler and Kalpakian knew that no one ever threatened Waxler with anything but reporting her to the bar for her shocking abuses so far, and yet were willing to lie about such serious things.
  64. Judge Jessner appears to note that she sees attorneys cards and that attorneys have represented Alisa/ No evidence ever existed or was presented to Judge Jessner that Alisa was either a “danger to herself or to others,” or that Alisa suffered from any mental illness.
  65. This judge would then say incredibly degrading and unwarranted things to Alisa before giving in to the obscene tactics of a desperate and malicious prosecution.Judge Jessner will tell Alisa that she should regard a competency evaluation as “ A wellness session” and that such a competency evaluation would help focus Alisa better for trial, and have Alisa better understand her charges.
  66. Jessner would then agree to “declare a doubt” without articulating any reason for doing so.
  67. Later on a memo would be drafted by Malzman who would write about how many public defenders witnessed this ex parte and how Jessner “declared a doubt upon the request of the prosecutors and without articulating any reason for doing so.”
  68. The minutes of the court would say that it was Jessner alone who declared a doubt.
  69. Alisa and Lauren Spitzberg were in shock . They had no way of knowing the legal intricacies or ramifications of such actions. They only knew something very sick was happening. Such suspicions were confirmed by the reactions and statements then made to them by assorted public defender witnesses.
  70. The public defender who had counseled her to approach the sidebar approached her outside of the court and told her , “You have to file a 1983 suit.”
  71. At the time, Alisa did not know what that meant but she researched it when she went home and saw what he was saying. She then conducted extensive research on this competency thing and learned that all law and protocols had been discarded in order for this prosecution’s new way to win at all costs
  72. Alisa learned that Andrea Yates, Charles Manson, and Jeffrey Dahmer and other very deranged and insane individuals had been found competent. She learned that according to all the laws and cases it was impossible to understand how this was allowed by a judge or requested by prosecutors in this instance.
  73. It was learned too that Alisa was entitled to have two doctors of her own choosing to evaluate her, in the instance the prosecution really intended to go through with these deeply troubling tactics.
  74. By all indications, the prosecutions acts on this day compelled the supervisor of the public defenders, in that courthouse, a Robin Ginsburg( Herienafter reffered to as Ginsburg) to now want to assist Alisa.
  75. Ginsburg told Alisa that she would get her an affidavit as to what she witnessed and make sure that all who witnessed it would provide affidavits to.
  76. Ginsburg told Alisa that she believed that these city attorneys were trying to sidestep speedy trial issues and that this all had to be a stalling tactic considering that “I’ve seen you in court many times. And no one would ever think that you are incompetent.” She counseled her to not worry about it as it was only a way to “dick her around” and the doctor they’d sent her to could, “never find you incompetent.”
  77. On August 17th 2009, rather than celebrate her sister’s birthday , Alisa had to come to court to file a motion to vacate that order for a competency hearing, and a motion to appoint two experts in the instance such an illegal order not be vacated.
  78. Of course, the clerk, Susan Rios, refused to file it, and actually said out loud for all in the court to hear, “ You are now in the mental court. You can’t file anything here.” Alisa went to the main clerk and after some debate between the clerk in the main clerks’ office and Rios, by phone, it was agreed that Alisa could file such motions. Alisa has the filed and conformed copies.
  79. \On September 3rd 2009, Henya, Lauren and Alisa went to the special Mental Health court,near Glendale, having no idea what to think or expect but feeling great anxiety and fear.
  80. Once the case was called a Pro Tem judge, who was not stipulated to ,was present and handling the matter.This judge said that Judge Jessner had failed to appoint counsel, as required by law, when such doubt is declared, and so he could do nothing but send it back to the criminal court as a pro per could not represent herself in such a matter etc.
  81. He did not appoint counsel .He sent it back to the criminal court for September 9th 2009.
  82. On September 9th 2009, back in the criminal court, a judge Karla Kerlin sat on that date. Jennifer Waxler was no longer the assigned prosecutor . In her place stood Boags, the man who had approached Alisa and Lauren on August 12th 2009 and had drawn them a detailed map of where they should deliver the Pitchess motion.
  83. Since the public defenders were now alerted, Boags immediately requested that Alisa and him “approach sidebar.” Alisa had no idea that she should not have allowed this and just followed Boags.
  84. At what would be an unrecorded sidebar, Judge Kerlin would tell them that the competency matter had been vacated and the matter returned to this court. Luckily, she would repeat, “The matter has been vacated on orders from Divison 52,” on the record. Division 52 was where Judge Jessner sat, at that time.
  85. Alisa would tell the judge how relieved she was about this competency nightmare being vacated and then requested that the matter be set for trial. Judge Kerlin would immediately respond,”if you want to go to trial you have to go in four days. And then the trial will just take a day.”
  86. At this sidebar, Boags would touch the shoulder of Alisa and implore her to just give him time to “catch up” he wanted her to “send him her evidence’ and he had to go on vacation.
  87. Boags then implored Alisa to just to give him a “little time.” He proceeded to make statements to her of how he felt confident that he would arrive at conclusions favorable to her if given her evidence. The then provided his card and told her to call or e-mail him at anytime.
  88. Alisa then approached her family, who were in court, and told them that the competency sham was over and this new prosecutor seemed very friendly. They all felt very relieved.
  89. The next pretrial date was October 3nd 2009.
  90. On September 11th 2008. Alisa provided Boags with an extensive witness list and witness statements and a very large amount of exculpatory evidence. Such evidence would have convinced any prosecutor, acting in any good faith, to drop the charge .
  91. Evidence shows that Martin Boags, on September 10th, ordered the police records that Notaro and then Gregozek ,and then Hoffman had all sworn to when they swore that police came and arrived at various times.Boags was sent these records on September 14th 2009.
  92. It appears from these records that Boags was under the impression that Alisa was arrested on April 29th 2008, and so he ordered the arrest records too, and any record that might exist for either April 12th 2008 or April 29th 2008.
  93. For the date of April 29th 2008 he was sent the 911 transcripts and a log of the call and the activity that night and he was told there was no reports made much less an arrest.
  94. For the date of April 12th 2008, Boags learned that no such call to the police was made and no police therefore were ever dispatched..
  95. These records plus what was sent him by Alisa on September 11th 2009, would inform Boags that he had been lied to by Gregozek and Notaro and Hart etc in extreme ways, and that witnesses such as Feigin, Roberts, and Consuegra, amongst others, existed and had made statements and had signed affidavits attesting that Notaro and Willen were malicious liars with no credibility.
  96. Such records and the other evidence now available also showed that Gregozek had only counted on Notaro and Willen as his “witnesses”when so much evidence was given him that made it unreasonable to do so.
  97. Boags did not drop the charges but instead wrote up a motion that sought to re-instate the competency proceeding and remove the case from the criminal court for good.
  98. On the night of October 2nd 2009, the night before the next scheduled pretrial, A fed ex came to house of the Spitzbergs In this fedex envelope was a motion to reinsate the competency ploy.
  99. The motion discussed how Judge Jessner had seen Alisa on various occasions and had declared a doubt based on that , and how Judge Karla Kerlin did not know the law when she allowed for such an order to be vacated on orders from Jessner.
  100. Jessner had only seen Alisa once, on August 12th 2009, and she only declared a doubt after she allowed an illegal ex parte and made no effort to discern the competency of Alisa.
  101. The next morning at the pretrial, Alisa ,was sure that Judge Kerlin would be outraged at Boags saying she didn’t know the law and at the misrepresentations Boags was making in his motions about the sidebar.Instead, Judge Kerlin, pretended as if Boags was correct, and ordered the matter to another empty courtroom with another judge.
  102. Alisa again protested on the record that no hearing was scheduled and Kerlin became very stern and ordered Alisa to just go to the court.
  103. Alisa ran to Ginsburg , who was present, and requested that Ginsburg get her a “witness’ as it appeared that another unnoticed hearing was about to take place.Robin Ginsburg got a deputy public defender named, Alissa Malzman, to rush to the court that Alisa was being sent to.
  104. There, as the transcripts will show, despite. Malzman stepping in and trying to fight this, with the limited knowledge any lawyer would have of such esoteric legal issues , the just “ This is Maria Stratton’s bellyache” and “My hands are tied,” before ordering Alisa again to Division 95 -- the mental health court. It appeared that he had a date ready even before any argument could be made on this unnoticed motion.
  105. This judge told Alisa that he imagined she’d return to the criminal court where he’d be able to hear her meritorious motions.
  106. Later a post it would be found in the handwriting of Judge Karla Kerlin where Kerlin would write to the judge, “ Order her to 95 on October 16th.”
  107. In this hearing Malzman asks the judge if he has an official order from Kerlin, as required by law. The judge says yes and he’s looking at it. No such order absent the jotted post it, “order her to Division 95 on October 16th” attached to the Boag’s motion is to found in the court file.
  108. Ginsburg and Malzman again assured Alisa that this was some stalling tactic and they are just “dicking you around,” and not to worry as no doctor would ever dream of declaring her incompetent. They told her to just show up at that court and let it play out.
  109. Ginsburg then counseled Alisa, “ If you feel that something is wrong, that something is really up, just leave that court and call me.”
  110. Alisa was told that Malzman would not be in that court and that they had public defenders in that court that would handle this . Alisa urged Malzman to alert that court as to what was occurring . Malzman said she would do so.
  111. On October 14th2009, Henya, Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg had to return to this mental health court. Once there, Alisa, was approached by a woman who didn’t identify herself. The woman told her she had to go talk to a doctor. Alisa asked her who she was and she said she was a public defender in that court. Her name was Bernadette Everman. Alisa asked Everman if Malzman had contacted her and told her the backstory but Evereman said she had no clue as to what Alisa was talking about.
  112. Everman then directed Alisa to a room in the back and told her she’d be talking to a Dr. Velarde. Alisa said, “ Aren’t you going to come with me?” but Everman said, “No, just talk to him. You’ll be fine.”
  113. Dr. Velarde sat in a back room . Alisa asked him if her sister or mother can be present since she felt she’d need a have a witness. Dr. Velarde said that it wouldn’t be neccessary and to just talk to him. Alisa ran out quick and told Lauren to listen in.
  114. Dr. Velarde asked Alisa some questions about who the judge and jury were, about whether or not she understood her charges, the roles of defense attorney and prosecutors etc.
  115. Alisa, of course, knew all this and Dr. Velarde knew that she was perfectly competent after speaking to her. Dr. Velarde said, “This has been going on for an awfully long time. I don’t feel right about this. Let me go talk to the judge. Wait outside and after I talk to the judge we’ll talk some more.”
  116. Alisa waited outside the court, with her mother and sister . After about 10 minutes, Everman came out of the court and said in a bizarrely gleeful way, “He declared you incompetent. “
  117. Remembering Ginsburg’s words, “ If you really feel something is wrong, leave, and call me,” all the plaintiffs agreed that the best and only thing they could do was to get out of there and call Ginsburg. They left. It was later learned that Judge Stratton had “intended to declare her incompetent,” on that day, October 14th 2009.
  118. In other words Stratton had made that decision on the word of a prison doctor unqualified to give compentacy tests and without the judge ever setting eyes on. If Alisa had not heeded the words of Robin Ginsburg , she would have been forcefully committed to an institution for the criminally insane and “forcibly medicated.”
  119. Alisa immediately called Ginsburg upon arriving home . Ginsburg seemed very shocked when hearing what Velarde had done,but she then sounded pressured and nervous as she said, “ I was just kidding about leaving. You need to go back to that court.”
  120. Alisa called Malzman . Malzman screeched when she heard what happened. But, then mechanically said, “ If Robin told you have to go back you have to go back.”
  121. Later it would be learned that Ginsburg and Malzmans supervisor, Hoagie, was not of the mind that defendants should receive the necessary advocacy and deputy public defenders feared for their jobs if they chose to zealously advocate for their clients.
  122. Henya began making phone calls. She secured a ten thousand dollar loan from her family in Israel. Such money was needed for food and rent since this malicious prosecution had left the plaintiffs in a very bad financial situation.
  123. Alisa . She began googling “malicious prosecution lawyers,” and soon came upon a lawyer, Peter Knecht(Hereinafter referred to as “Knecht,”) Knecht professed to be experienced in malicious prosecutions.
  124. On November 1st 2009 an appointment was made with Knecht. After being told some facts he expressed how he believed this prosecution was very malicious and that they were trying to get her committed to Patton.He then explained that Patton was a mental hospital for the criminally insane.
  125. He spoke of getting big doctors who would come in and stop this competency thing in its tracks.
  126. Knecht then said that since the case seemed to him now to be “impossibly complicated” he would require thirty thousand dollars in order to help her. Since they did not have such money and couldn’t get it this was very upsetting.Henya told Knecht that she did not have that kind of money but could he refer her to someone who would charge less.
  127. Knecth referred them to a James Silversrein (Hereinafter referred to as “Silverstein,”), who worked in Knecht’s office .
  128. On November 2nd Silverstein was contacted .Alisa and Henya went to his office. Knecht came in and counseled Silverstein and told him what to do and repeatedly shook his head and appeared disgusted by what he considered “unprecedented tactics in a nonviolent misdemeanor case.” He also said to Alisa that “ You are obviously innocent.”
  129. There was discussion of the now two week old bench warrant and both men assured that it was something they could easily take care of and to just drive safely.There was discussion of how Knecht also did civil suits and how that would follow when Silverstein ,with the help of Knecht, would finally get the case dismissed. Silverstein then said, “ I love this case. It’s not every day where I can get such a case where I can get it easily dismissed. Please, go home and prepare me a timeline.”
  130. On the morning of November 4th 2009,Alisa was on the computer preparing a timeline for Silverstein, when the phone rang. Henya picked up the phone and said, “ the police are outside.”
  131. Much of what would happen next is on a tape that recently was provided in discovery . And, though the tape has been edited, it still shows a scene out of one’s worst nightmares . It must be seen to be believed.
  132. At least 18 police officers , about 12 of them in riot gear, and one carrying battering ram, came to the plaintiffs door on November 4th 2009. In discovery it was learned these are the names of those present: Detectives John Gregozek, James Hoffman, Martha Defoe, Detective Viromantes, Detective Ross, Detective Winger, Detective Carlton, Detective Dunn, Detective Suzzane Lopez, Detective Jaime, Detective Smith, Detective Baca, Detective Karen Jackson Williams, Police officer Nelson, Police officers Rogers, Sergeany Timothy Cournihan, MEU clinician Holquin, SID photographer Raives.
  133. Upon information and belief there are only seven or eight Threat Mannagement Detectives in the entire unit and all were present at the Spitzberg’s residence that day. Detective Dunn is the head of the unit and he appeared to be directed this raid.
  134. At some point Alisa asked Jeffrey Dunn, the head of the uint, “ Why am I being arrested” and Jeffrey Dunn said only , “because I read you blog.” Alisa then began screaming to her sister and mother that what Dunn had said . This can be seen on the tape.
  135. On August 10th 2009, Alisa had written a blog post on her blog where she compared Gregozek to a Keilbasa sausage, and soon she saw on an installed “stat counter” city of los angeles Ip’s and , the county of los angeles IP’s and a Huntington beach IP.
  136. The Huntington Beach IP was accessing this post an inordinate amount of times using the search words “ John Gregozek” A quick google search showed that John Gregozek lives in Huntington Beach. Upon information and belief, this post had much to do with the raid, the unlawful arrest, and the competency scheme amongst other punishments and retaliations.
  137. Despite repeated requests, as can be seen on the tape, none of the three were allowed to make calls to the attorney. Despite repeated requests by Lauren to have them show her the search warrant, they would not show her it at any time during the over two hours she was detained in the hallway.
  138. Anyone would question why 18 police professionals donning riot gear came to the apartment of Henya( the lease is in her name and they knew this according to proof,) on November 4th 2009 , and then would arrest Alisa , and keep Lauren and Henya detained in the hallway for over two hours as they searched and seized the properties of all three plaintiffs.
  139. Private e-mails from her previous lawyers and letters to and from Richard Fine, all phones and cameras, Lauren’s library card, Lauren’s private journals and notebooks, and datebooks were also seized and searched. . Modems and hard drives and computers were taken too. The search warrant allowed for searches of their mailboxes, phone records, storage areas, car, and post box offices if they existed.
  140. It was learned too that many people in the building were talked to by these officers and not allowed to leave their apartments to go to work due to this large scale raid.
  141. Aside of the explanation offered, that Dunn readsAlisa’s blog, there does not seem to be any reasonable explanation at all for what occurred to the plaintiffs on November 4th 2009.
  142. Upon information and belief, their “ explanation” is provided in the blanket search warrant issued, as well as another unsigned supplemental drafted by Gregozek , that was only handed over in discovery in this civil suit, and was not provided to the defendant or her counsel, in the criminal trial.
  143. The supplemental drafted on November 12th 2009, reads:
On August 23nd 2009 Notaro notified Gregozek that she received two more messages sent to her email by Guestbook. Notaro believed the messages came from Spitzberg. The first message read “ TO YOU MATHILDAH YOU WILL NEVER WIN. YOU ARE UGLY AND STUPID AND EVEN WITH THE GOV’T AGAINST MY FRIEND YOU ARE FINISHED, BRAINS OVER BLIND KISS ASS SADNESS. BRAINS WIN YOU SAD LOW CLASS IDIOT yoU LIFE IS OVER mESS WITH A GENIUS PAY THE PRICE YOU MALE HORMONED FREAK. The second message read, “ Mathildah you are finished. You fucked with the rong people(sic) The jury will hang you you psychotic morone(sic) Both messages were sent on August 22ns 2009.
On September 6th 2009 Simon Mikkelson notified Gregozek that the IP address the two messages were sent from was 67.119.60.236. An initial search of the this IP address revealed that it was serviced by SBC Internet services and it was assigned a location in Los Angeles, CA.
Note: The search warrant was issued on October 28th 2009: The reason for the search warrant that enabled them to arrest Alisa was based on another stale two month hunch of Notaro . Gregozek et al did not decided to exectute this blanket search until months later. They had six warrants issued in this case already. All had produced evidence that Notaro’s hunches were wrong. They knew the Ip’s and that the IP sent them from Simon Mickkleson was not the IP of Alisa or anyone in her home. Notaro kept claiming before this that she knew Alisa writing styles somehow. Yet, how would this be ever as Alisa writing style? It was clearly either written by Notaro or Willen , who along along were sending Notaro messages and attempting to harass and prosecute Alisa by doing so. It is believed that it was them by the search warrant that was sought by Gregozek. Alisa would never call herself a “genius” or spell like that. Notaro proudly talks on her blogs about failing out of 9th grade due to her disciplinary problems, three times , and then how she never finished ninth grade . Notaro often jokes about how many mistake her for a man.
The supplemental continues: On October 15th 2009, Gregozek was notified by Deputy City attorney Martin Boags that the day earlier, Los Angeles Superior Court Division 95 had expressed the intent to declare Spitzberg incompetent. Spitzberg then left the courtroom. A bench warrant would be issued by the court if she did not return”
Note: On October 15th 2009, Alisa had just seen Velarde and was entitled by law to see two of her own experts and had filed such a motion even. The Division 95 court aka Judge Maria Stratton, might have expressed such desires but it would be highly illegal and very wrong to express such intent or to have followed through with such intent.
The supplemental continues: On November 4 2009 Gregozek served a search warrant at Spitzberg residence located at 7513 Fountain avenue apt 203. Several items were recovered by Gregozek and booked into property division. Detective Jaime assigned to computer crimes task force responded and assisted with the recovery of electronic devices. Spitzberg was placed under arrest for her outstanding bench warrant…
Note: Gregozek fails to mention the other 16 officers who came and that they wore riot gear and brought a battering ram, and they took much more than “electronic devices.” Why omit all that was taken and that a raid consisting of 18 officers was orchestrated.
Gregozek again puts on this Supplemental that four charges were added though none were added
  1. After trial, Alisa was in contact with a Sergeant Phelps from the criminal investigation unit of internal affairs and Sergeant Phelps said that he saw no legal reason for her arrest or incarceration since she had always gone to court and had gone to court on October 14th 2009, and was legally entitled to leave after learning of what Velarde had been willing to do.
  2. In order for Gregozek to be issued a search warrant ,by a Judge Richman, this time, Gregozek again used the same cut and pasted lies of Notaro and Willen from April 30th 2008, though he now knows the truth for over a year and a half. In this search warrant Gregozek does not mention Hoffman or Defoe but now begins to tell the Judge that he is working with Sam Moreno and Gregozek tells the judge that Sam Moreno works for Homeland Security.
  3. During the raid and arrest, a woman approached Alisa and said “ I’m from Mental health.” Alisa told her that she was not interested in talking to her and the woman said, “ I guess you seem paranoid.” Alisa said if you tons of police outside your door in riot gear you would appear paranoid too.” The woman seemed very confused as to why she was there .
  4. Upon information and belief, this woman, like Lucie before her, couldn’t in good conscience go along with this . She never was heard from again . It can be inferred that she was there to put some kind of psychiatric hold but refused to do so. No such psychiatric hold was ever placed.
  5. Alisa was repeatedly handcuffed and unhandcuffed in front of Henya and Lauren before being taken down to an unmarked car and taken to jail. She was told she’d be interviewed but no one ever came to interview her at any time.
  6. Suzanne Lopez , who along with a “Cletus” was the escort to jail, and who was the same Detective who told Alisa that since she went to internal affairs they could now go into her computers, told Alisa that she had to ask her some questions . Lopez proceeded to ask her some questions that had to do with intake into the jail. One of the questions was “ Do you feel people are out to get you?” Alisa laughed and said, “ After what has happened I know that some are.” Lopez grew very alarmed, as and said in a warm way, “ Don’t tell them that ! You don’t want them to put you in with the crazies.”
  7. Lopez’s statement wouldn’t be remarkable if out of context. But the context was that the whole scheme was that Alisa was be declared so crazy that she couldn’t stand trial. Lopez, a detective, now in the company of Alisa for more than two hours, felt that Alisa should not say anything that might put her in with “crazies.”
  8. Once arrested, Alisa assumed she’d be bailed out since she’d never missed a court date or even been late, had no criminal history, was not a flight risk and the allegations against her were non violent misdemeanors.
  9. It would turn out that a judge Maria Stratton had put a “no bail hold” but it was then understood that after an appearance in court such a hold would be lifted and reasonable bail or own recognizance be allowed.
  10. Alisa was strip searched and processed into the system.
  11. On November 5th 2008, Alisa now jailed, was woken up at 3.A.M ,and put in a holding cell that consisted of very mentally ill individuals and sent to wait in a holding tank for hours with these very mentally ill individuals.
  12. Twelve hours passed and no one called her name. Eventually, she was approached by a guard of some kind and he told her that something went wrong with her “papers” and though her lawyer and family came to court she would have to wait for tomorrow.
  13. After hours more she was sent back to the jail . She was strip searched again upon return to the Lynwood correctional facility.
  14. On November 6th 2008 the bus came but not to take Alisa to an arraignment “arraignment” as no charges were added. The documents say it was for an arraignment but this was not the case.
  15. On November 6th 2009, Judge Maria Stratton denied bail but did tell the Silverstien, “ Write a motion counselor,” if bail would be considered.
  16. Silverstein was able to get the very experienced and esteemed Dr. Markman to come to the court after the “hearing” and this doctor conducted all the requisite competency tests and interviews with Alisa .Dr. Markman, who is a lawyer as well as a forensic psychiatrist, concluded that “ What is this, is this a sitcom? You are as competent as me.” His report shows his findings.
  17. For reasons that defy any good faith explanation, judge Maria Stratton, seemed very angry with Alisa on November 6th and then hostile throughout, though this was supposed to be a humane court that sought to assist those so mentally ill that they shouldn’t have to be similarly prosecuted as the sane.
  18. Stratton appeared uninterested in Markmans’ report. Stratton refused to grant any bail, despite now a big doctor saying that Velarde, an uncertified doctor , had it all wrong. Stratton said, “ I want Sharma,” The name “Sharma” was on the tip of her tongue. Sharma’s evaluation was scheduled for November 9th 2009.
  19. Silverstein did not show up to court November 9th 2009 , and never drafted any bail motion then or at any time and would never file one paper for the next three months or ever.
  20. After being put in holding cells with the severely mentally ill again for hours, Alisa was taken to a room to be evaluated by Dr. Kaushal Sharma.
  21. Dr. Sharma’s first words to Alisa were, “ Ah the famous, Ms. Spitzberg.” Alisa felt that from his tone and expression as he said this very strange thing, nothing she might say or do would have any any bearing on what he would submit to the court. But, she hoped that Sharma would just write a real report and end this nightmare.
  22. Sharma then said “ You know Shakespeare.” And Alisa who has a Bachelors degree in English Literature, said, “ Yes.” And Sharma said, “ You protesteth too much.”
  23. No discussion of Alisa’s mental health history occurred, no questions about judges or juries or the criminal justice process were posed by Dr. Sharma. No questions about her charges or the nature of the charges. No tests were performed. At one point Alisa did say that she was being refused her anti depressants and anti anxiety medications in jail and pleaded that someone allow her such medication.
  24. Alisa was not allowed into the court to see her mother and sister. But, they were present in court to hear that Sharma had found her “incompetent.”
  25. Later it can be seen from the report he’d submit that he not only would write that Alisa is incompetent but like Dr. Velarde before him Sharma had said that it was necessary that Alisa be “forcibly medicated.” before she could be returned to competency.
  26. Silverstein spoke of getting another doctor and did not even ask for bail on this occasion. Lauren would ask him why he was not writing a bail motion or asking for bail on November 9th 2009 and Silverstein would say, “ I don’t want the judge mad at me.”
  27. Lauren also implored Silverstein to stay the appeal and to write a habeas petition, as there was no viable legal explanation for the arrest and incarceration of her sister and this ongoing competency scheme. Silverstein threatened to quit if Lauren tried to tell him how to “do his job.”
  28. Silverstein would never write any motions before he would withdraw under false pretenses in January of 2010. An oral hearing was scheduled on the appeal on November 16th 2009 too but Silverstein did not want to hear about it. Alisa was jailed for that hearing and Judge Rosenberg’s ruling would be affirmed in her absence.
  29. From November 4th 2009 till December 1st no bail was allowed. Alisa stayed in jail for Thanksgiving. She was given a security rating of 7, giving the impression to all that she was a very dangerous criminal with a high security rating, and so dangerous that no bail should be granted. Alisa was held in this preventative detention , due to an actual conspiracy out of Soviet era Russia.
  30. Despite numerous requests and even telling Sharma that she wasn’t getting her antidepressants, Alisa was repeatedly denied these medications for the 31 days she was incarcerated.
  31. It would be discovered that Dr Velarde worked at the same jail and it can be inferred that he had something to do with this denial of her medication.
  32. It was learned too that Dr. Velarde was not certified to conduct competency evaluations on Ocboter 14th 2009. Velarde would become certified in late 2010.
  33. Upon information and belief, Dr. Markman was upset at this situation and he contacted a Dr. Dupee to evaluate Alisa on December 1st 2009. Doctor Dupee,a doctor who is triple certified, spoke to Alisa and performed the requisite tests. Dr. Dupee seemed very upset at what she was witnessing. Lauren overheard her tell Silverstein’ “ She’s cool. I don’t even understand why she is in jail.” Her report shows her findings.
  34. Even with Dupee’s report, which made it very clear that there was nothing wrong with Alisa, Judge Stratton denied bail. Then, the judge asked the prosecutors what they thought and a District Attorney, Byrne, said “ We don’t the know the case. We will leave it up to the court’s discretion.”
  35. Up until now, at all the hearing in the mental health court a District Attorney named Richard Vagnozzi had handled the case and made it clear that he was very intent on keeping Alisa jailed and denied bail. Suddenly, after a month, This DA, Byrne came in and did not even wish to argue about anything.
  36. Judge Stratton looked angry as she granted 10,000 dollars bail . She crossed out something on her desk. Later such crossed out papers were found. They were commitment papers to Patton, the hospital for the criminally insane, where according to the reports, later viewed, Alisa was to be “forcibly medicated.,” once committed there.
  37. Stratton insisted that Alisa be back in the criminal court the next day . This directive was made against Silverstein’s wishes since he had another matter in another court, and would lead to two more strip searches having to take place.
  38. Later two files would be found in the mental health court. The files were full of Gregozek and Hoffman search warrants and supplementals and affidavits and police reports but there is nothing in these files that had anything to do with Alisa’s mental health aside of the four reports that would have to be generated by Dr’s Velarde, Sharma, Markman and Dupee
  39. Later a head clerk in Division 95, Jeff Howe, would be contacted in order for Alisa to get copies of the files .He would express that he was having a very hard time getting the judge to agree to hand over these files though such files were public record.He told Alisa “ I looked at the files . You have the right to be very very very angry.”
  40. Later it would be learned that in order for Judge Stratton to have kept Alisa without bail for 31 days in “preventative detention, “ would have to be convinced that there was a compelling state interest and only the police, Gregozek or Hoffman, could convince her of that.
  41. It can be inferred from the files and the law, that Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100, had been responsible for keeping Alisa in preventative detention and disallowing bail.
  42. Back in the criminal court, on December 2nd, Alisa had to sit in the court’s cage. Judge Karla Kerlin sat. Kerlin refused to grant Alisa her own recognizance though Alisa had never violated the OR agreement. This caused Alisa go have to go back to jail to have to endure another strip search and more holding cells.
  43. Later it would we learned from the minutes that two ex parte hearings would take place in front of Kerlin on October 22nd and November 23rd 2009. Kerlin seemed inordinately interested in this case.
  44. For some reason, after October of 2009, someone in the court was now making it so the minutes were reflecting what really was occurring. The plaintiffs were therefore able to order the transcripts of these two ex parte hearings held right before and during the jailing of Alisa. Though Alisa was represented by Silverstein on November 23rd 2009, Kerlin saw fit to have an ex parte with only Martin Boags in open court on that day. On November 23rd 2009, Martin Boags would tell Kerlin ,at this ex parte, that Alisa had been found incompetent .
  45. Martin Baogs had seen Henya and Lauren at some point in the court’s hallway, during November of 2009 ,and had smirked at them, and made hand motions before saying “ I have it all wrapped up.”
  46. Henya got together the 800 dollars bond , but something apparently went wrong and the court gave a wrong number to the bail bondsmen . Alisa would have to have three more strip searches, and wait till the morning of December 4th 2009 before being bonded out of jail.
  47. In total due to three bus mixups, and all the court appearances, Alisa was strip searched 9 times.
  48. The day after Alisa was released from jail, a male voice left a message on the plaintiff’s answering machine that said, “We just want you to leave us alone.”The plaintiffs have no idea who it was.
  49. After being released, Silverstein appeared to feel as if he had earned the 10,000 dollars and did not want to work on Alisa’s case any longer. He would not even request the police return all the plaintiff’s properties and they needed these properties, especially since so much material necessary to trial preparation was in the computers.
  50. On January 12th, 2010, the day before the next scheduled pretrial, Silverstein and Knecht would call the home of the Spitzbergs to tell them that it was urgent that they come into the office.
  51. Once there, Silverstein led them to the office of Knecht. There Knecht would counsel that “The government is really out to get you. Look what they have done already. It’s only going to get worse. I want you to take a plea bargain.” Alisa said that they couldn’t do worse anymore and no way would she plea.
  52. At no time was Alisa told of Boags telling Silverstein that she better plea or Boags intended to add four charges , though this would recently be learned due to a later legal matter involving Silverstein where Silverstein would swear to this in an affidavit.
  53. The next day at the pretrial, Silverstein wanted a continuance claiming he had another trial, but Alisa refused to waive time as she believed the matter had to be set for trial. Judge Kerlin waived time without Alisa’s permission.
  54. Silverstein then requested that he put it on the record “to make it abundantly clear, your honor,” that he had told Alisa of the plea deal and had warned her “that a much more punitive outcome would result if she if she didn’t accept the plea deal.”
  55. Alisa did not then know that Boags had told Silverstein that if Alisa refused the deal( Diversion and one year of mental health counseling) he would add four charges but knew that something was very wrong about her defense attorney telling a judge this in front of a prosecutor
  56. Alisa expressed some displeasure with Silverstein’s malpractice, and requested that Silverstein return 5 thousand dollars of the ten thousand since he was not willing to work for her. He said no, and Alisa said she’d take him to the bar.
  57. Silverstein would use this as an excuse to withdraw from the case, under false pretenses, at an unrecorded sidebar with Judge Mary Lou Villar on January 21st 2010.
  58. On the day Silverstein withdrew, January 21 2010, the prosecution added four charges, two for stalking and two for criminal threats by “interdeliniation.” The charges were based on fraudulent incidences in April of 2008 ,as described earlier in this complaint.
  59. Very mysteriously, the charging document used on January 21st 2010, is dated August 12th 2009.
  60. Though these long disproven false allegations are all of alleged incidents occurring more than a year before and the statutes had expired, this didn’t seem to stop Martin Boags from having the ability to have them added in front of Judge Mary Lou Villar on Janaury 21st 2010.
  61. Boags had added now two charges of stalking in that now he was saying that Alisa stalked Notaro when she went to Largo on April 12th 2008 and had stalked Notaro when she had spoken to Martha Kelly on July 14th 2008. Boags now was adding two charges for “criminal threats” and alleging such “criminal threats” were made by Alisa to Notaro on April 12th and April 29th of 2008.
  62. According to all evidence, the word of Notaro and Willen would form the basis of such threats and stalking charges. Since Stalking is a course of conduct crime the entirety of their statements and allegations would now be brought in to substantiate the seven charges now facing Alisa. If Alisa lost at trial she would face seven years in jail.
  63. After Silverstein was able to withdraw at an unrecorded sidebar, Alisa was left with no lawyer , no money, and could not, she’d learned from experience, and due to Kratu Patel saying a conflict of interest existed, count on the public defender . She again requested Judge Villar to appoint an alternate public defender and again Villar refused.
  64. During a break, Alisa went down to Division 40 to pick up a transcript she’d ordered. On the way out , deputy public defender, Jon Prince, approached Alisa and angrily said, “ I saw you in that cage . I saw you in that cage!” referring to the time she had to sit in the court’s cage when Kerlin was to decide if she’d be granted OR. The young man continued to say, “You’ve been so screwed. So screwed.”
  65. Alisa said, “ So, do you think the public defender office can maybe help me. Are you upset enough to do something now?” Prince said yes and that he would ask for the case and he would represent her.
  66. When, she returned upstairs to Villars court, a few public defenders said things that seemed to indicate that they were there to support Alisa in some way.
  67. Alisa felt that something had changed. Alissa Malzman was in that court. Alisa told her about what happened with the other public defender downstairs. Alisa questioned Malzman if could put any faith in the public defenders, at this point.
  68. Malzman said yes and that she would right now go on the record as Alisa’s lawyer, and set the case for trial. Malzman then did so with enthusiasm.
  69. Malzman would tell Alisa that Mr. Boags wanted to make another plea offer, but knew that Spitzberg would reject it. Soon, he Malzman would tell her that Boags had an unsolicited e-mail where he would tell her that this is the last time he would offer a plea deal. Malzman seemed to regard Boags sending her unsolicited e-mails as unusual.
  70. In Late February of 2010, the witnesses for the defense were coming in ,and these witnesses would include a police officer ,Jaqueline Montalvo ,
  71. Malzman told Alisa that the judges were all tainted in that court and she feared they’d have to move the trial to Pomona. Malzman also told Alisa that “Boags wants to make his name on your case.: She then added “ Don’t be surprised If I want to make my name on your case.” Alisa couldn’t believe what she was hearing but was thrilled that any effort would be made on her part no matter what the motive behind it. Malzman then said, “That’s wrong You are being maliciously prosecuted. This is not about me.”
  72. Malzman spent most of the very limited time she had working on the two stalking and two criminal threat charges Boags had added on January 21st 2010. Malzman told Alisa “ I don’t know how he thinks he can get away with adding such charges.” As Malzman had now seen the witness statements and other evidence.
  73. Malzman did not have the time and resources to fight the search warrants or revive the motions that had been filed before the competency scheme and Alisa had to find some of the witnesses since Malzman said she couldn’t find them.
  74. . Malzman described this as a “David and Goliath” and spoke of how Malzman’s mother was outraged and that Alisa had gone through “so many outrages.” Malzman said about Silverstein, “ I hate to use this language. But he raped you. I can’t believe he never talked to your witnesses in all that time.”
  75. These four malicious and clearly baseless charges added on January 21st 2010, failed to induce a fear based plea bargain, as anticipated by Boags, and so the prosecution requested the judge drop these four charges, before they could be seen by a jury. The judge dismissed them in “the furtherance of justice,” on March 4th 2010.
  76. On this same day, Martin Boags, was replaced by Katie Ford( Hereinafter referred to as “Ford”) deputy city attorney. She would be the third prosecutor officially assigned this informal diversion misdemeanor case.
  77. On March 9th 2010, Katie Ford would file a trial brief, where she would commit clear fraud on the court when she would sign her name to the same lies repeated from Notaro to Gregozek April 30th 2008 and Willen to Gregozek on May 6th 2008 in their phone statements. Ford will tell the court Gregozek’s lies tooand she will tell the court that the police came when she knew none came and other falsehoods.
  78. Ford also had spoken to the witnesses, Jaqueline Montalvo, and Julius Quinn, Feign and Consuegra, and had seen the investigator reports that showed that all that what was said and now what she was saying was a lie.
  79. Ford offered an even better plea bargain to on the first day of trial, but Alisa rejected it.
  80. The case proceeded to trial in March of 2010 on the three bogus charges,but Malzman had mostly prepared for the four dismissed charges.
  81. On May 4th 2010 too, the judge had submitted to the wishes of the prosecution, when he agreed keep out anything that showed that the restraining order was a fraud .Therefore, no fair trial could be held in any legal way since a collateral attack of the restraining order must be allowed according to People v. Gonzalez (1996) 12 Cal.4th 804, 816-817 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 910 P.2d 1366].) The defendant may not be convicted for violating an order that is unconstitutional, and the defendant may bring a collateral attack on the validity of the order as a defense to this charge. (People v. Gonzalez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 816-818; In re Berry (1968) 68 Cal.2d 137, 147 [65 Cal.Rptr. 273, 436 P.2d 273].)
  82. Still it went forward. At some point, at tial, the judge wanted to re-open the validity of the restraining order issue and Malzman argued the Gonzalez case. The prosecution fought fervently to keep out anything occurring pre granting of the order. The judge said, “ I don’t want to open up that Pandora’s box,” and effectively allowed for the order to appear valid when the order was not valid but a fraud.
  83. Upon information and belief, the four day jury selection and the other delays that had caused the trial to run to 12 days when only 6 witnesses were called made this judge feel it impossible to turn this trial into anything longer.
  84. Fearing loss the prosecution made a desperate and ugly attempt to add more charges based on an the illegal domestic violence order granted on Septemeber 25th 2008, mid trial.
  85. This order ,granted without notice or hearing, was not used in the past to add charges as it was clear it wasn’t a case of domestic violence and that the order was granted without hearing or notice
  86. Malzman said that if need be she would subpeona Judge Landin and ask him how the order was ever made , but judge Moore said that was not necessary.
  87. The alert and just judge, H. Randolph Moore , refused to grant them this and expunged this illegally obtained order Nunc Pro Tunc . Nevertheless, it is believed that the jury was able to see this domestic violence order and that this allowed for a hung jury rather than the acquittal with a finding of factual innocence that should have resulted.
  88. Malzman repeatedly characterized it as a malicious prosecution and said to Alisa mid trial, “ They are railroading you.I can’t believe they flew Martha out from Texas and kept her all this time. I can tell that their witnesses have been coached.”
  89. Malzman appeared to be outmanned since the court was often teeming with city attorneys during the trial . Malzman said and did things that made it seem as if she did would not fight one charge as some concession to the city . It could be that she just had other clients facing more serious charges and had to spend the limited time she had on them. All that is clear is that she seemed to willfully fail to cross examine those that would be exposed as perjuring liars had she made any effort.
  90. The prosecutors would also alter the jury instructions by pen, cross out the forms instruction and pen to tell the jury this was a case of domestic and family violence wherein not ony Mathilde Notaro had to be protected from Alisa but so did Notaro’s family.
  91. Malzman would either not be aware or just let it slide that the jury instructions were altered by the prosecution .Malzman would not try to get a hold of witness Tobin Shea though his testimony would have proven crucial.
  92. The jury also got to see all the search warrant and the lies contained therein.
  93. Malzman either didn’t have time, the resources, or she was pressured to do what she could so that the city not be sued . She simply would refuse to impeach these false witnesses though so much impeachment material was given Malzman. Later, it was learned that she was dealing with a supervisor, Hoagie, that would not allow her to truly fight for an innocent client.
  94. The fact that all the witnesses were not mentioned before taking the stand , and then got jobs in advance of testifying for Notaro was not brought up. The fact that Notaro only reported the alleged violation after receiving the defamation lawsuit, not before, was not told the jury etc. The fact that Notaro only would report the alleged violation 18 days after it was said to occur also was not mentioned.
  95. Notaro’s many conflicting witness statements were never referred to and her incredibly bad credibility was ignored in favor of just getting the trial over with .
  96. The jury instructions, the presence of a Homeland security expert , of Gregozek telling them he is an elite detective and an expert in stalking, amongst other factors,led to a hung jury rather than an acquittal with a finding of factual innocent on the one count.
  97. Thought the dismissal in the interest of justice on that charge is a favorable termination , when viewing the evidence of perjury and malicious prosecution that Malzman did not bring up or contest it is clear that had there been advocacy on that one charge, and if the collateral attack on the validity of the restraining order had been allowed, an acquittal with factual innocence would have resulted.
  98. Malzman did work hard to fight the two facebook charges and soon she was able to make it clear to the judge and jury that Gregozek and Sam Moreno had tried to bamboozle them from the witness stand with “mumbo jumbo”and no link of any kind was found that either Alisa or Lauren wrote those facebook posts. In short, Gregozek and Moreno tried to con this judge and jury and they got caught.
  99. The dispositions were that Judge Moore , exercised his discretion, and acquitted the two counts, wrung out of the illegal search warrants, on an oral motion by the public defender to acquit, after presentation of the people’s case, and before it reached the jury .
  100. The count added sometime in August of 2008( the exact date is still unknown according to the record) hung 11-1 against Spitzberg due to the multi witness perjury and lack of advocacy afforded by the overburdened public defender .
  101. Notaro would add new false accusations and lies from the stand, and not be cross examined as to them. Notaro was now claiming that Lauren Spitzberg had beaten her up at some point too. Notaro was allowed to make such outrageous new lies and not be held to answer for them.
  102. The judge however understood that unlawful denial of the collateratl attack had caused an unjust result . He used his discretion and dismiss the only remaining charge, “ In the interests of justice.” This is a rare form of dismissal when the vote was 11-1 in favor of the prosecution. This rare form of dismissal is mostly only used when malicious prosecution is indicated .
  103. The judge told the prosecutor that “your case will never get any better” and he commented on the expense and the the manpower used in what he felt was a matter that belonged in the civil courts. He refused to let the prosecution retry the case despite Ford’s strong objections
  104. On August 11th 2009 Alisa was summoned to jury duty to that same court. She had been diagnosed with PTSD and just being in that court to get out of this jury duty made her sick.
By coincidence the same public defender , Jon Prince, who had told Alisa that he saw her in that cage and that she had been so screwed was there and he told Alisa, “ You need to sue them all. You got so so screwed.”
  1. Since March 23rd 2010, when all seven charges were dismissed with prejudice against the prosecution, many more very damaging and terrible things were endured by the plaintiffs.
  2. When Alisa sued Williams and Silverstein for malpractice, Williams attached the minutes where Jessner “declared a doubt’ to his demurrer and this appears to have swayed the judge into dismissed the malpractice claims against him since hey a judge found Alisa so very crazy.
  3. Alisa, who never sued anyone in 38 years and now found the courts the only way to fight for her basic human rights, sued Sillverstien and Knecth for malpractice and a judge threw it out because she insisted that Alisa had no standing as she was convicted. Despite it being made clear to this Judge Jaqueline Connor that no such conviction took place this judge just dismissed the case.
  4. Henya, already devastated by the savage injustices she’d witnessed and endured went on a consumer website called Ripoffreport.com to warn the public about Silverstein and Knecht. She wrote a furious but honest and accurate report.
  5. In order to retaliate for such a report James Silverstein and Peter Knecht utilized the fruits of the malicious prosecution and defamed Alisa Spitzberg and Henya and Lauren Spitzberg in a “rebuttal” and then separately against Alisa.
  6. Silverstein and Knecth told the public at large that Alisa was found incompetent by all the judges of Division 95 and linked the reader to the appeal that had been posted and attempted to cast all of Notaro’s lies as if they were true. The report must be seen to understand the vicious and vile nature of it. All of Notaro, Willen and then Gregozek and Hoffman’s bad acts formed the basis of this report.
  7. Alisa then sued Silverstein and Knecth for defamation . Silvrerstien and Knecth included Sharma and Velarde’s reports , but omitted the reports of their doctors, and showed it to the judge as a means again to say Alisa has been proven insane and nothing she says is valid.
  8. Upon information and belief, Silverstein and Knecht have made sure that they so smeared Alisa’s name to other lawyers that Alisa can’t even get an attorney.
  9. The defamation case against Silverstein and Knecht was a slam dunk .Alisa was able to get a lawyer to take it on contingency. There was talk early on of settlement but one day the judge just threw it out saying that saying Alisa is insane and a criminal and stalker is not defamation per se, but “just opinion”. The matter will be appealed the minute the judgement order is signed.
  10. Alisa has been forwarded e-mails where others send the appeal decision posted online and say to Alisa’s friends, “ This is the friend of yours?, look she’s a stalker.”
  11. All three defendants have been devastated and have endured catastrophic damages to be discussed further in the prayer for relief.
COUNT ONE
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)
(Alisa Spitzberg against all defendants)


  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-659
  2. Those defendants who sought charges against Plaintiff, Alisa, and participated in this prosecution lacked probable cause to do so and acted with malice and bad faith and prosecuted the plaintiff, Alisa ,with evil intent, or encouraged and assisted the police and prosecutors in the prosecution in bad faith.
  3. Notaro, Willen, Piazza , Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 wrongfully caused a criminal prosecution to be brought against Alisa.Notaro Willen, Piazza , Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 were actively involved in causing Alisa to be prosecuted and or in the continuation of the prosecution.
  4. The criminally proceeding, ended in Alisa’s favor on March 23rd 2010, when all charges were either acquitted by the trial judge or dismissed with prejudice against the prosecution. The judge said to the prosecutor, “You case will never get any better,” before forbidding her a retrial.
  5. On or before August 29th 2007 ,until May 29th 2008 Willen and Notato concocted a host of malicious lies in order that others may think them desirable and famous enough to have landed a stalker. Such an unrelenting series of lies caused a restraining order to be granted due to fraud, and when a civil suit was filed against Notaro, she retaliated by inventing that the order had been violated. Notaro then sought and succeeded in both procuring and encouraging seven charges to be brought against Alisa from August of 2008 to January of 2010.
  6. On April 30th2008, with the connections of Allison Hart, an unethical attorney and friend of Notaro, Notaro was able to enlist a Detective Gregozek,from a special unit familiar to Hart.
  7. After August 13th 2008, Notaro contacted Gregozek to tell him she’d been sued and to now create that a friend of hers had been party to an alleged violation of the order “awarded her”. Though the alleged violation was said to have occurred on July 14th 2008 Notaro would only report it after being sued nearly a month later. For the following many months Notaro by herself, or through her lawyer, would invent internet posting or find existing posts written by others and attempt to have the city attorney and Gregozek add charges and for very strange reasons both would go along.
  8. On March 23rd 2009 two charges would be added by a city attorney due to Gregozek and Notaro’s urgings and despite the fact that no evidence was found of any crime being committed
  9. Despite Gregozek and Hoffman being made aware, and in possession, of much exculpatory evidence they would ignore such evidence or hide it to persist in the malicious prosecution.
  10. When extreme and unbearable tactics still failed to get Alisa to plea when innocent four more charges were added in January 21st 2010. These charges were based on malicious lies of Notaro, Piazza, and Willen and the lies and continued complicity of Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-00.
COUNT TWO
CONSPIRACY
(All plaintiffs against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-669.
  2. Alisa, Lauren, and Henya claim that they were harmed by Willen, Notaro, Piazza, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 as a proximate cause of Willen, Notaro, Piazza, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-agreeing orally or in writing or by implied conduct to instigate, encourage and assist in malicous prosecution that would result in the malicious criminal prosecution of Alisa and that would lead to the illegal imprisonment of Henya and Lauren and Alisa and the arrest of Alisa and the illegal search and seizures against all plaintiffs and to competency schemes and serious violations of due process throughout.
  3. Such agreements would shove Alisa into a system where she would have to endure many outrages and indignities from August of 08 until March 23rd 2010. All pleaintiffs would endure such extreme indignities and outrages when no legal reason existed for them to have to endure it.
  4. All named defendants and DOES 1-100 are responsible for the harm because they were part of a conspiracy to commit wrongful acts.
COUNT THREE
(Unreasonable Search - Search With a Warrant— (42 U.S.C. 1983)
( Alisa Spitzberg against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-673.
  2. Alisa claims that as a proximate cause of the many malicious lies and false accusations of Notaro, Hart, Piazza and Willen and due to the malicious lies, perjury, and complicity of John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 , Gregozek and Hoffman and DOES 1-100 on January 21st,23rd, 29th and February5th of 2009, and then again on July 28th and August 4th 2099 and then again on November 4th 2009 carried out unreasonable searches of her person/home/automobile/office/ mailboxes, e-mail accounts, internet accounts, library account, cameras, phones, storage areas, notebooks, letters to lawyers etc.
  3. Previous to any of these searches and seizures Gregozek and Hoffman would be contacted by either Notaro or by Hart, via Notaro, and betold that Notaro either strongly believed or just plain believed that they came from “Spitzberg.” Hart and Notaro claimed to know “Spitzberg’s writing style.” And , urged Gregozek and Hart to search the computers and internet accounts of all Spitzbergs.
Private parties act under color of state law if they willfully participate in joint action with state officials to deprive others of constitutional rights. Private parties involved in such a conspiracy may be liable under section 1983." (United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp. (9th Cir. 1989) 865 F.2d 1539, 1540, internal citations omitted
  1. John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 would then lie to and commit perjury in order to get five separate judges to grant them warrants to search all plaintiff’s person/home/automobile/office/ mailboxes, email accounts, internet accounts, library account, cameras, phones, storage areas, notebooks, letters to lawyers etc.
  2. John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 search was unreasonable and according to all evidence was solely based on the inarticulate hunches and inappropriate urgings of obvious malicious liars(Notaro, Willen, Hart)
  3. John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 were acting or purporting to act in the performance of their official duties;
  4. All plaintiffs were harmed when their privacy was invaded . Their sense of law enforcement and the constitution was completely shattered before November 4th 2009 . After November 4th 2009, the 18 man raid and the riot gear and the incredible spectacle and invasion of home and privacy and denial of property caused even more grave damages.
  5. John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 unreasonable search was a substantial factor in causing Alisa’s harm and was a proximate cause of Notaro,Willen, Piazza, Hart’s malicious lies.
  6. The warrants were obtained by Gregozek and Hoffman due to them lying and committing perjury to the assorted issuing magistrates. Absent such lies and perjury they would not have obtained these illegal and intrusive warrants.
  7. There was no probable cause for a regular warrant much less exigent circumstance warrants. The scope of the warrant appears to be only for Alisa’s accounts and then Alisa’s properties but Gregozek and Hoffman and DOES 1-100 appeared to have taken all the liberties to search the accounts of Henya and Lauren’s account and then on November 4th 2009 to search and seize their phones, library cards, notebooks, journals, mailboxes, storage areas, cars, etc or all plaintiffs.
  8. Though the warrant makes it clear that these 18 officers knew that the apartment and car was leased to Henya Spitzberg this did not stop them from pretending that this was all Alisa’s properties and car and seizing and searching it all.


COUNT FOUR

Unreasonable Search - Search Without a Warrant— (42 U.S.C 1983)

(Henya and Lauren against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiffs Lauren and Henya reallege and reincorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-684.
  2. Henya and Lauren claim that as a proximate cause of the malicious lies of all named defendants and DOES 1-100, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 carried out an unreasonable search of their person/home/automobile/office, notebooks, journals, computers, e-mails, email accounts, internet accounts because Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 did not have a warrant to search either the accounts or properties of Henya and Lauren Spitzberg before searching and seizing their properties.;
  3. Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 were acting or purporting to act in the performance of their official duties; Henya and Lauren were harmed. Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 were a substantial factor in causing Heny and Lauren’s harm.
  4. The search was conducted by 18 police in riot gear and that does not make any good faith sense. They refused to show any of the plaintiffs the warrant and they refused Henya and Lauren entrance into their home after Henya and Lauren implored them to just be allowed in to call the lawyer just hired.
  5. As can be seen in the tape made, Lauren was told to put her hands in the air and frisked when no legal reason existed for this.
COUNT FIVE
False imprisonment
(Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-689.
  2. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg were wrongfully restrained and confined and detained by Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 on November 4th 2009.
  3. Such restraint, detainment and confinement was a proximate cause of the malicious lies and the malicous roles played by all the defendant’s previous to and following November 4th 2009.
  4. Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 intentionally deprived Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg of their freedom of movement by use of fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress as can be seen in the tape made of these events.
  5. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg did not consent as can be seen repeatedly in the tape.
  6. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg were harmed; and Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 conduct was a substantial factor in causing Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg’s harm
  7. During the time that Henya and Lauren and Alisa were detained for in excess of two hours on November 4th 2009, Alisa was then arrested on the pretense that lo and behold a bench warrant was ordered two weeks previously, when Alisa had to leave the court when there could no longer be doubt that she was a victim of a serious of fraud and a conspiracy. A fake need for a fake search was created in order to arrest Alisa on this illegally obtained bench warrant in the hopes that arrest and jail might finally break her down for a plea.
  8. The reason for the search warrant was false and malicious . No bench warrant was legally issued as has been alleged and can be seen by evidence.
  9. 18 officers in riot gear would not come to any defendant’s home on a bench warrant when Alisa was facing three misdemeanor charges where the plea offer was “informal diversion,” and where she had never been late to court much less not shown up.
  10. The tape of November 4th 2009, has been edited, but what remains can leave no doubt as to the true nature of the “search warrant’ and the “bench warrant” and that they were a pretense to terrorize the plaintiffs into submission in the hopes that Alisa would break and accept a plea when innocent.
  11. The tape shows that Henya and Lauren were illegally detained.
  12. Alisa was kept for 31 days in preventative detention. Her jail papers said that she was, “a laborer “ and in case of emergency - contact” NO ONE.”
  13. In the jail, Alisa lived with two violent criminals, and a schizophrenic woman convinced that everyone was there to kill her, including Alisa . Since she was allowed no bail others assumed Alisa must be a serious career criminal. Since she and only a very few of the prisoners were taken to the mental health court, any association with such a court caused more humiliation and anguish.
  14. Not only were the conditions hellish but since Alisa had no idea what the “end game” may be , she could see no end to her incarceration in sight since no bail was allowed and no charges brought, in relation to this arrest and incarceration.
  15. Alisa and her lived with the endless horror of being jailed for life or put in Patton for life since no laws or humanity seemed to exist any longer. Her beloved mother and sister lived with the same extreme anguish and fear. They live with such great suffering and betrayal and pain till today.
  16. Other than Jeffrey Dunn’s statement, “ I read your blog” and Suzanne Lopez’s comment, “ Now that you went to internal affairs we can go into your computers or even Gregozek’s comment “ What could I do you sued her, didn’t you,” as the reason for the raid and arrest there was no legal reason .Absent fraud and conspiracy Henya and Lauren would not be kept from entering their home and. Alisa would not be detained, frisked, handcuffed, and then jailed for 31 days where she was strip searched on nine occasions. Not to mention the 23 months of loss of liberty she endured due to being maliciously prosecuted and the extreme anguish caused and continuously being caused by the evil Soviet Era Russia competency scheme that occurred in the underlying case.
COUNT FIVE
Instrusion into private affairs
(All plaintiffs against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-705 As a proximate cause of all defendants lies and malice, Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg claim that Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 violated their right to privacy.
  2. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that they hadn’t comitted any crimes and there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed any crimes.
  3. Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 intentionally intruded into their place of residence, their emial and internet counts, their automobile, their phones,their cameras, their notebooks, their letters etc.
  4. Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person;
  5. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg were harmed; Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 conduct was a substantial factor in causing Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg harm.
  6. The circumstances surrounding the intrusion were such that seven search warrants were illegally obtained and 18 officers came in and invaded the sanctity of the Plaintiff’s home on November 4th 2009 and would not them inside. Absent bad faith and evil intent, no conceivable legal basis existed
  7. Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 motives and goals were to terrorize them and to try to retaliate and to get charges added in order to secure a plea bargain that would insulate them from liability for the outrageous, illegal, and damaging actions they would perpetuate against the plaintiffs.
  8. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg could expect privacy in their homes and cars and computers when no reasonable suspicion of a crime on any of their parts existed.
COUNT SEVEN
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
(All plaintiffs against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-713
  2. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg claim that , Notaro, Willen, Piazza Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 conduct caused them to suffer severe emotional distress.
  3. . Notaro, Willen, Piazza Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 Notaro, Willen, Piazza Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 intended to cause Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg motional distress;.
  4. Notaro, Willen, Piazza Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg was present when the conduct occurred;
  5. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg suffered severe emotional distress; and Notaro, Willen, Piazza Gregozek ,Hoffman and DOES 1-100 conduct was a substantial factor in causing the severe emotional distress they endured and still endure.
COUNT EIGHT
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - Bystander –
(Lauren and Henya against Gregozek , Hoffman and DOES 1-100)
  1. Plaintiffs Lauren and Henya reallege and reincorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-718.
  2. Henya and Lauren are immediate family members of Alisa Spitzberg and they are a very close family. Henya and Lauren suffered serious emotional distress as a result of being present during the raid on their home and watching Alisa being handcuffed repeatedly and then taken off to be jailed in their presence. No legal basis existed for any of this. This caused Alisa and them indescribable anguish.
  3. Lauren and Henya could only watch and suffer during the raid and arrest and then were present in court when doctors Sharma and Velarde shred their oath to declare Alisa incompetent and that she be forcibly medicated and when Judge Stratton et al dispensed with all law or humanity to deny bail and keep Alisa jailed as in coercive confinement for 31 days and described her as “seriously mentally ill” because “two doctors said so.”
  4. Henya and Lauren were present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and aware that Alisa was being injured, and they suffered serious and extreme emotional distress as a result.
  5. The named defendant’s and that of the DOES’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Henya and Lauren’s serious emotional distress, which included suffering, terror,anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, greif, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. No ordinary person would not have a complete nervous breakdown when considering what Lauren and Henya had to endure and witness in this case .
COUNT EIGHT
Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §198
Deprivation of Property Without Due Process of Law
(All plaintiffs Against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of her general allegations including all allegations in paragraphs 1 through and including 723 as if fully set forth herein.
  2. As a proximate cause of Notaro, Piazza, Willen’s malicious lies and malicious invention of criminality on the part of Alisa and Lauren and Henya,   Defendant Gregozek, and James Hoffman in concert with the other DOES at the scene on November 4th 2009, intentionally violated the civil rights of the Plaintiffs by their malicious and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ property rights. 
  3. The invasion of Henya home and the seizure of her property and that of her daughters, Lauren and Alisa, was done without probable cause and due to malice, retaliation and fraud, and it amounted to the deprivation of property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
  4. A modem belonging to Henya Spitzberg’s was seized for no discernible reason too. Therefore, she could not use the phone from November 6th till she was able to obtain another one approximately 2 weeks later . The seizure of lawyers e-mails, Lauren Spitzberg’s computers and notebooks, camera and MP3 player, and the library card of what could have been any of these three women’s would shock the conscience of any American citizen and was wholly unwarranted by any of the actions on the part of any of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had no use of a computer when preparing for trial and had to purchase a laptop for over 500 dollars.
  5. Such properties were only returned to the plaintiffs after trial and Alisa could not prepare for trial adequatedly due to these unlawful seizures.
  6. The seizure of the plaintiff’s properties was based on lies that were known to be lies by all defendants.
  7. Both unincarcerated plaintiffs were left without any use of a computer due to all computers being seized. There was no probable cause for any of this, as evidenced, by all documents and witnesses and as evidenced by the fact that no charges or evidence was yielded by this search and that the similar allegations and charges that went to trial were acquitted by the judge.
  8. The allegations were that on August 22nd 2009 Notaro said someone wrote something on a “guestbook,” and that on November 4th 2010 this justified a blanket search of all three women’s house and property. No probable cause or good faith reason existed or can be inferred by any reasonable person. This was all just another foiled attempt at inducing Alisa to accept the plea bargain and immunize them from the liability that was being incurred.
  9. The Seizure of property was unnecessary, illegal, and unwarranted.
  10.  Defendant Gregozek and the other Defendants, either with the specific intent to violate the Plaintiffs’ civil rights or with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing that violation, invaded the sanctuary of Henya Spitzberg’s home, lawlessly seized her beloved daughter, lawlessly seized and then searched their properties without just provocation.. 
  11. The manner in which the seizures of November 4th 2009 occurred was so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond the bounds of decency.  It would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 
  12. The invasion, false arrest, fraudulent search and seizure were done in such merciless fashion and caused severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.
  13. Defendant’s actions, individually and jointly, were malicious and evidenced a callous and reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, plaintiffs constitutional rights/
COUNT NINE
False Arrest (With Illegally obtained and fraudulent Bench Warrant.)
( Alisa Spitzberg against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of her general allegations including all allegations in paragraphs 1 through and including 736 as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Notaro , Piazza, and Willen knowingly gave the police false or materially incomplete information, of a character that could be expected to stimulate an arrest. This coupled with the bad faith and then malicious involvement of Gregozek, Hoffman, and DOES 1-100 caused a series of frauds and malicious deceits that led to Alisa’s false arrest on November 4th 2009.
  3. Alisa claims that as a proximate cause of the lies and malice of all defendants she was wrongfully arrested by Gregozek,Hoffman and DOES 1-100.
  4. The bench warrant issued two week priors to the arrest was strictly a product of fraud on the court and malice and no officer acting in good faith and without malice would have brought 18 officers to arrest Alisa on the bench warrant that resulted from their assorted frauds on the court .
  5. Alisa had gone to court always and had gone to court on October 14th 2009. She had a legal right to leave that court before a plot to have her declared incompetent and committed to Patton and forcibly medicated be carried out.
  6. Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES knew of the plot and had been active in it according to the Lucie evidence and other circumstantial evidence .
  7. They invented a false need for a search warrant in order to enter the home of Henya, Lauren and Alisa Spitzberg in order to arrest Alisa and sufficiently terrorize her and her family so she would back down from her assertion of rights and her refusal to plea when innocent .
  8. The defendants believed that civil claims against them would be thwarted if Alisa plead.
  9. Alisa was severely harmed and all the named defendants and DOES 1-100’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Alisa’s harm.
COUNT TEN
VIOLATION OF AND CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FOURTEENTH AMENDEMENT RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C 1983- MALICIOUS INVESTIGATION
(All plaintiffs against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in all paragraphs 1-745
  2. As alleged herein, the private party defendants were willing participants in a joint course of conduct, together with Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100, who were acting under color of law to instigate, facilitate, and prolong a malicious, bad faith criminal investigation of plaintiffs. This malicious investigation was highly outrageous, undertaken in bad faith, caused by malicious motives, and involved conduct that shocks the conscience. It violated plaintiffs’ due process rights.
  3. Among defendants’ malicious actions the shock the conscience, the defendants knowingly disseminated false information, retaliated against plaintiffs for the exercise of constitutional rights; conspired with other defendants to violate fourth and other constitutional rights; suppressed exculpatory evidence; manufactured false evidence ; violated canons of legal ethics, and vigorously pursued a criminal investigation that they knew to be wholly baseless and unwarranted.
  4. The non law enforcement defendants willfully participated in this joint course of conduct by, among other things willfully providing false information to Gregozek or any investigating entity.All named defendants ratified false and inflammatory statements maligning and defaming plaintiffs. There was an agreement and meeting of the minds among the defendants to engage in a course of conduct that violated plaintiffs substantive due process rights.
  5. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of defendant’s conduct, plaintiffs suffered injuries including violation of rights, reputational injury and public humiliation and obloquy, severe emotional distress, economic damages, and other harms.
  6. Defendant’s actions , individually and jointly were malicious and show a callous and reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to plaintiffs constitutional rights.
COUNT ELEVEN
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq
(Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of her general allegations including all allegations in paragraphs 1 through and including 751 as if fully set forth herein.
  2. Private defendants , Notaro, Willen, Piazza, engaging in a conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Alisa Spitzberg,willfully and maliciously lied to the police and prosecutors and to judges and such lies provoked a series of deprivations of civil rights to all plaintiffs.
  3. Defendants John Gregozek, James Hoffman and DOES 1-100 for all times relevant to this cause of action, were state actors within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq.
  4. As detailed above, these state actors, engaged in a course of conduct with the private actors which violated Plaintiff’s statutory and Constitutional rights, contrary to clearly established law.
COUNT TWELVE
Defamation
(All plaintiffs against all defendants)
  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of her general allegations including all allegations in paragraphs 1 through and including 755 as if fully set forth herein
  2. Notaro, Willen, Piazza, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 made one or more defamatory per se statement(s) to person other than the plaintiffs.
  3. Those hearing the defamation reasonably understood that the statement(s) were about Alisa, Lauren ,and Henya Spitzberg
  4. Those who heard the defamation reasonably understood the statement(s) to mean that Alisa, Henya, and Lauren had committed crimes as Notaro and Willen and Piazza and the Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 alleged a host of crimes comitted by them by confirming all Notaro’s and Willens malicous lies in their their reports and then their search warrant applications.
  5. Notaro, Willen, Piazza, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statement(s).
  6. Alisa, Henya, and Lauren Spitzberg claim that Notaro, Willen, Piazza, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 harmed them. Notaro, Willen and Piazza called Alisa a stalker who stalks either Notaro or Willen. Piazza accused all three plaintiffs of stalking “her comedian,” Notaro. Notaro not only began accusing Alisa of stalking her but then that Henya, Lauren and Alisa were all stalking her and that they all at unspecified dates and times beat her up and then they beat up Notaro’s family. Notaro is deranged and without a moral or honest bone in her body and she should be jailed for perjury and false reports but instead is free to further wreak havoc on the plaintiffs with her defamation and her insanity.
  7. Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 allowed and assisted her and the other two, and those that would repeat this defamation in destroying the names and reputations of the plaintiffs due to their opressive and malicious complicity in the underlying case.
  8. Alisa would learn in October of 2008 that low level comedians intent on getting in good with the connected Notaro were spreading such lies on the internet and adding fresh new defamation. Now, Alisa was the “town weirdo” who must be “banned and shunned” and now she was alleged to be stalking comedians from all over the country.
  9. In August of 2008 Alisa was physically attacked by A Val Myers after Myers heard from Notaro that Alisa was a stalker.
  10. Recently, Alisa was informed by a Bill Pierson that it is known in the “comedy world.” That Notaro takes pleasure in lying about Alisa and claiming that she lives in fear and is stalked by her. This affords the disturbed Notaro all sorts of thrills, it appears.
  11. Someone with the screenname “ Yellowcougar” informed Alisa that Notaro attached the appeals decision to her wikepedia page. The appeals decision is an affirmation of fraud and it is defamation. Any looking up Alisa or Lauren’s name will read what amounts to the worst kinds of defamation per se. Notaro used it as means to further harm Alisa and Lauren.
  12. Notaro tells anyone with ears that Alisa is so crazy that doctors found her incompetent to stand trial. Notaro’s Lawyer feels emboldened to tell anyone that Alisa is an “obsessed stalker” and provide no evidence even though Hart know that her client is a very disturbed liar and a very destructive and wasteful sociopath.
  13. Alisa pled with the detectives, Gregozek and Hoffman to stop this cruel injustice and destruction, and they instead ratified such defamation over the course of two years by trying to have charges added that then would include stalking.
  14. Now Notaro can tell everyone, and evidence will show that she does, that she has stalkers and that she can continue the destructive and sick lie that Alisa or the other plaintiffs are stalking her by making such statements to anyone who will listen.
  15. Willen would tell the prosecution in January of 2010 that either Lauren or Alisa was cyber stalking but provide no evidence since Alisa and Lauren never have bothered anyone in their lives much less stalked anyone.
  16. When a James Silverstien was sued for malpractice and a ripoff report written about him by Henya Spitzberg he used all the defamation of Notaro to harm Alisa.
  17. Any inspection of the rebuttal he would write and the report he would make of Alisa and that he would post online will show that the malicous lies begun by Notaro and Willen and then repeated and ratified by the other defendants would cause devastation , destruction, shame, mortification, anguish to all three plaintiffs.
  18. Alisa and Lauren and Henya can prove that the wrongful conduct of the plaintiffs led to damage to their property, business, trade, profession and occupation.
  19. Plaintiffs can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with malice, oppression and fraud. The acts of the defendants in disseminating and ratifying the defamation were vile and outrageous to the extreme.

COUNT THIRTEEN

TRESPASS
( Henya Spitzberg Vs All defendants.)

  1. Plaintiffs realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in in paragraphs 1-774.
  2. Henya Spitzberg claims that Gregozek, Hoffman and Does 1-100 trespassed on her property.
  3. Henya rented the property at #203 Fountain ave, and owned the car that was illegally searched and invaded. She had possession of the searched areas on November 4th 2009 and Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 knew this.
  4. Without probable cause to so, Gregozek, Hoffman and DOES 1-100 , in Riot gear, intentionally, recklessly, and negligently invaded Henya S property in all the search warrants but specifically for November 4th 2009.
  5. Henya did not give permission for the entry, knowingly and did not consent to being detained outside her property for in excess of two hours.
  6. Henya Spitzberg is a law abiding citizen who is also a 73 year old survivor of the Holocaust . The neighbors were all informed of such an event and Henya Spitzberg was shamed,traumatized, and very injured by such frightening and illegal actions on the part of those that are supposed to protect and serve.
  7. She lives in fear as would be deduced by the facts of the case and the events of November 4th 2009.
  8. The defendant’s conduct in illegally entering the sanctuary of her home, and then and searching her properties and then seizing properties belonging to her caused great even more damage to Henya Spitzberg.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

a. An award of compensatory ,punitive, and general damages against
defendants and each of them, in an amount to be determined according to
proof; b. Plaintiff suffered damages which were proximately caused by the conduct of the Defendants, jointly and severally, which included, without limitation, the following:

(a) humiliation;

(b) outrage;

(c) indignity;

(d) conscious pain and suffering;

(e) loss of custody, society and companionship of family members;

(f) mental suffering and sorrow, deep depressionin Henya and Lauren and Post Traumatic stress disorder in Alisa eight months after the illegal arrest and incarceration begun on November 4th 2009;

(g) headaches , constant upset stomach, and the physical sequella of emotional stress;

(h) grief, anger, humiliation, horror, extreme anxiety terror, loss of capacity to feel safe or to feel joy, fright;

(i) the stress and costs of legal fees and scores of court appearances;

(j) outright distrust of law and judicial officials and loss of faith and trust in the legal system ;

(k) and all other damages fair and equitable under the circumstances damages, in an amount to be established at trial, as compensation for injuries to reputation, emotional suffering, past and future economic losses, invasion of privacy, constitutional deprivations, loss of jobs and future career prospects, legal and other expenses and other injuries proximately caused and enhanced by defendant’s wrongful conduct;An award of exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their individual capacities in an amount to be proven
at trial;

a. damages, in an amount to be established at trial, to punish defendants for fraudulent, willful and wanton, and malicious conduct; to punish defendants for outrageous conduct pursued with actual malice that recklessly and callously disregarded plaintiff’s physical and emotional well being and constitutional rights;to discourage defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future ; and to deter others similarly situation from engaging in similar wrongful conduct.
Plaintiffs claim that the acts of these Defendants and the damages to Plaintiff proximately flowing from those acts entitle her to exemplary damages, because the acts of the Defendants:

(a) Caused injuries to Plaintiff’s feelings not capable of precise computation;

(b) Caused Plaintiff intensified injury due to the Defendants’ acts of bad faith or ill will;

(c) Caused Plaintiff intensified injury due to the willful and wanton nature of the Defendants’ acts;

(d) Caused Plaintiff intensified injury due to the sheer reprehensibility of the Defendants’ conduct;

(e) Caused Plaintiff intensified injury attributable to Plaintiffs indignation and outrage;

(f) Demonstrated on the part of each of these Defendants a conscious indifference to the consequences of their actions.

a. An award of plaintiffs' fees and costs in defending against the malicious criminal prosecution
e. Declaratory relief -   To declare the restraining order a void judgement as it was a result of intrinsic and extrinsic fraud.
b. Declaratory relief that Alisa Spitzberg was factually innocent of the allegations made in the restraining order hearing and of the criminal charges against her brought by malice and fraud .
c. Injunction- To remove the appellate decision , from internet sites, since it was obtained by fraud, and if not possible -- to put a disclaimer in that states the truth, in the interests of justice.
d. All costs incurred pursuing the civil cases necessitated, and in defending against the criminal action 8CA10541 and void restraining order.
e. And, such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Dated May 24th 2012
Alisa Spitzberg
Henya Spitzberg
Lauren Spitzberg



























































Post a Comment

Can "Tig" Notaro come out as a FTM transgender?

Not unless she wants to go to prison for a long time for cancer charity fraud is the quick answer. Less quick answers, questions, and revi...