Friday, January 29, 2016

dd

From April 30th 2008 till July 2009. rest is coming. Also will include the allegations and how false they were, of course. some documents appear to not be showing up. easily remedied asap.













l 30th 2008   









On May 1st 2008 Notaro or someone else files this in the Santa Monica Courthouse




May 2 -

Here's May 2nd 2008 blown up.







On May 2nd 2008 Detective Hoffman Serial Number 30708, Defoe Serial Number 27180, and Gregozek(no serial number included) Responded to Notaro's residence. Notaro identified Spitzberg by photograph.

Note: Beyond skimpy on detail. Three Detective from an elite LAPD Unit drive from Downtown L.A to Santa Monica to respond to a residence? Since when do residence's speak or identify people, by one photograph? Was one witness statement ever taken of Notaro. What about those three roommates she listed on the Restraining order. We'll get to those three roommates very soon.


While Three Detectives ponder why a residence is the one to speak to in such instances-

Notaro or her lawyers or someone has filed this with the Santa Monica Court.


You see, Mathilde "Tig" Notaro doesn't just want a restraining order. She wants a special one. The ones reserve for cases so extreme that even the due process benefit of notice be denied the soon to be restrained. But she is not required to fill the required information out because....


This too appears to have been filed on May 5yh


jjjj




There is a lot of stuff going on this page. But it would take me nearly six years to understand that the most important few lines were these. More exactly the who was there part and the name, Nick Kroll.





page 3



page 4





Page 5 

pg 6




It is not shocking that a judge would grant such an order since temp orders are notoriously rubber stamped( In L.A, at least) but to grant one without notice to me based on these two documents- Where absoltely not one reason is given... Well, how to explain that.

 the earlier one has a case number while the later one does not - which I just don't yet understand














So whomever this judge was granted it to Miss Notaro and we must assume due to the documents- her representatives at the Lavey and Singer Lawfirm



Temporary order pg 1


Page 2




page 4 temp  




OK, no due process. No hearing. Not even notice. Based on violence and stalking. Not just against Notaro but Notaro wants me to be restrained from three men I've never heard of. She will claim these three men -- Kjell Bjorgen, Chris Fairbanks, and Thomas Sharpe-- are her roommates. Implicit in that is that I somehow without any such allegation- pose a threat to these people who reside in her home.


 But there is a hearing to make this CLETS order permanent.


Please note this the entirety of the file when it comes to the request and then the granting of the order. only Notaro's affidavit. No affidavits from the many witnesses she'd then list. 

We found this later, on the back of one of the pages.


But, nothing but this. No police reports. 

If you look at this, which involves the same Police Officers, John Gregozek and the same Lawfirm, Lavely and Singer. Well, you'll see that somethng is not right here.


Ok, so unbenowst to me on August 30th 2008, Notaro contacted Gregozek and he filled out the report seen above. Then on May 2nd 2008 he, Detective Martha Defoe and Detective James Hoffman went to a residence and spoke to it. Somehow Notaro identified me by one photo.  

Here's that again-  


What did this crack team of Detectives do next.

No evidence of any other activity pursuant to the "Investigation" for May 3rd or 4th or 5th but on May 6th 2008, I'd learn much later(because none of this was to be found in the file in the Santa Monica Court) In other words, I was left completely in the dark.

Here we see that Gregozek   "obtained printed out emails and online forums written by Spitzberg about Notaro from Notaro's attorney, Alison Sivers (note his tendency to misspell her name repeatedly, as you see, even though he knows her very well)


That is not all that Gregozek did in order to "investigate" Notaro claims of stalking.

According to him, by now he interviewed Notaro "via telephone" then drove to the offices of Lavely and Singer. Then once again he did the via telephone thing and spoke to a Stephanie "Stef" Willen by phone


This is the entirety of what he'd write about that




On May 7th 2008 Gregozek and Hoffman came to our door. Read more about it here.







In subsequent search warrants, he'd tell the assorted judge under penalty of perjury this:




Please note that these statement made by Gregozek are lies. He is making things up.

As do his notes which very mysteriously omit my mother completely. Since my mother and sister, though put in separate rooms retold the same set of facts apparently it was't relevant to his assisting Marty Singer and Nick Kroll's dear friend in having whatever they wanted accomplished.


Insert misdemeanor of century and how the "interview went down.



As of May 7th 2008 there is no indication in any record, that any member of the LAPD's Threat Management Unit engaged in any form of investigation. 

Later though we'd see that John Gregozek did do something between May 7th and May 28th of 2008. He filed this with Judge Gerald Rosenberg's court




Of course I was going to respond to these allegations. Allegations that I, my sister, and my mother(and many potential witnesses)could prove wrong.

insert statement by Gregozek and Hoffman 


But was tracking down these witnesses neccessary. according to these detective it was not and so I was sure my response was enough.


write about our meeting and phone call with lawyers etc.




May 28th 2008


PDF "Hearing..






































Minutes of that "hearing" 




page 2








Note these things,- substitution of attorney. judge made it last case. all twintess in court. sister was key witness. removed from court. the record has omitted this very important fact. 


And, here's the order granted by Judge Gerald Rosenberg





So now Gerald Rosenber had granted Notaro want she wanted...





Next step- Appeal...

What other remedies.  We'd find out late about Motions to Reconsider and Void Judgement But at that time... we were told an appeal was the only remedy. It also seemed obvious that Notaro had defamed me, had commited "fraud on the court. Soon with some research it was clear that Malicious prosecution" " Abuse of Process" and Infliction of Emotional harm applied.And so that process began.

On June 29th I filed the notice of appeal and as required.


Aside of the filing of the notice of appeal June was uneventful

You had to serve the defendant with Notice of filing so In early July I took the measures required to serve Notaro with "Notice of Appeal," 







 So on July 15th the process server sherrif deputy gave up.



Can't remember the exact details but judging by the record, she was served and the appeal process was started a short time afterwards.

Next step was the defamation suit and according to these documents that was filed on and served on





















1








2




3
























On May


May 5th

May 6

May 7th





May 28th




June 26th 2008














Work in progress. just the criminal trial minutes and then how the restraining order frauds would factor into the malicious prosecution...

I left some stray documents at the bottom, cause I just found them and don't want to look for them again. They will be used in chronological order.

 


Before taking it court date by court date or "pretrial hearing" let's look at the entry that describes the events before the arraignment and then the many court dates to follow.



Note that the these minutes were the last one's I picked up from the court.
Anyone looking would think an arrest took place that relates to the initial filing of the charge. We'll get back to that later because it requires a lot of context and then it would require legal knowledge that I don't even have.

Let's skip the top part -  but please note that the arrest and bail listed are t dated a year and four months after the charge. I'll just say that there was no arrest or bail set(other than own recognizance) related to this charge or any charges to come. That sounds confusing and it is, but will become clear much later on.




 Case filed:
 August 25th 2008- one count- 273.6(A) - Violation of a restraining order. And this document evidences that such a filing took place on that date 

Well, this is the document that arrived in the mail to tell me that such a file was charged.... UH.... after the letter was sent.



As you can see a charge is filed but a letter sent predates the filing - Not sure if that makes sense to someone familiar with procedure - i.e is it normal to sent a letter before you file?


And in light of the mention of bail and arrest, let's just look to see if any arrest took place subsequent to filing of the single charge: As the minute show the arrest and bail reference a date

These are the only documents handed over, over the course of this 23 month prosecution related to that-

Note how it says that this was filed on August 25th 2008 and "executed" on August 12th 2009




Yet on the next page of the same document it says that it was executed on August 19th 2008





So after the fact of the filing of the charge we would guess that John Gregozek has applied for an arrest warrant though this was a misdemeanor which he did not witness and where no stalking charge was granted him and we see that no attachment or any detail is given to support the granting of such an arrest warrant. We know no such warrant was allowed him because there was no arrest made.


And on August 4 2009 NOT 2008 Gregozek drafts this... It is only turned over after the trial was over and discovery was requested for the civil case that followed the criminal trial.




Please take a LOT OF note of the date and wonder why a year later he'd draft something like this

then page 1 of the minutes involves an arraignment, and another order of some sort being granted the "Victim," in this case..


Here's a crop from the first page of the minutes-




Ok, the date change from october 1st 2008 is due to me realizing that the arraignment was scheduled on the first day of Rosh Hashannah, so we found out you can go in and advance the date so that's what we did and so the October 1st date was vacated.

notable things that happened. Desai asked me " is this a joke." And then he told me and then he made his business to tell my mother, "I'd be happy to take this case to trial."



But then something happened that I didn't know happened till many months in ...Without Hearing or notice and based on no demand heard on any record, Judge Dennis Landin would grant a Domestic Violence Criminal Protective order without the benefit of due process - a hearing of any kind- and despite the fact that it has never been in dispute that notaro and I did not know each other much less have a domestic partnership of any kind.


The public defender assigned that day, Anan Desai, did not see it has part of his job, we can assume, to fight such a clear violation of what was right and lawful. Such an order would meet with a spectacular future during trial, a year and a half after Landin signed off to it.



As you can see, from the minutes and these documents no hearing or even forewarning(notice) of any kind was made



Note the notes on the bottom of the green paper - FV= Family Violence DV- Domestic Violence

So " FV DV etc"

It has never been in dispute that me and Notaro were strangers. Not even aquainted much less family or domestic relations. This order granted to the prosecution(or more exactly- Lavely and Singer and Gregozek) was not legal in any way. No due process occurred before it's granting. The public defender did nothing to protect my due process at the time, and much much later- In March of 2010, this lawless and baseless order would return in a spectacular way. We'll get to that when that minute order comes but Katie Ford, Alissa Malzman Sterling and Judge Ronald Moore know what I'm talking about.




Page 2







On that day, October 16th 2008, I was approached by a public defender named Nicky Meehan. Though she said she was not my appointed lawyer, she proceeded to tell me that I got really lucky and have been offered the best possible plea in the criminal justice system. "Informal Diversion" is what she told me it was called. The offer was "12- 24"Plea offer made by Nicky Meehan. Informal Diversion  a few hours of anger management and in a year it will be off my record. Well, since I was only angry that Id been falsely accused 

The city attorney does something of note here, they order the restraining order from the Santa Monica court after I refuse the plea- on November 6th 2008. In other words, they added a criminal charge to me without even having the order in their possession ,



Note: There was never any proof of service. The restraining order was not served on me. On top of the order being a void order due to fraud and perjury, no service occurred here and yet the prosecution proceeded.






So next date is November 6th 2008. 

Franica greets me in court and asks me, " Do you see Notaro in court?" I say "no" and ask why, She tells me "the subpoenad notaro to court today" 



What doesn't seem to be present there is evidence of this occurring or any indicaition as told to me by Franica Tawn that behind he scenes the purported victim in this prosecution was communicaing to the city attorney's involved (Carlos Ramirez, in this instance) trhough the private lawfirm she'd retained for cease and desist letter and to very curiously handle her desire to get a restraining order and then to defend against a defamation suit served on Notaro very soon before such a criminal charge would be submitted by Detective John Gregozek and then approved by a Phyllis Henderson

This is all I was given evidencing those communications between a Deputy CA Carlos Ramirez and Allison Hart Sievers of the Lavely and Singer law firm. the date in Sharpe-12/11/08 might be the date that my public defender received this info or not, because I never was told that Notaro was let out of a subpoena due to this "communication"





Then the second page is the only statement of any kind requested by the prosecutors as to this charge and as you can see it is not under oath etc. They would let her out of this subpoena on Lavely and Singer's lawyers requests. And, my public defender did nothing to remedy that.


Insert the CA ordering the restraining order from Santa Monica court. It was not even in their possession when agreeing to File Gregozeks and Sievers demand they charge.

Also of note: at this stage this discover was handed over which will become signifcant when another city atorney, Jennifer Waxler, is put on the case and does not hand over communications from Lavely and Singer


What else went on .. talked to Franica. Sent her evidence etc.


Next date December 11 2008

Not too eventful date expect for the fact that on that day after a lot of urging on my part, Franica Tawn, agreed she'd get me an investigator for the public defenders office and she told me to get her the names and any detail I knew of potential witnesses. 








Now if you note the minutes. The minutes would echo what I was told.... nothing. I was told nothing by Franica Tawn about such a motion, at no time. I only became aware of it after trial in March of 2010.... more than a year later.

Let's look at the minute orders. why is their no evidence of this filing and when it was set for hearing. no mention of any motion. 



and then the next page starts with January 29th 08


Why is there no mention of this motion and why did Franica Tawn urge me to take plea offers despite her knowning very well that I could not be convicted if any law was followed.

Why did she tolerate the fact that her motion was not entered into the minutes and did she get pressured into dropping the motion. If then wouldn't it still be in the docket and mention of cancelled hearing etc. 

As far as I knew the only thing that was being done was that an Investigator had gone to talk to all sorts of friendly and unfriendly witnesses . Franica would no fill me in how that was going but I knew of two that I'd already gotten affidavits from 

So here's the next scheduled pretrial"

 But to be able to move forward to the rest we have to go back to what happened in between the December date and this date....and all without me being told a thing..





The first month of 2009 was a very busy month for John Gregozek when it came to his role in this case...

and it was a busy month for Neil Spector ( the investigator for the public defender)


Here is the documentary evidence of what John Gregozek was up to in chronological order


2 or more years later we'd learn this since none of this was turned over to us in the criminal case but for whatever reason was turned over in the civil righs case that we'd file in 2011

Here's his January 2009 in his own words as of February 3rd 2009





So this is Gregozek chronology of January -

January 13-  Gregozek was notified by Allison Seavers that Notaro receieved 4 postins on her Facebook online Profile by Facebook Profile ID "Ingrid Good." the Posting occured on January 7,2009. Due to the content of the messages, Notaro believed that the postings were created by Spitzberg



Then, we have these emails that were only handed over 2 years after the trial was over that indeed both John Gregozek  and city attorney we haven't seen listed on the minutes - Kelly Boyer- received emails from Lavely and Singer lawyer, Allison Sievers or Allison Hart Sievers-. Again please note that none of this was made available to the defense during the criminal trial. Only in discovery for the civil case did these bits of evidence emerge.






Ok, so we see that indeed Gregozek and Kelly Boyer were contacted by one of Marty Singer's lawyers and urged to begin taking steps to execute search warrants and then to add charges in relation to we must presume-- the evidence such search warrants would return....


Did John Gregozek obey such commands/requests/call them what you want?

Well, Gregozek says he did-



And who granted him that warrant and what he found are complicated since these judges were 1) lied to by Gregozek in his affidavit and in his "statement of facts"  Also these same judges would show up later to act very suspiciously.

In a separate document you can see that John Gregozek has repeately perjured himself in order to please his masters at Lavely and Singer.


But for now, here we see that search warrant he mentions here



Insert Jessner warratn


Then he say this for January 23rd 2009 






 here are the accompanying documents




Gregozek isn't done there is still January 26th 2009 - and this is how he puts that into ink-



And these are the documents made available to the court and prosecutor and then much later to the defense- re; his finding as to January 26th 2009







Now we have no choice but to guess that though this all looks confusing and not indicative of any evidence of guilt much less a smoking gun.... we are forced to assume that John Gregozek has, as of January 26th, found the goods on this Alisa Spitzberg person. No longer can she just refuse plea bargains for one charge. Now she will face five charges. What a dumbass. rejected the lowest plea bargain possible - informal diversion- and now busted on four more charges.


Gregozek we can imagine can contact Notaro and or her civil lawyer- Allison Sievers and tell them that Notaro was dead right.... Gregozek now has solid evidence to bring to any trial .


Even if it's not solid enough for a trial this document makes implicit that Noaro was right in her hunch. Then Gregozek made those hunches into viable and convincing evidene of guilt.


HOw do we know all that-

Well, Gregozek is merely a cop doing a public servant's job, right.

And, as of January 27th 2009, he is not alone in his professional opinion. Though most of us, including me, cannot discern from what he wrote in this February 3 2009 report.... Kelly Boyer can and



And here we have it reconfirmed on that day and then in many subsequent reports - Kelly Boyer added four charges on January 27th 2009.






So where are we? We are two days away from a pretrial hearing and since all of this was done exigent circumstance-- I have been toiling under the impression that I will come into court on January 29th 2008 to be be faced by the reports being prepared by the investigator for the public defender as me and Franica Tawn fight this one charge.

But as the documents ... document-

Notaro, Gregozek and now City Attorney Kelly Boyer have a surprise in store for me.


Wait till she sees and now she'll be ruing the day she turned down that offer for "informal diversion " made to her on October 16th 2008. Now five charges...


January 29th 2009. 

Unaware of the exigent circumstance search warrants and clueless about any addition of four more charges I go to court. Here you should expect quite a hearing. A turning point in the prosecution as the stakes become so much higher for this prosecution. we even know that after the fact --- such charges were added - on February 3 Gregozek had faxed such a report


My bail likely would have not only no longer been "own recognizance" but would have increased so substantially that we wouldn't even have the money to get me out before trial....


Five counts of violating a restraining order and then me and my counsel finding out about secret search warrants . warrants covered under darkness that produced evidence of not just one criminal charge but four.


INSTEAD,


I went to that pretrial hearing just lke I went to every one before and absolutely nothing of any consequence occurred.

And as you can see from this minute order, I didn't block out the events... nothing of any obvious consequence occurred-

I ran out of money to get more transcripts but I wish I could show those two but here in black and white -




So as I remembered - nothing of note. just come back next month

But a few other interesting things happened between December 11 2008 and January 29th 2009

1) A Neil Spector(an investigator for the private defender had begun speaking to just a few of the witnesses who I suspected would assist in my defense. my defense being that none of this had happened. And that the restraining order was a "void judgement" since it was entirely based on fraud and perjury. As of January 29th 2009, there was ample evidence and statements I'd acquire and then Neil Spector would acquire that showed this all to be a fraud/ set up.



2) This is a strange one because for whatever reason, the public defender on the case during this time period- Franica Tawn- chose not to inform me that on January 28th 2009 she'd gone into court and filed a -motion for discovery(long overdue in this case since it was now 4 months in on a one count misdemeanor) She never told me she did any such thing and when I looked at the minutes they confirmed that Franica Tawn like those who preceded her would just not file the most basic and expect motions to fight what they should have long known was a malicious prosecution. It was only after this case would end in a 12 day trial that I'd see this in the court file




In other words, for the first time the public defenders office was asking this prosecution to pony up and since some of the witnesses I'd given franica tawn were supposed to be prosecution witness who I knew couldn't keep such false stories straight... the prosecution was well aware that an investigator was on the case and talking to witnesses they would assume were favorable to their case - Martha Kelly, Stef Willen, Kevin Seccia, Michael Grifee, Mark Flanagan. And, most importantly - Notaro's agent - Heidi Feigin.

So in other other words, they were being challenged and Lavely and Singer was being challenged since it was being revealed that this case could not survive any "collateral attack on the validity of the restraining order.. Not only did they not have a case but it would be exposed that from the start, there was no case and John Gregzek and then the city attorney were caving to the demands of certain entities. In this case, Nick Kroll, and Marty Singer.


We'll get back to how from start to finish the court and clerk was fixing the minutes. at no time would they enter one defense filing into the minutes and there were many motions filed over the coming year and few months since January 28th 2009 when Tawn's motion was omitted from the official record.



Let's go back to January 29th 2009-  Can there be a good explanation for the omission in the record. Maybe Kelly Boyer didn't show up that day. Maybe absent her presence they chose not to add those four charges

Well, she was there


So for the first time we see Kelly Boyer. It will also be the first time we see Judge Mary Lou Villar but not the last. Judge Mary Lou Villar would be seen many times before this criminal case would be over and it might or might not be important to note that Mary Lou Villar is the the sister of the mayor, Anthony Villargrossa. They do have different names but there is no dispute that the then mayor of L.A is the brother of Judge Villar.


Ok, so how to explain not just the omission of the defense motion from the minutes, but the omission of anything related to the addition of four criminal charges- as seen in John Gregozek's police report

Here is judge Villar's notes of that hearing -


Let's blow that up a bit - 


In the right hand corner it says that I face one count - 273.6 then violation date - july 14th 2008

Bail- OR(same as before)

And though they seem to have spelled the name wrong Bower is Boyer and she is there instead of Tasha Penny.

Now, let's look at this closer at what Judge Villar wrote relative to January 29th 2009 




Not the best handwriting but I can make some of it out.... first line - Boyers
Second line: Wants to proceed pro per

It's true at this point Franica would say strange things to me and she chose to keep me in the dark about filing that motion on January 28th and so I did feel as if I couldn't stand being kept in the dark in this way.

So January 29th 09 has come and gone and I am not only completely in the dark about motions filed but about three search warrants being granted to Gregozek in a way where I have done something which allows such an extreme search warrant (exigent circumstance) to be granted.

And, though I am there in court on the 29th, and though Gregozek would submit this or transmit this to an unnamed entity we know that the addition of charges did not come to pass as Gregozek would claim




So after being present for what appeared as a highly uneventful pre trial hearing, I go home and basically try to find out how the investigator reports are turning out and again am met with Franica Tawn's apathy in the face of my innocence.

Tawn is not telling me anything regarding Neil Spector and what he might have turned up. Though I had expressed the desire to go pro per(be my own lawyer) I was told to wait till the next hearing to make that move...


So, from January 29th 2009 till the next scheduled hearing (March 12th 2009) I looked forward to the investigator reports and had no idea of any of the machinations that occurred. as far as I knew I faced the same one charge and no efforts had taken place by the cops, private lawyers for Notaro or the prosecution


May he m12th 2009 was a day where even stranger things would become evident and this courts practice of not entering significant entries into the minutes would really get into gear.

Here is the minute entry for that date-





So according to the minutes 

nothing of note occurred on March 12th 2009. As far as I knew and as far as these minutes would tell me, the prosecution had not mutated in any significant way.


I faced one count of violating a restraining order . a crime now alleged to have occured on July 14th 2008.


But again something very wrong was going on with the minutes as evidenced by this "motion" that the minutes wil say was filed and hearing on March 23rd 2009.



What is this about?

Let's make that bigger so you can better decipher If I have lying eyes or NOT-


And on that date - March 12th 2009- a hearing is also set for a motion dated March 10th 2009 and conformed by the clerk



And these documents also showed up, down the road  and I still cannot make sense of them

On March 9th 2009 was an arrest warrant sought. no signature here and no arrest or any notice of charges as of March 12th so...




























But these are the minutes of the court printed out a year and a half later. I mention the date of the minutes to make sure this can't be chalked up to a mistake that was soon ( or ever) remedied-





How can this be explained?

First we have Gregozek's report dated february 3 2009 where he asserts that after submitting his findings Kelly Boyer saw evidence that impelled her to add four criminal charges but hey... that didn't  happen. And even though Boyer was present in court to add such four charges of violating a restraning order and she did not, Gregozek would still write a report saying she did.

 Now on March 12th 2009, we have another date where the minutes do not in any way - comport with the motions being filed- a motion to add two charges and a filed farretta motion.


Absent the extremely mysterious omissions and how grossly inaccurate the minutes are and have been before - there are other things that are not indicated by the minute entry for March 12th 2009. As you can see that the way the public defender is noted as present is different from the other orders and there is a reason for that. I was not defended by this Kratu Patel or Franica Tawn or any lawyer. In that hearing I felt that in order to have any fighting chance against this malicious prosecution- I had to represent myself.


As mentioned, so far only pressure to plea on Nicky Meehans part on October 16th 2008 and then the missing Jose Ruvlcable. Then, Franica Tawn and her efforts mixed with her resentment that I should want "my little triall And though she did file a motion that could have cleared me as early as January 28th 2009, she never told me she did so and though the minutes would not reflect any such filing she either knew his or didn' but she made no effort to tell me that hey someone is messing with the minutes or she'd tried her best but... She did tell me "the private lawyer keeps contacting the office." and she followed that with "interesting" but when I asked her to elaborate she clammed up and would tell me know more.

So on March 12th I came in. the prosecutor knew this was my intent and so the discovery due me was to be brought to court.


And so I was given a huge batch of papers by a city attorney and went home to look at them...


And what did I see in these documents. Something that made me feel as if I had to advance the case from April 14th to asap and Kratu Patel made the effort to oblige me as I requested this to him by phone. but that was not all Kratu Patel would say, when I felt so under seige by what I saw and asked him if he unlike Franica would assist me with what clearly was a baseless prosecution that now involved things way way over my head or the heads of most.... Kratu Patel told me this, " There is a conflict of interest with you and the public defenders office and if I was you I would not use us."

This sounded intriguing... Because I had failed to please them by pleaing. I remembered Franica Tawn's words, " you want that little trial of yours" and all along aside of  Anan Desai... and despite the undisputable evidence that something was every wrong with John Gregozek and then the city attorney's actions in this case.... 

Later I'd realize that the statement made by Franica, " Her private lawyer keeps calling the office. Interesting" did not refer to the private attorneys - The infamous Lavely and Singer law firm- being in unusual contact with the prosecution but with the office of the public defender... 

How that discovery was realized will come later. I wrote these notes at the time but I can find the farretta and the transcript that shows againt hat the minutes are not representing what is occurring in ourt.
 3/12/09- The farretta hearing is granted very swiftly and the judge is not
     pleasant. I ask for a mardsen hearing and she impatiently says- only if
     you wait till the end of the day. I can't afford to wait till 4 P.M so I
     go home. For the first time I am given access to discovery. TCIS entry
     from notes by J. Esparza A woman approaches me after the Farretta and want
     to talk to me as " a friend of the court." She tells me she is an
     alternate public defender and I should go to court another time and get
     this mardsen hearing. I take her words to heart and plan to do so ASAP.
     0

So here are the next minute entries.



Then the last entry on page 3 is this

This will show that a farretta was granted on March 12th 2009 but again the judge or her clerk failed to enter this into the court docket


So we have established that as of March 12th 2009 a motion was filed and set for hearing but was not entered into any minutes and no such hearing took place. The fact that such a filing and then cancellation took place is not evident on the the court docket and no one tells me about any of it.


so March 23rd comes and I face the one charge filed on August 25th 2009.   A charge where John Gregozek does writes up a supplemental a year into the prosecution??


But let's not flash forward years later, when that very strangely dated supplemental pops up for the first time when it's handed over in discovery for the civil suit filed against Gregozek et al.



Mon 03/23/2009Judge: Georgina Rizc Clerk: Susan Rios Reporter: Karen
     Algorri Prosecutor: Jennifer Waxler Judge Ricz will not allow me to be pro
     per for this sudden(instant?) hearing and I comply as I don't know how it
     works. Mr. Patel is forced on me but he allows me to speak. Advanced from
     4/16/09 to 3/23/09 because I am fed up with it taking so long and I don't
     want Mr. Patel because Mr. Patel has told me that "there is a conflict of
     interest" I have complained to them about Nicky Meehan and chose to be pro
     per rather than having Ms. Tawn. I now know for sure that the PD is not
     there for me. I only allowed Patel because the discovery said that four
     new charges were filed on .... and Georgina Ricz ordered that I have him
     to fight the two new charges that arose in an instant motion.   0
     Mon 03/23/2009There I say before initialing two parts of the farretta that
     indicate I'm not sure I know my charges. I say that according to the
     discovery 4 charges have been added by a Kelly Boyer. This prompts Waxler
     and another Unnamed prosecutor to scramble and they say (get trancscript)
     that they indeed have new charges. Ricz says that she will not grant the
     farretta until I am done with Judge Bork on this hearing. The Prosecutor
     offers that this can wait till 4/16/09 but I want it over with and to see
     this new discovery that is shown me by an unnamed prosecutor(black curly
     hair, would recognize) Go to court 50 - prosectution gets granted what it
     wants - no genuine argument(get transcript from Gail Davidson) "The
     defendant waives further arraignment" Don't believe this happened.
     "Ordered back for further hearing" go back to court and have farretta
     granted. Get Discovery and it is identical to the discovery shown by the
     prosecutor with the curly black hair. Faretta is submitted and filed No
     stipulations to what judge or if ok to have different judge. No mention of
     TCIS entry. No true sense of what happenned and how they plan to prove
     such charges.   0
     Mon 03/23/2009There I say before initialing two parts of the farretta that
     indicate I'm not sure I know my charges. I say that according to the
     discovery 4 charges have been added by a Kelly Boyer. This prompts Waxler
     and another Unnamed prosecutor to scramble and they say (get trancscript)
     that they indeed have new charges. Ricz says that she will not grant the
     farretta until I am done with Judge Bork on this hearing. The Prosecutor
     offers that this can wait till 4/16/09 but I want it over with and to see
     this new discovery that is shown me by an unnamed prosecutor(black curly
     hair, would recognize) Go to court 50 - prosectution gets granted what it
     wants - no genuine argument(get transcript from Gail Davidson) "The
     defendant waives further arraignment" Don't believe this happened.
     "Ordered back for further hearing" go back to court and have farretta
     granted. Get Discovery and it is identical to the discovery shown by the
     prosecutor with the curly black hair. Faretta is submitted and filed No
     stipulations to what judge or if ok to have different judge. No mention of
     TCIS entry. No true sense of what happenned and how they plan to prove
     such charges.   0
    


 Mon 03/23/2009Judge: Georgina Rizc Clerk: Susan Rios Reporter: Karen
     Algorri Prosecutor: Jennifer Waxler Judge Ricz will not allow me to be pro
     per for this sudden(instant?) hearing and I comply as I don't know how it
     works. Mr. Patel is forced on me but he allows me to speak. Advanced from
     4/16/09 to 3/23/09 because I am fed up with it taking so long and I don't
     want Mr. Patel because Mr. Patel has told me that "there is a conflict of
     interest" I have complained to them about Nicky Meehan and chose to be pro
     per rather than having Ms. Tawn. I now know for sure that the PD is not
     there for me. I only allowed Patel because the discovery said that four
     new charges were filed on .... and Georgina Ricz ordered that I have him


Let's go back to the past and now it's March 23rd 2009 and I go into court now with discovery in hand and in that discovery I see this  and the search warrants and I now something very wrong is going on on the other side. And when I get to court again I realize something funky is up. The judge, Georgina Ricz is telling me that there is no evidence in the minutes that I filled out and was granted a farretta motion.

I am told I have no choice but to fill out another farretta motion and as I'm doing it I notice that one thing I must initial says that I know my charges but since I saw this 


So after finally haveing acccess to the discovery I say to Judge Griczk - I can't initial this part cause this document(above) says that Kelly Boyer added four charges on January 27th 2009 but here we are nearly two months later and nobody told me this. 


What does this statement provoke....


Well, another strange shenanigan as I watch Jennifer Waxler and another city attorney say, " Yes we have charges and 
Upon me questioning what charges I now faced in light of the recent disscovery given me on March 1212th 2009, Jennifer Waxler and some other city attorney said Your honor we'd be happy to wait til the next hearing - April 16th 2009.

And I go know I' need to know what charges if any I'm facng  started rifling through some papers and they don''t show me the papers but soon were are sent to the court room of Terry Bork and though I have now signed two farretta motions,. One for Villar. Now one For Gricik.... GRicik rules that I can't be pro per for this and Kratu Patel accompanies me to Terry Bork's courtroom. There Kratu says you can't do anything about this. Just plead not guilty. And so I did. Later in discovery this would be produced as the paper work behind the addition of not  4 but now 2 charges. And, different charges than those listed by Gregozek as added by Kelly Boyer.

Remember this- 


Now, this was added 

Let's look at that a little closer -





And here is the judge's notes from that day:

And so instead of at the January 29th 2009 pretrial or at the March 12th Pretrial - and only upon my statemetn that due to recent discovery I see I'm somehow facing four more charges does Jennifer Waxler(not Kelly Boyer) add TWO charges.

So we know the allegations: First Allison Sievers commands John Gregozek and Kelly Boyer to add charges and begin a series of search warrants. Then Gregzoek follows her commands and puts in this report









That he did this and that and vague this and that and upon viewing his discoveries(obtained by search warrants reserved for pedophiles and terrorist) Kelly Boyer is impressed enough to add four criminal charges of violating a restraining order and as of January 29 I am facing 5 charges and can face up to five years in jail and by all logic- should be given a much higher bail situation than Own Recognizance.


But none of that happens and Jennifer Waxler wants to wait for April 16th even to add whatever it is she sees fit to add.


So now with absolutely no fight on Kratu "You have a conflict of interest with the Public defenders office' I now face uh.... three charges

These are the two charges.

(explain the charges and how they make ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE)





So what do I do. I go home knowing that not only is something very odd with the minute orders (due to the farretta I didn't know of the other "oddities" till much later but that John Gregozek is now lying to judges in order to get exigent circumstance search warrant and 3 o rmore have been executed. I did not know of Allison Sievers letters to him and kelly until four years later but I knew that Gregozek was trying to frame me in some way and that something was very wrong with his connection to Lavely and Singer. I knew that without any possible evidence of a crime somehow Waxler saw fit to add two charges. It also took me a long time to get it that Kelly Boyer must have refused to add any charges based on Gregozek's "evidence." 

I also knew that my sister just sued Notaro for defamation and Lavelya nd Singer were back in the pitcure. Now I suspect that the reason they tried to add meritless/bogus/lawless charges was retaliation but we'll have to get to that in more detail later.

I can say and I feel very confident you will agree, these two charges or those four charges never added by Boyer, make no sense. And, I made that clear to anyone who would listen, including the judges I saw or the prosecutors. " These charges make no sense."

Remember that, please, as that sensible statement, "These charges make no sense" would set the stage of the most malicious(and insane) stage of this already very malicious prosecution.


It was clear that facing special circumstance search warrants and charges that made no sense- we were over our heads. I say we because I am very close to my mother and sister and we do and experience almost everything together. So we got into gear and realized we had to shell out money for a private lawyer. We called around and settled on Howard Williams. Howard Williams asked for a meeting.

At that meetting, in order for him to close the 4K deal. he told me these kinds of things. Her'es just a few of his emails



So as of April 16 2009, I felt very lucky to have a private lawyer who wanted to sue them the minute he freed me from this .... what was it. 

I'd just learned that when you have a laywer and it's a misdemeanor you don't have to even go to cour tand I'd been to court now how many times... including the restraining order hearing.... May 28,. september 24. october 16, november 6, december 11, january 29, march 12 may 23-

eight 

and so I stupidly would take advantage of the luxuries I was now afforded and hoped to get the defense I read about and saw on TV and in the movies - zealous. Stupidly because Howard L. Willams did not represent me in any zealous way as you will seel.


Howard appeared to do more than Franica was doing at first. Actually he only did appear to more in retrospect because I was never told that Franica had filed that terrific looking discovery motion. She didn't tell me and there were no clues of it on the minute order. Howard also told me at some time that he filed a discovery motion but he never told me of any follow up other than this:


Later on when I pressed him he told me he'd filed this. And after the trial was over, and I picked up the file, I did find this there.




Howard never told me of any discovery given him in response to this form letter style discovery motion where he crossed out Stanislaus County and wrote in Los Angeles. 

Let's get back to the discovery related to the time period of Howard's representation.

Ok, for whatever reason Howard did not tell me he filed this and no evidence existed on any record, to clue me in.


Let's stick to the minutes 


Page 5- can't find page five of minutes. will though.. just takes a little extra word . gonna insert this from another post for the time being-


The original purpose of the hearing was something called, a hearing on the "Motion to Traverse the warrants." Well, that's what I was told. I was also told that since the city attorney had sent Howard Williams the opposition in an "untimely" manner," Howard Williams would have to ask for a continuance.

 The night before the emails, Howard L. Williams, emailed me that he had just received a 39 page motion and therefore could not be prepared for he next day, since it was delivered the night before after business hours. Though it would turn out to be true that the city attorneys did fax him an opposition motion, after 5 P.M, this was the entirety of the motion with the city's illegal search warrants attached. The attachment of the highly illegal search warrants would not lead an ethical lawyer to characterize the fax he relieved as a "39 page motion."


So, that's just a tiny bit of the backstory of the days before this "hearing." 


You had the prosecutors in once corner. You had the defense attorneys in another. A judge in the middle.

For the state - Jennifer Waxler.
 For the defense- Jason Leiber standing in for Howard Williams, without notice to me that this would be the case.

In the middle- Judge Mary Lou Villar (newly appointed by Schwarzenegger judge and Anthony Villargrossa's sister)


Image result for mary lou villar

The hearing in black and white. Two unrecorded sidebars included.
















The evidence that Waxler presented to substantiate her request - that I be remanded to jail- by Judge Mary Lou Villar...

That in 2005, 2 years, before I ever heard the name "Tig" Notaro, on  a stat counter user forum, I or my sister was somehow writing Notaro who we did not know and she knows none of us knew each other- well, this lauren d was going undercover in some way to tell Notaro.... Me and my sister ... In 2005, I'd not only not heard of Notaro but did not know about stat counters till I started a blog in 2008.


So that is why Jenniffer Waxler requested either an arrest warrant or a bench warrant on that day?

In 2005, someone on a message board somewhere and with the screenname Lauren D had said online to Notaro(who is in a stat counter uh discussion we must presume) Me and my sister saw your show...

note the ellipsis. It is not mine as you'll see below.
T

take that in...

Guess what, readers, that is no possible for many reasons...

1) we had no idea who "Tig Notaro" was in 2005.
2)We have never remotely gone on a stat counter discussion forum and my sister would not use the name lauren d
3)and are we to assume that we were then fans of Notaro who uh uh... thought we'd get our uh compliment across on a stat counter message board? IN 2005?
4)VERY IMPORTANLY we lived in Austin Texas in 2005 or NY and how would they trace any ip adress. it certainly wasn' the IP of our L.A computer.
5) This is insane... Jennifer Waxler saw fit to delete whatever this Lauren D said on some computer message board that someone was used to transmit illegal messages8
6) of course no one transmitted messages to Notaro but had they in 2005... was there a restraining order in place?
7)Why on earth, on this date, was Jennifer Waxler and Felise Kalpakian with the help of John Gregozek trying to defraud the Mayor's sister some more. They already had defrauded her plenty and would do it againt
7) please ask yourself what became of this and please ask yourself if any of this was put on any record except for the transcript I had to pay plenty of money for.
8)their is no dispute that we had no idea who Notaro was before 2007 and there is not dispute that no orders of any kind existed and there is no dispute that the ip we see there is not our and in no way could be our... And it is not in dispute that my sister's name is Lauren and her middle name is Joy and her last name starts with S....


Take in the fact that Gregozek is clearly falsifying documents that make no sense even. What sort of plausible deniability Waxler can theoretically claim is more confusing than with John Gregozek,
 because she would confirm to the judge on the record(who knows what she'd say in another of those illegal ex parte unrecorded sidebars- that the ip matched up to our house.. Was she told this by Gregozek, and bought it without thought, or did she knowingly lie and lie to the court, in order to terrorize me again with fake allegations and threats of jail as retatiation for me not taking their plea bargains and for my sister filing a lawsuit a month before? A lawsuit where Mathilde "Tig" Notaro was represented by Allison Hart Siever of Marty Singer's infamous, Lavely and Singer.



There is so much wrong with these two documents, that it hurts.

This is the allegation that 2 years before I'd ever heard the name "Tig Notaro" my sister lauren Joy spitzberg was what.... haunting a stat counter, They matched Ip's to a communication made years before? That is fraud of the ugliest order. Note there never was a hearing on this and no hearing dae was set according to the minute order, which does indicate complicity with the Judge and Clerk in that court.








note the date ... on top of the docket pages related to Howard Williams and Leiber and Leiber's representation -






NOTE how there is no mention of any cancelled hearing or anything to do with the August 4th 2009 hearing that Judge Villar was kind enough to schedule instead of having me jailed for no good reason?






traverese motion
kalpakians' opposition motion
Bozo letters 
howards letters
letters to frank towers etc









but I didn't believe him because by then he couldn't be believed. ( insert emails and other evidence)
















































































































Page 4-  March 23rd 2009































with no new charges but charging documents and with no motions put on the calender but motions exisiting we welcome March 23rd




































First "incident' The supposed violence against notaro - 




MATHILDE NOTARO, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALISA SPITZBERG, Defendant and Appellant.

B209220

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One

November 19, 2009 (Oral hearing was scheduled on November 16th 2009 but they jailed me with out any legal basis from November 4th to December 2, 2009)

Alisa Spitzberg, in pro. per.;  for Defendant and Appellant.

Lavely &amd; Singer and Allison Hart Sievers for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports

MALLANO, P. J. and the other judges of this appeal court write:

Defendant Alisa Spitzberg appeals from a three-year restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, enjoining her from harassing plaintiff Mathilde Notaro and three friends who lived with Notaro.[ 1 ] Because substantial evidence supports the restraining order and Spitzberg fails to support her claims of improper conduct, error, and abuse of discretion, we affirm the order.
BACKGROUND



    Spitzberg and Stephanie Willen had a three-month relationship, which ended in May 2007. In August 2007, Notaro and Willen were in a café having coffee when Spitzberg approached their table and began to yell insults at them, "including `fucking dyke,' `ugly,' `cunt,' and `bitch.'" They ignored Spitzberg, who followed them outside, became more belligerent, and "shoved/pushed" Notaro. Spitzberg denied pushing Notaro.

Interesting to Note: Alisa Spitzberg was jailed without charges or any legal basis on November 4th of 2009. The head of this unit that you taxpayers were supporting said this when arresting Alisa Spitzberg, "  I read your blog!" accompanied with what anyone would assume to be an intimidating look.
The charges were all dismissed with prejudice against the city attorney in case 8CA10541.NOTARO v. SPITZBERG. Anyone involved or witnessing this case is aware this was a vinidictive prosecution and that a just judge finally made that clear with statement on the records such as "You have civil remedies, Ms. Spitzberg , and this was a civil matter that had no place in a criminal court." The pressures were immense on this judge.He wasn't able to give me the fair trial I deserved by law. That is a fact. Yet, he still showed courage as the Clara Folz Courthouse is mired in corruption. Hundreds of laws were broken in my case and a complete disregard for the constitution will be seen throughtout and this Appeals court must be paid off because I will show you what they saw and how they simply lie and affirm this order to the grave discredit of justics.  After seeing the evidence there is no doubt that a malicous and pathetic prosecution took place and that Alisa Spitzberg and her family  must get justice. It is very interesting  to not that the three men listed as living with Notaro, Tom Sharpe, Kjelll Bjorgen, and Chris Fairbanks do not live with her and two for sure never have. There is easy and ample evidence of that and it will be presented. This is just the first date and waht happens afterward is mind blowing.



    Spitzberg and Stephanie Willen had a three-month relationship, which ended in May 2007. In August 2007, Notaro and Willen were in a café having coffee when Spitzberg approached their table and began to yell insults at them, "including `fucking dyke,' `ugly,' `cunt,' and `bitch.'" They ignored Spitzberg, who followed them outside, became more belligerent, and "shoved/pushed" Notaro. Spitzberg denied pushing Notaro.


YOU DECIDE THE TRUTH 







Here are the  versions over the two years by the false accuser who victimized Alisa Spitzerg and her family. Please just compare them and see.
August 29th 2007

August 29th 2007
Witnesses:  Sam Consuegra works every Wednesday for many years at tsunami and has never met or heard of Alisa Spitzberg before she approached him to sign an affidavit.

Tsunami Coffee House 
Neighborhood: Silver Lake
4019 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90029

Comedy poetry open mic Wednesdays which was the day and time of the “incident” of August 29th,200


For this music, comedy, and poetry night follow these instructions: Walk through the door, sign up, wait nervously, get called onto the stage, do your thing, try not to feel awkward.

Be warned, crossing back through the stage to duck out early will get you a chorus of raised eyebrows and a few remarks like, 'Where are you going?'


Notaro’s statement to TMU-  as to the August 29, 2007 “incident.”
In September  2007 -  Spitzberg arrived at the coffee shop and confronted Willen and Notaro.  Willen  ignored Spitzberg and walked out of the shop with Notaro. Spitzberg stepped  in front of Willen and said,  “You trying to avoid me.”  Willen ignored Spitzberg who then  pushed Notaro. Notaro and Willen left without reporting the incident.

Mathilde Notaro’s statement in sworn affidavit to get restraining order- given on May 5th 2008

In late August of 2007, I accompanied my friend Stephanie to the Tsunami Café in Silverlake, CA.  .” Etc Alisa Spitzberg approached us at our table and aggressively yelled insults at the two of us, including, “fucking dyke,.” “ugly.” “cunt,” “bitch.

 We ignored her and went outside, but she followed us and became angrier and more belligerent. As I motioned for Stephanie to gather her belongings to leave, Alisa came closer and pushed me.


Mathilde Notaro statement to Spector –investigator as to August 29th 2007
While sitting together and waiting at tsunamis café late one night for this deaf landlord to show up Notaro said that Alisa all of a sudden and surprisingly walked in. Notaro stated that Alisa  immediately walked up to their table and “accused” them meaning herself and Willen of being together. Notaro stated Alisa then began yelling and cussing at the two of them. Notaro said is was very much a verbal tirade against the two of them. While Alisa continued yelling at both of them Notaro said a mini bottle of vodka fell out of one. of Spitzberg’s jacket pockets. At one point while all of this was going on Notaro said she then stood up and she was now standing right next to Alisa.

After standing up, Notaro stated that Alisa then Shoved her with both her hands, as well as she next said, “ are you Steph’s keeper.”
After that had occurred Notaro advised that both she and Willen then left this coffee shop, due to the fact they didn’t  want any more violence to occur on Alisa’s part.  As they quickly walked out of this coffee shop, Notaro said that Alisa continued to follow them out of this location on foot.
Sworn affidavit of Mathilde Notaro- as to the August 29, 2007 “incident.
In late August of 2007, I accompanied my friend Stephanie to the Tsunami Café in Silverlake, CA.  Alisa Spitzberg approached us at our table and aggressively yelled insults at the two of us, including, “fucking dyke,.” “ugly.” “cunt,” “bitch.” Etc.
We ignored her and went outside, but she followed us and became angrier and more belilligerent. As I motioned for Stephanie to gather her belongings to leave, Alisa came closer and pushed me.
Court testimony of notaro  describing August 29,2007


IT WAS MAYBE 8:30  O'CLOCK AT NIGHT.
AND I SAID:  "THAT DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.  IT DOES NOT SOUND SAFE."
“SO I HAD COFFEE WITH STEF, AND ALISA WALKED IN. AND WHEN SHE SAW US SITTING TOGETHER, SHE SAID -- SHE SAT DOWN AND WAS LIKE:
OH ARE YOU GUYS BACK TOGETHER?AND WE WERE JUST IGNORING HER.  SHE WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE, AND VERY JUST PERSISTENT AND GOT IN OUR SPACE WE IGNORED HER.  AND THEN A BOTTLE OF VODKA FELL OUT OF HER PURSE, AND SHE PUT IT BACK IN HER PURSE, AND SHE KEPT  SAYING:  "YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS LOOK GREAT TOGETHER.  THIS IS GREAT," AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. SHE SAID:  "ARE YOU TRYING TO AVOID ME?"
I KEPT SAYING TO STEF TO JUST IGNORE HER, JUST IGNORE HER. THEN ALISA SAID:  "OH, ARE  YOU HER FUCKING KEEPER?"
   I SAID, "GO GET YOUR STUFF.   LET'S JUST GO." AND WHEN I DID, ALISA GOT IN MY FACE AND PUSHED ME. 

AND THEN STEF WENT IN TO GET HER STUFF.  WE WALKED OUT OF THE CAFE TOWARDS THE -- WHERE WE WERE PARKED ON THE  STREET, AND ALISA FOLLOWED  US AGAIN CALLING US DISGUSTING BULL DIKES, CUNTS, JUST ALL THESE HORRENDOUS NAMES.

Notaro to Martin Boags about” August 29th 2007” statement given in February of 2010
The witness accompanied Ms willen to a coffee shop to meet a potential landlord. The witness agreed to accompany Ms willen because she was concerned that it might not be safe. The parties were at the coffee shop when the defendant showed up. Initially, the defendant was focused on Willen Exclusively Defendant asked Ms. Willen, “ are you trying to avoid me. The witness told Ms. Willen, “let’s go.” at which point Ms. Spitzbeg directed her attention to the witness and  asked, what are you, her fucking keeper?” Defendant shoved the witness, who left with Ms. Willen.


Willen’s Statement from Follow up investigation by the LAPD’s Threat Management Unit - august 29th 2007 “incident.”- Given on May 5th 2008
 Notaro waited with Willen  at approximately 2000 hours, Spitzberg arrived at sat down next to  Willen  and Notaro.. Spitzberg appeared intoxicated and began interrupting and insulting Notaro and Willen. Spitzberg told Willen that she was “horrible and despicable.” And “how could I be so wrong about you.”  Willen walked outside and spitzberg called Willen a, “ Dumb ugly dyke.” Spitzberg then  pushed Notaro.  Willen  stepped between Notaro and Spitzberg, and Notaro suggested they leave. Notaro  and Willen walked away while Spitzberg shouted insults at them.

Attention:Court testimony of willen as to august 29,2007- transcript --- pg. 20
MS. WILLEN:  YES, IT IS.      THE COURT:  WHEN WAS THAT?
MS. WILLEN:  I BELIEVE I WAS THERE AT 7:00.  TIG   CAME AFTERWARDS, AND I'M NOT QUIET SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT  WAS AROUND 8:00, A LITTLE AFTER.
THE COURT:  THAT'S 8:00 IN THE EVENING?
MS. WILLEN:  YES.
THE COURT:  DID SHE SPEAK TO MS. NOTARO MS. WILLEN:  YES, SHE SPOKE AT US.
THE COURT:  OKAY.  WHAT DID SHE SAY?
WILLEN: A SLURRY OF HOSTILE WORDS. SHE STARTED WITH WHAT BASICLY --"OH, YOU GUYS ARE TOGETHER.YOU LOOK GREAT.  YOU LOOK GREAT. TOGETHER. NO WONDER ALL THE GALS LIKE YOU. LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE WEARING THE SAME PANTS."   THEN IT MOVED ON TO -- WE WEREN'T RESPONDING TO HER.  WE WERE JUST TALKING AS IF SHE WASN'T THERE.  SHE GOT MORE HOSTILE AND MORE IN OUR FACE.  AND SHE JUST DID STUFF -- TRYING TO DENIGRATE OUR CHARACTER;
YOU KNOW:YOU GUYS ARE UGLY.  HOW COULDYOU DO THIS TO ME.  HOW COULD YOU NOT TALK TO ME; YOU ACT LIKE YOU DON'T

LIKE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME."

 Stephanie or "Stef Willens" evaded the investigator for the defense. But in 20010 she gave this statement to Martin Boags, City Attorney, who by then was very well aware that Tig Notaro and Willen and the others were liars. All of them were but they didn't care.


 Willen's statement to either Martin boags or Katie ford- given on March 1 20010


Alisa walked in and saw me and Tig and looked shocked. Witness said Alisa "got in our space." very agressively, sitting down right across from them at their table, w/o being invited. At one point  a bottle of vodka fell out of her purse. Alisa seemed humbled and retreived it.  Alisa also showed Stef willen some loose papers in her bag and claimed to have something Stephanie Willen needed to hear.  there was an open mike poetry night at the time.  Witness said a couple of things like, "Alisa, not now," or " No,we're not together." as Alisa kept looking at Tig and Stef Willen and joking about what a wonderful couple they made and Alisa knew all alolng this would happen... match made in heaven... Alisa's tone was very sarcastic and mocking.  Tig just ignored Alisa completely. Finally witness got up to go outside and  look for landlord. Alisa followed and got "into witnesses face" Stef Willen doesn't recall exactly what Defendant said, But basically told Willen she didn't have any humanity etc. Alisa was very aggressive, inches from Willen's face.  Tig tried to help and stepped between Alisa and Willen and said they should go.  Willen agreed.  Then Alisa got in Tig's face and started yelling asking who she thought she was, "her keeper>" etc. Tig ignored her. The Alisa pushed her!  Willen ran inside to get her bags. Willen and Notaro began walking quickly away and Alisa started after them for a ways, yelling something like " You stupid dumb bull dykes, stupid cunts."

Second "incident"

Notaro vs Spitzberg Appeal- April 7th 2008. Much more Griffee coming

What the appeal court wrote- I was jailed illegally for the oral argument. It is a fact that I was jailed solely as a means to harrass and trample -so the necessary legal actions couldn't be pursued. It's called "coercive confinement" and it's pretty barbaric. But, not as barbaric as the competency ploy. That was something for the history books. That needs to be known by many many people.
They forgot they were in America. I don't feel as I'm in "America" any more. Me and my loved ones have to fight so hard to believe in America ever again. They were foiled at every turn but they caused such devastation and waste. Americans would not accept this when all the facts come out. The truth is a steadfast and persistent state.



http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20091119028

From The appeal court unpublished opinion

On the evening of April 7, 2008, after Notaro performed at Largo, Spitzberg approached her and asked Notaro if she remembered her. Notaro said that she remembered meeting her and that Spitzberg had been aggressive and had pushed her. Notaro then said she did not want to talk to Spitzberg and told Spitzberg to leave her alone. Spitzberg became enraged. Notaro was fearful that the situation would escalate and had Michael Griffee, the doorman at Largo, escort Spitzberg out of the club.
According to Spitzberg, when Notaro accused Spitzberg of pushing her, Spitzberg was sure that she had misunderstood and approached Notaro and asked gently if she said that Spitzberg had pushed her. Notaro then ran to Griffee and accused Spitzberg of being aggressive. Griffee looked confused but told Spitzberg that if Notaro wanted her out of the club, Spitzberg had to leave. Spitzberg left "without a peep."

All the version of the "witnesses" against me. My satements have all been completely ignored. But, I will post them. I never said one impeachable thing. I told the whole truth, the whole time and it will become clearer and clearer. 

You decide the truth


Notaro From Police report –April 7.2008- 9 months later!

On April 7, 2008 Notaro was performing at Largo. At approximately 2130 hours Notaro was talking to her agent when Spitzerg stepped in front  of her and stated, “  You remember me?” Notaro told Spitzberg
that she did not want to talk to her.  Spitzberg
continued staying in front of Notaro.  Notaro asked security to remove Spitzberg.


Notaro’s statement in Affidavit- April  7, 2008

On the evening of April 7, 2,008. I performed at Largo in Hollywood, CA.. After I got off stage alisa approached me to ask if I remembered her. I said plainly, “Yes, I do.” And then continued a conversation I was having with my agent. Alisa interrupted saying “no you don’t  remember me. I said, Yes the night we met you were being aggressive and you pushed me. I remember you and I don’t want to talk to you at all. Leave me alone. Alisa became quickly enraged and insisted repeatedly that I was lying. Because I was afraid it would escalate, I had Michael Griffee, the doorman at largo, escort her out of the building.

transcript  testimony of Notaro of april 7 –gets date wrong but insignificant


MS. NOTARO:  ON APRIL 12 SHE SHOWED UP, AND AFTER SHE SHOWED, I WAS SPEAKING TO MY AGENT, ALISA INTERRUPTED ME, AND SAID:"YOU DON'T REMEMBER ME.  DO YOU REMEMBER ME?"  I SAID, "I DO," AND THEN TURNED BACK TO MY AGENT. THEN SHE INTERRUPTED ME AGAIN.  SHE SAID "I DON'T THINK YOU REMEMBER ME."  I SAID, "I DO REMEMBER YOU.    TIME I MET YOU YOU WERE AGGRESSIVE. YOU PUSHED ME, AND I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU AT ALL."THEN SHE GOT IN MY FACE AND -- IF YOU WILL EXCUSE ME, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT SHE SAID.
THE COURT:  TELL ME WHAT SHE SAID
MS. NOTARO: SHE CALLED ME A CRAZY DIKE CUNT GOT IN THE MY FACE.  AND AT THAT POINT I HAD THE SECURITYREMOVE HER, AND HE IS ALSO HERE.SHE SHOWED UPCLAIMING THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW  THAT I WAS  PERFORMING THERE AND SHE SHOWED UP – SHE'S STALKING  THIS PERSON THAT WE HAVE IN COMMON FOR THE  PAST YEAR, SO I  KNOW SHE CAME TO THE SHOW LOOKING FOR STEPHANIE.


Notaro’s statement to investigator for PD given in February 2009


Notaro said the next occasion, in which she had any type of contact with Alisa had occurred on 4/7/08. On that particular evening Notaro said she was performing at a club called Largo, and her show that night was called “Tig and friends.”
Sometimes during that evening Notaro said she had seen Alisa sitting inside of this club and near the bar area.   Notaro advised that her brand new agent Heidi was also in attendance to see her perform her comedy show. After her show was over Notaro said she was in the audience and she was speaking to her agent.
All of a sudden, Notaro stated that Alisa then walked up to the two of them and said, “ Do you know who I am?” Do you remember me? Notaro replied back to her and said,  “I know who you are . You shoved me.” After this brief encounter, Notaro said she walked to an employee who works at Largo, named Micheal, and he had asked Alisa to leave the location at her request. Alisa then left the location.

Notaro’s statement to Martin Boags, City attorney o 12/16/09
The witness confirmed the contents of various police reports written in this matter. The witness added the following.
The witness was talking to her agent, heidi Feigin from the william Morris Agency. The parties where at Largo when they were at Fairfax. The defendan’t asked Ms. Notaro’ “ Do you know who I am. Ms. Notaro responded, “ yes leave me alone.” Defendant stated, “ I don’t think you remember me.
Ms. Notaro responded, “ I remember you. You shoved me., ‘ get away from em. The defendant responded by calling Ms. Notaro a liar and cursing at her. The witness asked Michael Griffee, Security for Largo, to remove defendant from the clulb.


Griffee’s account of april 7th pg. 11,12

THE COURT:  WHY DID YOU ASK HER TO LEAVE THE CLUB?
MR. GRIFFEE:  TIG EXPRESSED THAT SHE FELT
THREATENED BY THE DEFENDANT, AND SHE ASKED IF I WOULD ASK  HER TO LEAVE.  AND, OF COURSE, IN MY LINE OF WORK, IF MY  ARTIST FEELS UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT ANYTHING, I ASK THEM TO   LEAVE.
 THE COURT:  DID YOU TELL MS. SPITZBERG TO LEAVE?
 MR. GRIFFEE:  YES.    
THE COURT:  WHAT DID SHE SAY TO YOU?
MR. GRIFFEE:  SHE SAID "WHY?"     I SAID, "YOU ARE MAKING TIG FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE."SHE SAID, "WELL, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO HER. I SAID -- YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T WITNESS ANY  INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.  I SAID:  "YOU KNOW, IT'S MY JOB HERE TO MAKE MY ARTIST FEEL COMFORTABLE, SO I WILL HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE."
THE COURT:  DID SHE LEAVE PEACEFULLY?
MR. GRIFFEE:  BASICLY, YES.  IT WAS AFTER THE SHOW, SO THERE WAS PEOPLE LEAVING AT THAT POINT THAT THE  CLUB WAS KIND OF EMPTYING OUT.  I WALKED HER TO THE FRONT   DOOR, AND THEN, AS -- WHEN SHE GOT TO THE FRONT DOOR, SHE
  JUST SAID:  "YOU KNOW, SHE'S CRAZY. SHE SAYS I DID ALL THIS STUFF
     TO HER.  SHE'S CRAZY."SHE KEPT SAYING HOW TIG WAS CRAZY AND SHE DIDN'T   DO ANYTHING.  I SAID: "THAT'S NOT MY PLACE TO JUDGE.
YOU NEED TO LEAVE NOW.


Griffee’s account April 7th, 2008 in the same transcript a few minutes/pages later.

  THE COURT:  IN EITHER OCCASION IN APRIL, DID YOU SEE MS. NOTARO AND MS. SPITZBERG TALK TO EACH OTHER?
MR. GRIFFEE:  YES.

THE COURT:  WHAT DID YOU WITNESS THEM SAY TO EACH
OTHER?

GRIFFEE:I DON'T KNOW.  IT WAS AFTER THE CLUB -- THE MUSIC WAS UP.  THERE WAS PEOPLE ALL AROUND ME TALKING.  I WAS STANDING AT THE END OF THE -- I WAS STANDING IN THE KITCHEN, AND THE DOOR HAD OPENED.TIG -- MS. NOTARO WAS AT THE END OF THE BAR.  ISAID, MICHAEL -- MICHAEL AND I JUST CAME OUT FROM THE KITCHEN AND SAID WHAT'S UP, AND SHE JUST SAID, YOU KNOW,THIS PERSON IS ACTING AGGRESSIVE AND THREATENING AND I DON'T KNOW ANY HISTORY OR ANYTHING. SAY, OH, LET ME TAKE CARE OF THAT.  I SAID, "TIG, GO TO THE KITCHEN."  I WAS WALKING PAST HER AND THE DEFENDANT AND HER HAD WORDS. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT. THE DEFENDANT WAS JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW:  "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU ARE CRAZY.  YOU ARE CRAZY."

Insert copies of statements made by griffee to investigator and then later to Martin Boags. This needs to be scanned in or typed in still. But, my oh my Michael Griffee is the worlds worst liar. Call him bald and he'll do anything. Michael Griffee is a very  scary and stupid  guy. Names missing illegally. There was no basis to "redact" this was done as more harrasment.


The agent that was mentioned in every statement as standing right there as the ultimate witness- Heidi Feigin from William Morris to Neil Spector - Investigator for the Public defender.




 What Heidi said to My public Defender who would swear to it
: None of that happened at all. Nothing. Hunter Seidman, Tig Notaro's manager is calling her and pressuring her to "not testify for the other side." He was then fired from his agency and now runs his business from his apartment.
 Ms Feigin is not a n evil person and so she was very willing to testify at the "trial." But, due to the fact it went on for 12 days and all in bad faith I was denied my right to collaterally attack the restraining order. I'll insert the laws very soon. I wasn't afforded a fair trial by any measure and so I still must struggle to clear my name, and expose the vile vile tings I've witnessed in the last two years.

Notaro vs Spitzberg Appeal- April 8th 2008. I never did anything she alleges , and  admitted to nothing said here, and there never has been a shred of proof she just made it up and they took it as gospel. It's this belief - that someone was saying bad things about her that drove Notaro to abuse the legal system to achieve her goals

According to the appeals judges that Stellaa relies on for her slander and that has emboldened many assholes:

From the Unpublished opinion:
April 8th 2008
The next day, Notaro received an e-mail from Spitzberg, stating, "`I will do everything in my sustainable power to get even with you.'Notaro was disturbed not only by the content, but because Spitzberg had obtained her e-mail address. After the e-mail, Notaro blocked Spitzberg's address from her e-mail account. Over the next several days, Notaro's Wikipedia and YouTube pages had been vandalized to include a string of personal attacks and insults. Notaro contacted the webmasters to delete the content and to lock the pages from further comments. Spitzberg denied making any threats of violence but admitted that she "created some wikipedia entries that mocked the plaintiff. She had upset me and my family for no discernible reason and I wanted . . . some relief."

The truth: The letter in it's entirety supplied to John Gregozek and Jim Hoffman in May of 2008. They ignored it as they have ignored all evidence. They were told repeatedly of all the witnesses and all the e-mails and they simply then pepetuated fake search warrants and all sorts of harrasment based only on Notaro's lies.  They failed to investigate, and they failed on every level. This threat management unit of the LAPD cost me and the tax payers so much. It was a battle: Their callow ambitions vs. are sense of self- "nope, you don't do this to us." There are many laws that prohibited from doing this and that didn't stop them at all. Notaro without an ounce of proof believed that I was someone writing about her and it drove her crazy. Rather than dealing with it or suing me if she truly believed it was me her and her Lawyer came up with an idea that should have them jailed for a long time.
I have the e-mails sent to many in law enforcment and to the City attorney over the course of these two years .  It's at the ready but would make this very very lengthy. 
They ignored it time and time again to secure their goals- a lucrative relationship with the law firm of  Lavely and Singer. Security jobs for celebrities after retirement are very in demand for the Gregozeks, Dunns, Defoes, And Hoffmans of this world.
Soon, I'll post more that will show this illegal and wasteful alliance and how it led to a true travesty

again, here is Notaro's statement that was regurgitated  until the date of trial in March of 2010. e next day, Notaro received an e-mail from Spitzberg, stating, "`I will do everything in my sustainable power to get even with you.'" 


Sure, it sounds a little scary. But, gregozek and this TMU unit  had this in their possession.  Then on March 25th 2009 the city attorney for a fact- had this in their possession. Don't you think they  should have included  it by March of 2010 in the "trial Breif" ? Nobody cared. No one did the right thing.  No one had the slightest interest in what was right or wrong.  Not a one. No  exaggeration.



 APRIL 8th 2008-

From Notaro’s police Statement given to Gregozek on April 30, 2008

On April 8th R received an e-mail from Spitzberg who expressed anger over being kicked out of the club and vowed revenge.

statement from Notaros affidavit given on May 5th 2008

The next day I received an e-mail from Alisa that read “ I will do everything in my sustainable power to get even with you.”

To Martin Boags, third city attorney assigned to this case  on 12/16/09( He was kicked off shortly afterwards when the competency ploy he instigated failed)
The witness indicated that she received an e-mail which she believes came from Ms. Spitzberg’s  e-mail which included, “ I will do everything in my substantial power to get even.” The witness interpreted this as  a threat.




The actual e-mail I sent the next morning

Subject:(no subject)
Date:4/8/2008
From:
Reply To:


  .         
I had absolutely no beef with you. I just didn't. Why would I? But, for you to make up a false accusation of me pushing you  and have me kicked out when i asked you if I'd heard right about that is incomprehensible. Me and my sister were told to check out the walsh brothers and she didn't want to go so I decided to see what turned out to be your show. You were excellent, and the show was great and that's that. Why would you want to lie about and hurt someone in your audience?  I never deserved or anticipated that you'd make up some lie and then have me thrown out. What a hateful thing to do to someone who just pays you a compliment  and who has nothing to do with you except for some bad fling ,over a year ago,  with your then ex girlfriend. I'll do everything in my(substantial) power to get even.

END
I did then think I had the mental  power to fight her lies. Never did I threaten anyone in the course of this nor did I ever use violence on anyone in my life. I saw her face that night and i knew she was a very disturbed person who had been responsible for a lot of the odd things I'd been experiencing in the "comedy world." What she said to Heidi confirmed it. But when I wrote that letter I knew I had to stop her somehow.

The police and the city attorney then excecuted 6 search warrants that dis-included all these conflicting statments by Notaro and her "witnesses," despite the fact that they knew of them and had them in their possession. The search warrants resulted in.... NOTHING. It was just harrassment for daring to not crumble when faced with such bullshit. There was no legal basis or probable cause for any of their actions. California was going broke and they kept this up.




Notaro vs. Spitzberg appeal- April 12th 2008- No police reports were ever filed thought they were available. scroll to the bottom. They all knew Tig Notaro and her witnesses were lying

What the appeal judges say, because they truly must just be corrupt. Infamy for them.

Notaro performed again at Largo on April 12, 2008. When Notaro was standing outside the club talking to the owner, she saw Spitzberg and her sister running toward her. Notaro ran inside before they could make physical contact with her. The owner did not let Spitzberg inside the club and called the police. Spitzberg and her sister went to the club's back door, where they verbally abused the owner and the doorman and yelled, "`We're going to get that fucking dyke.'" Spitzberg left the club before the police officers arrived. According to Spitzberg, Largo's owner and another man at the back door were abusive to her and her sister, and they returned their insults. Spitzberg denied screaming or using obscenities.






































































Griffees statement to Martin Boags, prosecutor: The following is a summary of the phone interview with the witness. The witness is the general manager for the Largo Comedy club. The witness recalls an incident in 2008, where Ms. Notaro was performing at the club. The witness recalls that Ms. Spitzberg came in, and sat at the bar while Notaro performed. The witness stated that the defendant had a beer. The comedy acts finished, and the lights came up. The witness was in the kitchen when Ms. Notaro called him over. Ms. Notaro told the witness that “ this person is bothering me.” The witness stated that the defendant had pushed her, and she wanted her removed from the club. The witness stated that Ms. Notaro was “freaked out”.















T


Post a Comment

Dismissed in the Interests of Justice: The incredible(and I mean incredible) true story of how a comedian,Tig Notaro, saved her brand by destroying a life

"Holy shit. This is... insane..." Yes it was.  Yes it is. Stone cold crazy. Batshit. Baying at the moon. Barking a loony tune...