Wednesday, January 27, 2016

minute by minute - case 8CA10541 Anatomy of a failed but overzealous malicious prosecution. Starring cancer comedian, Tig Notaro

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.






Page of of the minutes. There would be 23 pages in all.


The arraignment, the order, the "arrest"
 


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 sayd, " 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 ABSOULTEY 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-









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









































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...