TEOMEY ORPART WADI: ATONE foes, Sas Be abe ono Francis Shivers, In Pro Per Box 3487 Los Angeles, CA, 90078 teamotere sno pen: on ADRES op arcowavronnam: In Pro Per ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS Angeles teases 11701 South La Cienega Blvd onmewes: Los Angeles, CA, 90045 BANA RANE: puwniremermoner: People of the State of California vs| lperenoantmesronvent: Francis Shivers ae ORIGINAL, FIL} LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT “"2WA0067301 Attached five (5) page Declaration, entitled “ PERJURY COMMITTED BY PAULEY PERRETTE’ & ELIZABETH GERTZ PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT ” and forty three (43) Exhibit pages. | dectare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California OP oe ate: P13 zZ015 AEX . Francis Shivers 7 a Tee ORDA OT SURTAE OF OEOART 1 Attomey tor C1 Piaintit C1 Peitioner [1 defendant 1 Respondent [1 other (Specify: Eee DECLARATION PataPERJURY COMMITTED BY PAULEY PERRETTE & ELIZABETH GERTZ / PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. SUMMARY ‘The transcript in L.A.S.C. case# 2WA0067301 shows the presiding Judge, the Honorable Kathryn Solorzano, made a determination that "it would be misleading the jury" if they were uninformed about whether or not there had been "history of violence". Judge Solorzano stated this determination was the basis for her ruling that prosecutor Elizabeth Gertz. would be allowed to make allegations of a "history of violence" to the jury. However, the fact is, the Los Angels Superior Court had already ruled in the underlying case (#BD417230) that there was NO physical violence in the marriage, and the transcript in that case shows the court underscored this ruling stating "End of story.” Furthermore, the court based this ruling on the fact that both Pauley Perrette and her attorney agreed there had never been any physical violence. Prosecutor Elizabeth Gertz did not disclose this information to Judge Solorzano, and instead falsely represented the exact opposite to Judge Solorzano, and then to the jury, knowingly eliciting perjury from Pauley Perrette,. This was diametrically inconsistent with the Los Angeles Superior Court ruling, and was both factually and legally false Following Judge Solorzano's own determination, "the jury has been misled” Ms, Gertz then continued to withhold these facts from Judge Solorzano, misleading the court during sentencing, just as the jury was misled during the trial, I ask the court to consider the facts herein in ali future proceedings, specifically in a request for a modification of sentence (I was not given the opportunity to speak prior to being sentenced). FACTS AND EVIDENCE Exhibit 1 is the Court Reporters Transcript from the original restraining order hearing in. the underlying Los Angeles Superior Court Family Law case #8D417230. The Court ruled that there had been “no assault, no threat of assault, and no... severe emotional harm”. - Exhibit 1, page 12, fine 19) and: “did not rise to the level of physical assault...End of story.” -(Exhibit 1, page 17, line 21) That Court ruling was based primarily on the fact that both Pauley Perrette and her attorneys agreed there was never any physical assault, evidenced by the language and statements made throughout that entire transcript Page [ of SThe Los Angeles Superior Court’s ruling tha¢ there was “no violence and no threat of violence”, and the specific details of the allegations made (NO physical assault verbal ONLY) remained unchanged for nixe years, (This is further confirmed in subsequent testimonies of Pauley Perrette, and written correspondence from Perrette’s own counsel, available upon request.) That nine year case history suddenly changed on February 19, 2013, when prosecutor Elizabeth Gertz withheld that factual and legal history, and instead falsely represented to Judge Kathryn Solorzano that there was a “history of violence” (Exhibit 2) EXHIBIT 2 is the relevant pages of the Court Reporters Transcript of Los Angeles Superior Court Case #2WA00673 The issue arises immediately, in the first pages 1-17, The importance of this issue is underscored by all three participants of the discussion; prosecutor Gertz, Judge Kathryn Solorzano, and my attomey Anthony Brooklier (who objected) By page 17, line 20, Ms. Gertz. argues it's importance to her case, stating, “It’s important the victim be allowed to tell the jury and tell this court why she’s scared of him, because there was violence in the relationship prior... She fears for her life.” = (Exhibit 2, page 17, line 20) Judge Kathryn Solorzano asked Gertz for specifies: “Now, what are the acts of violence you intend to elicit?” ~( Exhibit 2, page 17, line 27) But Gertz remains vague, and says that she “hadn't intended on eliciting any” - (Exhibit 2, page 18, line 1) Gertz adds: “Actually, there wasn't one incident where... I'll tell her not to” = (Exhibit 2, page 18, lines 8 & 11) Judge Solorzano again prompts Gertz for specifies, asking directly: “What acts of violence do you believe that she will testify to? Page 2of 5Whats your offer of proof?” (Exhibit 2, page 19, line 19-21) Judge Solozano again emphasizes to Gertz: “you need to specify as an offer of proof what it will be” - Exhibit 2, page 20, line 17,18) Gertz then offers an allegation of “yelling” Perrette had testified to nine years previously, but falsely represents to the court that Perrette was actually physically “restrained” “She wasn’t allowed to leave. She was restrained,” - (Exhibit 2, page 20, line 12) ‘This is false.. Ithad never been alleged that Perrette was actuaily physically “restrained”, confirmed by Ms. Perrette’s own testimony about the allegation, in a signed Declaration, the relevant excerpt of which is included as Exhibit 3 "* (For the record, I deny the alleged verbal incident took place, and there is video showing the fact that Perrette simply made this up. Nevertheless what is relevant and undisputed is that Perrette’s own testimony was that there was no physical assault ) The transcript then reveals that, with no specific information from Gertz, Judge Solorzano then imagined a scenario, guessing’ ""He physically sat on her body physically?” - Exhit 2, page 20, line 13) It is essential to note this false allegation that I ever “physically sat on her body" never existed anywhere, ever, prior to its genesis in Judge Solorzano's imagination. Nevet in nine years of bitter divorce proceedings did this alleged incident ever include anything remotely close to me physically getting on top of or “sitting on” Ms Perrette until this moment, when Judge Solorzano first imagines it and utters those words for the first time on record, Despite it being absolutely false, both factually and legally, Elizabeth Gertz replied to the court: "Yes" ~ (Exhibit 2, page 20 line 15) Page Bot 5At that point in the transcript, Ms Perrette had yet to be informed of Ms. Gertz’s newly fabricated false accusation of assault. But Judge Solorzano then instructs Gertz to confer with Perrette prior to testifying, specifically to inform Perrette of what she will be expected to testify to. (Exhibit 2, page 35, line 12) After conferring with Gertz, Perrette then takes the stand and, in direct contrast to her own testimony for the previous nine years, testifies to a "prior physical assault” which just happens to parrot exactly the newly fabricated accusation which minutes before was spawned from the imagination of Judge Solorzano, -( Exhibit 2, page 75, line 7 & 21) The importance and relevance of this newly fabricated false accusation is underscored by the words of both Gertz and Judge Solorzano throughout the transcript, and cannot be dismissed as “harmless”. Judge Solorzano herself made the determination that if the jury was not properly informed of the facts of this incident "it would be misleading the jury." (Exhibit 2, page 78, line 17) On this, Judge Solorzano is absolutely correct, for indeed the "jury has been misled” *** NOTICE REGARDING HONORABLE JUDGE KATHRYN SOLORZANO_ Despite the circumstances on record, I believe that Judge Solorzano was not knowingly complicit with this crime, and not aware that a false accusation of violence has been fabricated in her courtroom, under her watch, and with her own involvement. Simply put, it appears that Judge Solorzano was duped by Ms. Gertz, not complicit with her. I pray and believe that upon being notified of what took place in her courtroom, Judge Solorzano will act to minimize the resulting injustices T have also indicated this belief in Judge Solorzano’s innocence to the California State Bar, who are informed of the information herein, and, what appears to many reasonable legal and law enforcement professionals to be, criminal acts of conspiracy to commit perjury committed by Elizabeth Gertz and Pauley Perrette. The State Bar has recommended they be referred to local authorities for investigation and possible prosecution, I ask the court to remove Ms. Gertz from the case due to her conflict of interest The misconduct described herein is egregious, and it is reasonable to conclude criminal ‘As Judge Solorzano rightly determined, “the jury has been misled”. This information is to be included in a Writ of Habeus Corpus to be filed, and I will be asking the court to consider this in all future proceedings, including a request for sentence modification (I ‘was not given the opportunity to speak prior to sentencing) Page Y of 5CON CLUSION It is undeniable that this issue goes to the very core of the prosecutions case, Ms, Gertz herself argued it’s “importance” and Judge Solorzano determined that, if misinformed on this issue, then “it would be misleading the jury.” It is undeniable that there is a longstanding valid Los Angeles Superior Court ruling that there was “no physical assault...End of story”. Itis undeniable that both Ms, Perrette and her attomeys agreed there was no assault for many years It is undeniable that this remained the legal and factual history of the case, for nine years, untif the moment on the transcript when Ms. Gertz misrepresented this to the court, prompting the judge to imagine a scenario. I is undeniable that Ms, Gertz then seized upon that imagined scenario to fabricate a false accusation and “mislead the jury”. It is undeniable that subsequently Ms. Gertz conferred privately with Ms. Perrette, and that minutes later Ms. Perrette testified falsely, suddenly conforming her testimony to the judges newly-imagined scenario. It is undeniable that testimony was false, inconsistent with her own previous testimony, and was made under penalty of perjury. Given those undeniable facts, it is clear neither Pauley Perrette nor Elizabeth Gertz have any credibility with this court, and I ask the court to consequently disregard and reject any and all argument or statement made by them regarding sentenciag, and to consider this in all future hearings, specifically in regards to a sentence modification (I was not given an opportunity to speak prior to being sentenced) Talso ask Judge Solorzano to exercise any and all power available to hold Ms, Gertz and Ms, Perreite accountable for these heinous crimes committed in her courtroom, and to do so with the clear intent and determination to apply the law equally to them as it has to myself, I will also be asking the court to apply it’s own determination equally in my favor as it was used against me. Just as it “would be misleading the jury” if they were not informed of any prior violence, it is “misleading the jury” that they were falsely led to believe s when both factually and legally that was false And finally, considering my wrongful conviction was quite literally procured based upon a figment of Judge Solorzano’s imagination, however inadvertent on her part, I ask the court to do the only right thing and either dismiss these charges outright, or sentence me to time served, or at the very least allow home confinement, to minimize wrongful suffering and injustice inflicted upon my family, while I have attorneys work outside of this courtroom to have this wrongful conviction expunged from my record, so my wife and I can finally move forward in peace.ExmeiT12 13 14 17 18 19 DEPARTMENT NO. CEB2 HON. GRETCHEN W. TAYLOR, COI FRANCIS COYOTE NO. 304172) LAURA PAULING PERRETT, < é ESPONDENT. REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PETITIONER: JEFFERY P. BOYKIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 227 BROADWAY SUITE 302 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 DIANNA GOULD-SALTWAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 818 W. 77H STRE! SUITE 960 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9002 ORIGINAL, snow, a OFFICTAL REPOR’ CSR NO. 11396THE COURT: ALL PIGi SHIVERS AND PERRETT CONS: GOOD MOPNING. THIS IS ERS VERSUS PEPRETT, BD417230 CONSOLIDATED » © BO4i 7685 MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: GOOD MORNING. DIANNA GOULD-SALTMAN ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT, THE MOVING PARTY ON THIS 0.S.C. WHO 1S PRESENT AND SITTING TO MY LEFT MR. BOYKIN: GOOD MORNING. JEFFREY BOYKIN FOR PETITIONER, FRANCIS SHIVERS, WHO IS PRESENT IN COURT. THE COURT: GCOD MORNING. i DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'LL, NEED TO SPEAX TQ EITHER OF YOU, IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I'D LIKE YCU TO BE SWORN IN, PLEASE THE CLERK: DO YOU SOLEMNLY STATE THAT THE STIMONY YOU ARE ABQUT TO GIVE IN THE MATTER NOW PEMDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? MS. PERRETT: YES. MR. SHIVERS: YES. THE COURT: IF 1 UNDERSTAND THE POSTURE OF THE CASE, MS. GOULD-SALTMAN, YOU FILED A REGULAR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPENDED THE D.V. ORDER TO SHOW CAUS# AND INCORPORATED THAT AS YOUR REQUEST FOR NON-D.V. ORDERS. MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE, REQUEST OF YOUR ORDERS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DID NOT BREAK DOWN YOUR ORDERS IN ANY DIFFERENT WAY. THEY REMAIN THE SAME ORDERS AS REQUESTED IN THE DOMESTIC VIOL: RESTRAINING ORDERILD-SALIMAN: THAT'S CORRECT. SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED BOTH IN DING AND THE EX PARTE WE REQUESTED PERSOMAL CONDUCT ) STAY-AWAY ORDERS, MOVE-OUT ORDER, AND ROPERTY ORDERS | i THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDE | cus unrINELY sUpPtEMSYTAL RESPONSE BY pETZTTONER MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: THANK YCU, YOUR HONOR THE COURT: COURT HAS READ AND REVIEWED THE FILE. ARGUMENT, MS. GOULD-SALTMAN. MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES CAN'T LIVE IN THE SAME HOUSE SAFELY AND PEACEFULLY. MS. PERRETT FEARS FOR HER SAFETY AND FOR HER PEACE. SHE IS THE PARTY WHO WORKS PRIMARILY OUTSIDE OF THE HOME AND IS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE HOUSE RUD IS PAYING ALL THE BILLS OF THE HOUSE, EVEN DURING | THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN SHE'S BEEN OUT OF THE HOUSE. | uuriWaTELY, THE COURT, I THINK, HAS TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THE PARTIES BASED ON THE UNDERLYING FACTS AS PRESENTED TO | THE COURT AND THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE I$ ENTITLED TO THE USE OF THE HOUSE, AND I THINK THAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS RESPONDENT i MR. SHIVERS HAS CHASED HER THROUGHOUT THE i HOUSE. HE'S BLASTED HER WITH LOUD MUSIC ALL NIGHT TO i PREVENT HER FROM.SLEEPING, GOING TO WORK THE NEXT | moreno. E's veLLeD AND SCREAMED AT HER PREVENTED HER | PROM SCREAMING. HS SENDS FRIGHTENING E-MAILS TO HER. HE | Prreceess HER PRIVATE B-MAILS TO OTHER PEOPLE. HE,24 25 26 27 28 HE DECLARAT CCORDING TO HER DECLARATION AS WELL AS 7! OF COLLATERAL BAS BLOCKED HER CAR TO PREVENT HE ATTEMPTS TO MINIMIZE iG m 8 5 S 3 12 HER FROM HIS CONDUCT IN HIS DECLARATION BY CLAIMING THAT SHE DOESN'T ALLEGE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IN HER INITIAL PAPERWORK, AND, ULTIMATELY, I THINK ON AN EX PARTE BASIS |W WERE HERE BEFORE, THE COURT INDICATED THAT IT WASN'T PREPARED TO MAKE THE ORDERS ON AN EX PARTE BASIS. HOWEVER, IT ISN'T JUST VIOLENCE THAT THIS COURT'S JOB IS TO RESTRAIN. IT'S ALL KINDS OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT THAT PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM LEGALLY AND PEACEFULLY GOING AROUT THEIR DAILY ACTIVITIES AS PETITIONER HAS DONE WITH RESPONDENT. COLLATERAL DECLARATIONS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF RESPONDENT'S POSITION, THE DECLARATION OF DAN BAILEY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ALARM SYSTEM WAS ALWAYS THERE, THE DECLARATION OF TONY MAC ELWAYNE (PHONETIC) CONTRADICTS PETITIONER'S DECLARATION THAT HE ADOPTED THE DOG, WHICH HE KNOWS RESPONDENT IS PARTICULARLY ATTACHED TO, AND IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER DUMMIED UP A DOCUMENT WHICH HE THEN ATTEMPTED TO ATTACH AS AN EXHIBIT TO HIS RESPONSIVE PAPERS TO SUPPORT HIS POSITION. THE DECLARATION OF SEAN SWEENEY CONTRADICTS PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS THAT MS. PERRETT WAS YELLING AT PETITIONER ‘AS PETITIONER ALLEGES ON OCTOBER 30TH, AND IT SUPPORTS MS. PERRETT'S CONTENTION SHE WAS AFRAID AND CONTINUES TO BE AFRAID OF PETITIONER, AND IT WASTIONED HIS CAR BEHIND BLASTED MS. PERRETT WITH LOUD MUSIC TO PREVENT HER FROM TENT PURPOSE OF DISTURBING HER, 3 FOR THE AND NOT ONLY DID PETITIONER FAIL TO DENY THE INCIDENT KE STATED ACCORDING TO MR. SWEENEY WELL, THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WAS DUMB. MR. SWEENEY ALSO HEARD PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGE HE HAD HIRED NEIGHBORS TO PREVENT MS. PERRE! PROM USING HER OWN HOUSE WHEN HE WASN'T ON THE PROPERTY. MR. SANDUSKY'S (PHONETIC) DECLARATION SUPPORTS MS. PERRETT'S VERSION OF EV PETITIONER WAS SERVED, AND IT REFUTES PETITIONER'S ION OF THOSE EVENTS.. MR. SANDUSKY ALSO SUPPORTS MS. PERRET?'S VERSION OF HER RELATIONSHIP W. THE ANIMALS TO WHICH SHE IS SO ATTACHED AND REFUTES MR. SHIVERS' VERSION ENTITLED TO SHE'S ENTITLED -- MY CLIENT 1 THE PERCEFUL USE OF THE HOME, WHICH IS HER SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH SHE'S TAKING CARE OF WHICH, WHEN SHE WENT BACK TO LOOK AT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY SINCE SHE'S BEEN GONE, HAS BEEN LEFT DIRTY AND IN RUIW AND FRANKLY IN A DANGEROUS CONDITION BOTH IN TERMS OF THE BRUSH THAT'S BEEN ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE AND IN TE MS OF DURING THE RAINS PROBLEMS TH a T HAVE ENSUED BECAUSE OF THAT. SHE'S ENTITLED TO PEACEFUL US#'OF HER PROPERTY. SHE'S ENTITLED TO BB ABLE TO SLEEP BEFORE SHE GOES TO SHE'S ENTITLED NOT TO BE HARASSED. MR. SHIVERS22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LY WAS ROTI TAT NS. PEEPS AND ENGAGE WITH HIM AND JUST WANTS THIS MARRIAGE TO BE He SAID AS MUCH TO THE COLLATERAL WITNESSES 4 STATE SO IN THEIR DECLARETIONS 0 THAT REASON WE ASK THE COURT TO GRANT US THE RESTRAINING ORDERS REQUESTED, TO ALLOW MS. PERRETT TO MOVE BACK INTO HER OWN HOME AND TO EXCLUDE MR. SHIVERS So HE CAN'T CONTINUE TO BOTHER HER. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. BOYKIN: YOUR HONOR, THE STANDARD, t SELIEVE THE COURT IS DEALING WITH FOR A MOVE-OUT ORDER AT THIS POINT OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD 25, SHOWING OF PKYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HARM UNDER FAMILY CODE 2047. THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION BY THE RESPONDENT, MOVING PARTY, THERE IS PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HARM.’ AuL TEE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WR. SHIVERS ARE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AND BROUGHT TO THIS COURT'S ATTENTION ONLY AFTER MR. SHIVERS HAD FILED A PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF THIS MARRIAGE MS. PERRETT CHOSE TO MOVE OUT OF A JOINTLY OWNED COMMUNITY ASSET HOME IN, I BELIBVE, LATE JUNE, EARLY JULY BACK IN THE SUMMER OF 2004, SHE COULD HAVE AVAILED HERSELF OF THE COURT'S ASSISTANCE IN REMOVING MR. SHIVERS AT THAT TIME, AND MAD THERE BEEN AT THAT TIME THE CHANCE OF PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HARM, THERE WOULD BE -- MY GUESS, SHE WOULD HAVE OBTAINED AN ATTORNEY. AND BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION AT THAT TIME. IT APPEARS MORE LIKELY THAT THIS IS SIMPLY20 24 22 23 24 26 27 28 FACT THAT THERE I§ NOW A DIVORCE HAS BEEN LIVING AWAY FROM > FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, AND J THINK THE EVIDENCE COURT IS THAT SHE HAS BEEN WORKING SUCCESSFULLY, DOING A GCOD JOB AND CARRYING ON WITH HEP ZLONGS IN SOME | | LIFE. IT'S NOT DISPUTED THAT THIS HOUSE [PART AT LEAST IN PART TO MS, PERRSTT. iT WAG THE FAMILY HOME. iT WAS THE HOME OF BOTH MY CLIENT AND MS. PERRETT. SO THAT'S NOT DISPUTED, BUT SHE LEFT VOLUNTARILY, AND, ACTUALLY, I THINK FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS IT'S OUR OPINION AND OUR ARGUMENT TODAY THAT THINGS ARE PROCEEDING TOWARDS DISSOLUTION OF THIS MARRIAGE AGAIN, THERE HAS BEEN NO INCIDENTS SINCE 1) MOVE-OUT OTHER THAN WHEN MS. PERRETT CHOSE TO GO TO THE ' HOUSE FOR WHATEVER REASONS. THEN THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WHEN EACH PARTY WAS SERVED. 1 CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH TO THIS COURT THAT THE INCIDENT MS. PERRETT CLAIMS IS DISPUTED KND ALSO NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN IF SHE HAD SIGNED A Irs RETURN OF NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT. AGAII DISPUTED THAT THIS IS A SEPARATE PROPERTY ASSET AND THE WHOLE DISSOLUTION, I THINK, WILL REVOLVE AROUND THE COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE AT SOME FUTURE DATE. ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN REGARD TO | MR. SHIVERS' BEHAVIOR HAVE BEEN DISPUTED PREVIOUSLY IN ‘THIS COURT AND IN PAPERS FILED PREVIOUSLY AND CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. IN REGARD TO THE ALARM SYSTEM, A LOT HAS | BEEN MADE ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY | | POSSIBLE, AND IN MR. SHIVERS’ PRIOR DECLARATION TO THE u\ | i i | | \ i | COURT HE STATED IT'S NOT POSSIBLE THAT TH ALARM HAS NO BNL DELAY. 45 CANNOT GET ELF IF THERE NOT A DELAY ALLOWING HIM TO GO FROM THE DOOR TO THE ALARM SYSTEM TO SHUT IT OFF. WHETHER IT MALFUNCTIONED THAT ON DOESN'T REALLY DAY, WHETHER THAT'S A MISREPRESENT. MATTER. IT'S JUST NOT LOGICAL, NOT POSSIBLE IN REGARD TO THE ADOPTION OF CECE, RESPONDEUT STATING THAT THE ADOPTION CERTIFICATE WE PROVIDED 1S SOMEHOW FORGED. HOWEVER, THAT'S THS ONLY ADOPTION CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE COURT, SO THOSE ARE THE PAPERS IN REGARD TO THE ANIMAL. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ALLEGATION REGARDING BPUSH FIRES. 27'S BEEN RAINING PRETTY HEAVILY THIS WINTER. I THINK THE HOUSE Ig IN GOOD SHAPE, AND HE'S TAKING CARE OF IT BECAUSE HE CONSIDERS "7 BIS HOUSE ALSO. THE COURT: MS. GOULD-SALIMAN, YOUR CLIENT HAS LITTLE JOE? MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: SHE HAS BOTH DOGS, CORRECT THERE'S APPARENTLY SOME OTHER DOG IN THE HOUSE WHICH IS NOT A DOG SHB WAS FAMILIAR WITH. THE COURT: BUT THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY DOGS AS IT WERE SHE CURRENTLY BAS. MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: THE DOGS ACQUIRED DURING THE ‘TIME PARTIES WERE MARRIED ARE IN HER POSSESSION. THE COURT: OKAY. MS. GQULD-SALTMAN, SINCE You WERE LAST HERE HAVE THERE BEEN ANY INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR STALKING? MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: IT'S HARD -- WELL, IN TERMS OFPARTIES BR SHE YET AGAIN CHANGED HER E-MAT CYBER STALKING WOULD STOP. AS THE WE WE: LAST HERE ON THE ACTUAL HEARING THERE ARE E-MAILS THAT FROM MY CLIENT'S E-MAIL ADDRESS BY PETITIONER, AND SHE MAD SINCE CHANGSD HER E-MAIL PASSWORD. MS. PERRETT: MY PERSONAL ACCOUNT THE COURT: MS. GOULD-SALTMAN, I AM NOT IGNORANT ABOUT COMPUTERS, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, I'M NOT AN EXPERT. OKAY. SO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE E-MAILS THAT ARE ALL FROM YOUR CLIENT TO HIM, OKAY, THAT ARE ALL. FROM YOUR CLIENT TO HIM, © OBVIOUSLY HAS THE ABILITY TO BM OUT BECAUSE THEY WEPE ADDRESSED TO HIM MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE CASE IF THE COURT WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF T! E-MAILS NOT THE TOP, FIRST OFF THE TOP DOESN'T SAY WHO THEY'RE FROM THE COURT: BUT I DON'T KNOW. MS. COULD-SALTMAN, 3 DON'T HAVE A DECLARATION OF THE COMPUTER EXPERT. I DON'T XNOW, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR ME TO BE CONDUCTING BXPERIMENTS HERE. NOW, I'D LOVE TO CONDUCT AN EXPES INT, BUT THEY TOOK AWAY MY COMPUTER. IT CRASHED. ETHER WHEN YOU PRINT OUT AN AOL E-MAIL Ow SO I DON'T IN JANUARY THAT YOU RECEIVED LAST MAY, WHETHER IT SAYS WHO THE FROM LINE IS OR WHETHER THAT'S BEEN WHITED OUT. OKAY. I DON'T KNOH , BND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT THE FACT THE BOTTOM SAYS POLLYGO SHE SAYS THAT'S A SEPARATE22 23 24 28 27 28 ONE CAN ASSUME HE MIGHT HAVE REEN ABLE TO 2 OPY QF IT IM SOME OTHER PASHION OTHER THAN ©) STALKING. 1 CERTAINLY CAN'T ¢ VED THE UNDERLYING E-MAIL POLLYGOSAL THAT DATE, AND THAT'S WHAT Hi STALKING? WAYBE HE'S HAD THE PASSWORD SINCE TH RULE AS FOLLOWS: COURT FINDS 7) NO IDEA HOW THAT Ww: TLY AN E-MAIL FROM AR BER, MS. GOULD ALTMAN: THE ISSUE ISN'T WHET: BOTTOM ON THE DAY WE WERE MERE HE HAD TO USE COM, WHICH IS HER E-MAIL ACCOUNT USING A PASSWORD SHE DID NOT GiVZ HIM TO PRINT THIS ©-MAIL ON DID THE COURT: HOW COULD HE? IT WAS SENT MAY, ‘04. MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: NO. HE PRINTED IT 0 1-4-05 SOURT: 1 REALIZE THAT, BUT IT'S FROM NAY. DID SHE ESTABLISH POLLYGO? MS. PERRETT: A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT TO GET YOU HAVE A PERSONAL FILING ACCOUNT THE COURT: BUT YOU WERE MARRIED IN MAY. THAT'S DATE OF SEPARATION. HOW COULD THAT BE CYBER MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: SHE CHANGED THE PASSWORD. IN BER DECLARATION SHE TESTIFIED SHE CHANGED HER FASSWORD THE COURT: I REALIZE THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK I CAN WAKE ALL THESE LEAPS ABOUT CYBER STALKING. SO THINGS HAVE BEEN QUIET IN THE LAST 30 DAYS? MR. BOYKIN: YOUR HONOR THE COURT THAT'S GOOD. COURT IS GOING TO PARTIES HAVE CERTAINLY9 24 25 26 27 28 FACTS AND YOU MAY END U® WITH A FAIRLY DIVORCE ACTION BECAUSE OME OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE N YOU SEPARATED. WE'VE # GOT JUNE OVER HERE AND DECEMBER OVER 7 WILL ER! HAVE, IF YOU CAN'T COME TO SOME AGRI A TRIAL ON BECAUSE IT MAY N THE DATE OF SEPARATION TOOK AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS wr RESPECT TO YOUR DIVORCE. IT Ig OBVIOUS TO ME THAT CERTAINLY BACK IN THE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE RESPONDENT CLAIMS THE TWO OF YOU WERE BRAKING UP, THAT THE QUALITY OF YOUR COMMUNICATION WAS UNCIVILIZED AND TH NING, um BR: NT, NOT NICE. AND WHETHER YOUR, YOU KNOW, AULEGED SEPARATION AND THE REASONS FOR IT FUELED COMMUNICATION THAT WAS LESS THAN NICE AND BEHAVIOR THAT WAS LESS THAN NICE CERTAINLY PUTS ONE IN A DIFFICULT AND I THINK THAT THE RESPONDENT VOLUNTARILY PAMILY RESIDENCE IN OR AROUND JUNE FOR SEVERAL REASONS, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS AN ABUSIVE ENVIRONMENT, BUT BECAUSE SHE HAD WORK COMMITMENTS AND MAYBE THINGS TO SORT OUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE WITHOUT RULES. IT'S NOT ‘g NOT RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN THROUGH RIGHT IT'S NOT RIGHT 10 BE HAVING THE POLICE IT'S NOT RIGHT TO BE, YOU KNOW, PLAYING GAMES WITH’ WHAT UNFORTUNATELY IS YOUR TOTMLITY OF MARITAL PROPERTY. 17 IS OF NO INTEREST TODAY WHO PAYS THE BILLS. THERE IS NOewe rwe woo toe be NO FAMILY CODE SECTION 6321 (A) {2) BEHAVIOR THAT SAYS ST FOR FINANCIAL RELIEF. NO ONE HAS ASKED FOR HELP i jONY. WE KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE PRESUMPTIVELY IN FAMILY LAW SOMEBODY HAS THEIR NAME ON SOMETHING DOESN'T MEN IT'S THEIRS. THIS MAY BE A MIXED ASSET, MAY HAVE A COMMUNITY INTEREST IN IT EVEN IF IT DIDN'T -- THE FACT IT IS THE MARITAL HOME MEANS EACH OF YOU HAVE A CO-EKISTENT RIGHT TO RESIDE THERE. I THINK THERE IS SUFFICIENT WELL-FOUNDED FEAR ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT, AND IF I PROPERLY HAD A REQUEST FROM THE PETITIONER 1 MIGHT EVEN FIND WELL-FOUNDED EMOTIONAL FEAR ON HIS PART, BUT I DON'T. BUT CERTAINLY TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT DESERVES THE COMFORT OF PEACE AND QUIET OF THE XNONLEDGE THAT THERE IS A RULE THAT SAYS THERE IS PEACE AND QUIET, SO THE IS GOING TO GRANT A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER. IT WILL BE A NO CONTACT, NO STALKING, NO WRITING, NO E-MAILS, NO PASSWORDS, STAY 100 YARDS AWAY, AND THIS MAY CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY, BUT I SEB THAT MR, SHIVERS HAS ENGAGED IN AN ASSAULT, THREAT OF AN ASSAULT, OR BEHAVIOR THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SUCH SEVERE SMOTIONAL HARM THAT HE NEEDS TO SE EXCLUDED FROM HIS HOME. SO I GRANT AN EXCUUSIVE USE AND POSSESSION OF THE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO TEE PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT BECAUSS OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER MAY NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THAT WILL BE AN EXCEPTION 70 THE RESTRAINING ORDER. SHE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE HOUSEJPON 48 bo ATEVER SHE N GS, AND SHB CAN BRING WHOMEVER SHE LIKES, SHE CAN PING AN ARMED GUARD SHE NEEDS TO. SHE CAN REASONABLY REQUEST, SIR, THAT YOU VACAT THE PREMISES AND STAY AWAY FOR SOME HOURS AT A ‘TIME AND THAT COMMUNICATION ABOUT KER ACCESS 70 THE RESIDENCE SHOULD TAKE PLACE BETWEEN ATTORNEYS NOT BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU 1 SEE NO REASON WHY YOUR DIVORCE CAN'T RUSH TO TH® FINAL NOTE, WHICH IS If THE RESPONDENT WISHES THIS AMILY RESIDENCS AND IT HAS A VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY, WE CAN ASCERTAIN WHAT THAT IS, PAY MR. SHIVERS RIS SHARE, AND SEND HIM ON HIS WAY. WE'RE NOT THERE YE MAKE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER LAST ¥OR NK THAT I$ PLENTY TO GET YOU THROUGH A MINI OF SEPARATION If WE HAVE TO AND A NI HAPPENS TO THE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND HOW IS. IF IT DOESN'T DO THE TRICK, IT CAN BE EXTENDED, BUT THE COURT MAKE: iG ORDER THIS RESTRAINT AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE OCTOBER 31ST, 2005 UNLESS TO TERMINATE SOONER BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES SUBJECT TO THE COURT SIGNING OFF ON IT OR EXTENDED BECAUSE THE PARTIES' DIVORCE I NOT FINISHED AND MS. PERRETT STILL HAS CONCERNS ABOUT CONTACT FROM MR. SHIVERS THE TWO DOGS CECE AND LITTLE JOE,ARE IN MS. PERRETT'S POSSESSION. THEY REMAIN IN HER POSSESSION UNTIL We MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THEIR COMMUNITY OR SEPARATE NATURE. I HAVE DONE DOGS BEFORE. THEY'RE VERYCOMMENTS, CO; QUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S 4) DENED. I HAVE NO I.M.E.'S. BRING IT 5 } 6 MS. GQULD-SALTMAN: YOUR HONOR, =P I'M | 7 TANDING YOU CORRECTLY, iF YOU'RE GRANTING TO 8 | PETITIONER EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY, PETITIONER HAS | wang No EEQUEST FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY. UNDER AT BASIS IS THE COURT GRANTING PETITIONER'S EXCLUSIVE E BASIS THAT IF MS, PERRETT ANTS B RESTRAINING ORDER, I NEED TO GIVE SOMEBODY OR SHE'LL 8© GOING OVER THERE. VICLATING 16 | MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: SINCE THERE'S NO RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HER, IS THERE ANY -- AND THERE'S NO REQUEST 18 | BY HIM FOR EXCLUSIVE USE, I DON'T BELIEVE THE COURT HAS 19 | THE POWEA TO GRANT HIM EXCLUSIVE USE THAT HE HASN'T ASKED 20 | FOR. THZ COURT MAY GRANT OR DENY MY CLIENT'S REQUEST FOR a 21 | EXCLUSIVE USE, BUT I DON'T THINK THE COURT CAN GRANT HIM AN ORDER THAT'S NEVER BEEN REQUESTED. THERE'S NO } 23 | JURISDICTION. NOBODY HAS GIVEN THIS COURT THE RIGHT TO ) : 24 MAKE AN ORDER SIMILAR TO THE CASE BEFORE YOU PRIOR TO US. 2s | THE COURT: THAT'S WEY S$ ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU 26 \ PUT UNDER YOUR REGULAR FAMILY LAW O.S.C. I MEAN - - a} US. GOULD-SALINAN: TT ASKED FOR EXCLUSIVE USE TO | 28 | My CLIENT, WHICH THIS COURT MAY GRANT OR DENY, BUT.T BELIEVE THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT TIONER EXCLUSIVE U: couPT: OKAY. D0 WP. BOYKIN: I DON'T, YOUR HONOR COURT DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT IT. IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S REQUESTED MS. GOULD-SALIMAN: IT'S ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIEF REQUESTED. IT'S 180 DEGREES. THE COURT: LET ME PUT 37 TO YOU THIS WAY. SHE CAN HAVE A CHOICE OF NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR EXCLUSIVE USE TO HIM, BUT I CAN'T HAVE A RESTRAINING ORDER WITH THE FAB Y RESIDENCE WITH HIM IN PLACE WITH HER GOING IN, THROUGH THE WINDOW OR HE'LL GET ARRESTED. THAT'S NOT RIGHT DO YOU WANT ME TO FUT EXCEPT -- HOW ABOUT THIS? I WILL DO FOLLOWING IF THIS MAKES IT BETTER THERE WILL BE NO 100-YARD STAY AWAY AND NO NO-CONTACT ORDER WHENEVER MS. PERRETT CHOOSES VOLUNTARILY TO STEP ONTO TH PROPERTY. HOW IS THAT? $O THERE WILL BE NO RESTRAINING ORDERS IN EFFECT ON THE PROPERTY MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: WELL, IN TERMS OF THE W CONTACT CLEARLY ASSAULT, BATTERY, ETC. WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE. IF THEY PASS EACM OTHER IN A HALL, IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 100 YARDS, NO BIG DEAL, BUT HE STILL COULDN'T sLuG 5 R THE COURT: NO, HB CAN'T SLUG KER, BUT HE CAN CONTACT HER, SO THE NO CONTACT ORDER WOULD NOT BE IN PLACE. THE OTHER, WHICH IS SEPARATE, THE CONDUCT ORDER,20 21 22 23 70 STL MAKE IT WORK POR YOU. REMAIN BOYKIN: DULATE TO -- THE COURT wR. BOYKIN ‘ON OF NO WOULDN'T IT BE SIMPLER TO JUST AGREE SHE'S RAL 1 AGREE, WHATEVER WE HAVE TO Do W: PLACE SO THE CONDUCT GRDER WITH CONTACT BD THE ISSUE. I'M TRYING 1 DO, BUT COULD WE NOT STIPULATS TO THE COURT'S ORDER? YOUR PAPERMORK YOU MS. GOUDD-SALTMAN: THE COURT: I'M OPPOSING EXCLUSIVE USE. IF NOWHERE IN THERE IN THE DEPTHS oF SAID (2 US EXCLUSIVE USE, AND IT N'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO DO SO TO KEEP THE PEACE, THEN I CAN MAKE A RESTRAINING ORDER THAT SAYS SINCE you RE LIVING THERE THAT MS. PERRETT 1s NOT Lzvinc 7 AND AQT ANY TIME SHE WISHES TO VISIT THE PROPERTY, BE THERE, THE RESTRAINING ORDERS WON'T APPLY EXCEPT FOR THE NO HARASS, MOLEST, ASSAULT BY? CAN Move MR. BOYKIN THE COURT: THREATEN, ATTACK, STRIKE, SEXUALLY HOW OFTEN WOULD SHE REQUEST TO COME AT ANY TIMZ, ANY TIME WANTS. SHE INTO THE SPARE ROOM IF SHE WANTS TO UNTIL YOU GUYS BRING ME A DIFFERENT O.S.C MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: IS THIS COURT'S RULING BASED ON THE FACT PER TRE COURTS QUESTION THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM THE LAST 30 DAYS BECAUSE MY CLIENT HAS STAYED AWAY? THE COURT: NO, I NK THERE'S BEEN VERY 1PROBLEM IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, VERY LITTLE PROBLEM, A E-MAILS AND YOUR ALLEGATION WITHOUT A SCTENTIFIC ‘ALYSIS THAT MAKES IT TOTALLY IRREFUTABLS, THE WORST | THINGS THAT HAPPEVED WERE ON THE OCCASION WHEN i MS. PERRETT WENT TO THE RESIDENCE AND BROUGHT THE COPS | AND WENT THRCUGH THE WINDOW. ' MR. SHIVERS, I THINK, YOU'RE BEHAVING RATEER | BIZARRELY, THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT CREEPY TO HAVE | PAPER BAGS OVER THE WINDOWS, STUFF LIKE THAT. IT DOESN'T LOOK PRETTY, RIGHT? BUT THAT'S NOT A CRIME. IT'S NOT A CRIME, BUT IT DOES LOOK WEIRD. AGREE. IT LOOKS | STRANGE, BUT I DON'T ISSUE RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST STRANGE PEOPLE. I ISSUZ RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST | PEOPLE THAT ARE VIOLENT OR SCARING PEOPLE, I THINK BACK IN JUNE WHICH Ig MOST OF THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE cov 1S WHEN JN JUNE THEY WERE BREAKING UP. YOUR COMMUNICATION, BOTH OF YOU, BUT YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY, BUT YOUR COMMUNICATION WHAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP WAS LESS THAN PRETTY. SO BASED ON HISTORY OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE I'M GRANTING THE RESTRAINING ORDER. HOWEVER, 17 DOES | RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ASSAULT THAT A PERSON NEEDS TO BE | THROWN OUT CF THEIR HOME, END OF STORY. MS. GOULD-SALTMAN WILL PREPARE THE, APPROPRIATE RESTRAINING ORDER WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, AND I WILL SEE YOU BACK ! | - | MS. GOULD-SALTMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. |20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 HON FRANCIS COYOTE SHIVERS, PETITIONER, vs LAURA PAULINE PERRETT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) } ¥ OF LOS ANG! TAYLOR, COMM STATE OF CALIFORNIA NO. 3D417230 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, ZOWRA RAHMAN, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MA’ BR ON JANUARY 31, 2005 DATED THIS 3NU DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005 a RENMAN, RER OFFICIAL REPORTER © CSR*11396SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LAX, DEPARTMENT 146 HON. KATHRYN SOLORZANO, JUDGE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) } PLAINTIFF, ) ) vs. } No. 2WA00673 FRANCIS SHIVERS, } ) CERTIFIED ) DEFENDANT. ) cory ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PEOPLE: CARMEN TRUTANICH, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ELIZABETH GERTZ, DEPUTY 11901 SOUTH LACIENEGA BOULEVARD 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90045 FOR THE DEFENDANT: MARKS AND BROOKLIER BY: ANTHONY BROOKLIER, &SQ. 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 VOLUME 2 OF 5 LYDIA -E. JOHNSON, CSR 5919 PAGES 1 TO 111-300 OFFICIAL REPORTERCY Doe wow 1. 12 13 14 15 16 aq 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 146 2WA00673 PEOPLE VS. FRANCIS SHIVERS FEBRUARY 19, 2013 HON. KATHRYN SOLORZANO REPORTER: LYDIA JOHNSON, CSR 5919 ‘TIME: P.M. SESSION APPEARANCES: THE DEFENDANT, FRANCIS SHIVERS, BEING PRESENT IN COURT AND REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, ANTHONY BROOKLIER, ESQ.; ELIZABETH GERTZ, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES CITY, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (VOIR DIRE OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS) THE COURT: WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR HER, I WANT TO GIVE A COPY OF A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT I DRAFTED FOR 653.2(A). THIS IS MY FIRST DRAFT AND I DID IT OVER THE LUNCH BREAK. SO THERE COULD BE CORRECTIONS MADE. THIS IS NOT -- I'M CLEARLY NOT SAYING THAT THIS 1S THE INSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING TO GO IN. I THINK IT COVERS ALL OF THE RELEVANT SLEMENTS. iW “tssere 10 qa 12 13 4 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (PAUSE IN HEARING ON JURY INSTRUCTION T0 QUESTION JUROR NO. 17) THE COURT: THE REASON I DRAFTED THESE INSTRUCTIONS IS SO THAT WE CAN NARROW, HOPEFULLY, OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT PRIOR ACTS AND THE PRESENTATION OF PRIOR ACTS IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF. AND THIS -~ IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME ABOUT BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING FURTHER? GO AHEAD, MR. BROOKLIER. MR. BROOKLIER: YES, YOUR HONOR. HERE I$ WHAT I -- HERE IS WHAT T THINK. HERE IS WHAT I SEE, THE PROBLEM IS GOING T0 BE BASED ON WHAT COUNSEL HAS TOLD ME. I HOPE I'M -- I HOPE I'M REPORTING CORRECTLY WHAT SHE SAID. I THINK THAT WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS WILLING TO DO IS TRY TO MAKE THIS A REFERENOUM ON THEIR LONGSTANDING VOLATILE UNHEALTHY RELATIONSHIP, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THERE, AND THIS IS Way. COUNT 1 IS A VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER. WE HAVE STIPULATED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RESTRAINING ORDER, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THE -- WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROVEN, THAT THE COURT -- THERS IS A WRITTEN ORDER WE STIPULATED TO.ed aw a 12 13 14 is 16 a7 18 1g 20 al 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WE STIPULATE THE DEFENDANT -- WE STIPULATED THAT HE KNEW ABOUT IT, HE HAD THE ABILITY TO FOLLOW IT AND -- BUT HERE IS THE RUB. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS ON THE MARCH 20, 2012, SHINTARO RESTAURANT INCIDENT. MY CLIENT COMES IN WITH HIS WIFE. HE'S TAKEN TO -~ BY A HOSTESS WHO IS GOING TC TESTIFY AT THE -- FROM THE SHINTARO RESTAURANT. SHE'S -- WHAT SHE'S GOING TO SAY IS THAT WHEN -~ THER® WAS ONLY ONE TABLE LEFT. SHE TOOK MY CLIENT AND HIS WIFE TO THAT TABLE. AND HE SAID TO -- MY CLIENT SAID TO THAT WAITRESS "I CAN'T SIT HERE," BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT HE HAD THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. NOW, THIS IS A RESTAURANT THAT HE AND HIS WIFE GO TO A COUPLE OF TIMES A WEEK. IT'S ABOUT -- IT'S, GOOGLE SAYS, .2 MILES FROM THEIR HOUSE. SOMETIMES THEY WALK THERE. THEY HAD JUST COME FROM A CONCERT. SO I DON'T THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "1101 MATERIAL" WITH REGARD TO THAT. THE ISSUE WILL BE WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT. I THINK THEY WILL SAY, MEANING THE PROSECUTION, THAT THE DEFENDANT PULLED OUT HIS PHONE AND TOOK PICTURES, AND THAT'S WHERE THE HARASSMENT Is. BUT THIS STANDS ON ITS OWN. ‘THE COURT: MAY T MAKE A COMMENT, HOWEVER,ern ee one a2 12 13 14 19 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I'D LIKE TO -- I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, I WANT YOU TO KEEP SOMETHING IN MIND. THERE -- THEY MUST PROVE THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTION ORDER IS INTENTIONAL. SO TO PRESENT TO THE JURY THOSE FACTS ALONE IS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE -- YOUR CASE ESSENTIALLY. I OON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR CASE IS, BUT CERTAINLY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID RIGHT NOW WOULD NEGATE INTENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY INTEND TO OFFER, BUT I'M SAYING IT MUST BE -- THE ELEMENT THAT I WANT TO HONE IN ON BASED ON YOUR COMMENT IS WHETHER OR NOT INTENTION -- IT'S AN INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE ORDER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER CASE IN CHIEF IS. MR. BROOKLIER: WHAT SHE'S GOING TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS SHE'S GOING TO DRAG UP OLD THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN -- THAT HAVE BEEN LITIGATED FOR YEARS BEFORE. AND IF SHE DOES THAT, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE TWO WEEKS. THAT'S -- THAT IS RIDICULOUS. THE COURT: NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE TWO WEEKS. CERTAINLY THE COURT MAY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PRIOR EVENTS THAT THE PROSECUTION WISHES TO OFFER. BUT AT THIS POINT I'M JUST POINTING OUT TO YOU THAT WHAT YOU JUST STATED IS YOUR CASE. YOU'LL HAVE TO HEAR WHAT HER CASE IS. BUT LET ME HEAR WHAT THAT IS BEFORECIA Hakone 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YOU MOVE ON TO -- OR YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER COUNT RIGHT NOW? MR. BROOKLIER: YES. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. MR. BROOKLIER: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE COURT -- AND I THINK THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION 18 LACKING IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS -- THE QUESTION ON COUNT 2, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT 653.2 -- MS. GERTZ: (A). MR. BROOKLIER: (C) (1). MS. GERTZ: IS THIS (A) OR (C) (1)? I WENT OFF THE COMPLAINT. MR. BROOKLIER: (C)(1) 1S THE DEFINITIONS OF A). THE COURT: EXCUSE ME? MR. BROOKLIER: THE DEFINITION INCLUDES ‘THE DEFINITIONS OF (A). THE COURT: I'VE GOT 653.2(A), AND YOU WANT TO REFER MS NOW TO 653 -- MR. BROOKLIER: 653.2(A) IS THE GENERAL STATUTE THAT LAYS OUT THE ELEMENTS. MS. GERTZ: OKAY. (B) TELLS US WHAT ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS. THAT'S THE DEFINITION. (C) (1) DEFINES HARASSMENT. NOW, THIS IS WHAT I THINK THE CRUX -- THE IMPORTANT POINT IS. HARASSMENT MEANS "KNOWING ANDey ane une il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 WILLFUL COURSE OF CONDUCT DIRECTED AT A SPECIFIC PERSON THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD CONSIDER SERIOUSLY ALARMING." MR. BROOKLIE! STANDARD. THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE WE DON'T NEED -- WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHAT PAULEY PERRETTE THINKS ABOUT THIS BASED ON HER LONG-TIME HATEFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH MY CLIENT. AND WHEN I SAY "HATEFUL," I'M SURE If GOES BOTH WAYS. I'M NOT ASCRIBING ANY BLAME TO EITHER SIDE. JI JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GET INTO THAT. THIS I$ AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. SO THE JURY IS GOING TO BE ASKED WHAT WOULD A REASONABLE -- WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON CONSIDER THESE TWO TWEETS SERIOUSLY ALARMING, SERIOUSLY ANNOYING, SERIOUSLY TORMENTING, OR SERIOUSLY TERRORIZING THE PERSON AND THAT SERVES NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. IT'S NOT WHAT PAULRY PERRETTE THINKS, BECAUSE PAULEY PERRETTE HATES HIM. SO WHAT SHE THINKS IS INFLAMMATORY WHEN YOU -- IT'S A 352 ISSUE. AND IT'S -- IT DOSN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT SHE THINKS. THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE -- THE STATUTE WAS WRITTEN FOR THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLE PERSON. AND THAT'S WHY WE DON'T NEED TOo3 Kno e one 10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 ay 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HEAR ANY OF THIS. TRE COURT: OKAY. MS. GERT2, I'LL HEAR FROM YOU MS. GERTZ: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WELL, I AGREE WITH COUNSEL, THAT WE DO NEED A DEFINITION OF HARASSMENT AS IT IS DEFINED IN THE CODE. HOWEVER, I DISAGREE WITH HIM, OBVIOUSLY, REGARDING WHETHER HER OPINIONS -- THE VICTIM'S OPINIONS WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY ADMISSIBLE. AND I THINK WHEN WE FIRST SPOKE ABOUT THIS CASE IN YOUR CHAMBERS, WE TALKED ABOUT CONTEXT. FIRST OF ALL -- THE COURT: FIRSTLY, LET ME JUST SAY THIS 18 THE FIRST TIME I LOOKED AT THIS STATUTE. WE HAD AN INFORMAL CONVERSATION IN CHAMBERS. 80 THERE IS NOTHING THAT I SAID THAT IS GOING TO BE THE END OR FINAL STATEMENT THAT I HAVE ON ANYTHING, FIRSTLY. SECONDLY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE ACTUALLY REFERRED OR REVIEWED THIS (C) (1) DEFINITION OF HARASSMENT AS IT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR OFFENSE. SO WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER LN CHAMBERS, I BELIEVE BOTH SIDES INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO JURY INSTRUCTION. AND, YES, THERE IS NO JURY INSTRUCTION TO THIS.