TRIGGER WARNING

SHARON BETH MARSHALL, ESQUIRE: 

"Good afternoon. So I think it's time that you guys actually get some full truth because there is truth to be had in this case. And the truth is that my client, P.M., who is an excellent emergency department nurse, is not guilty of all seven counts that are alleged. So guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have reasonable doubt, the prosecutor has not proven her case and my client remains presumed innocent. He is innocent now. He has been this entire time. He is presumed innocent unless the prosecutor proved her case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In terms of G.M., she is the risk director at the hospital and reviews instances of alleged inappropriate acts. G.M. testified that she found no hospital policy that was violated. She also testified that she does not take anything at face value, neither does F.A., a character witness, and a lot of other witnesses testified similarly. And you all shouldn't take everything at face value either. It's time to dig deep and look further.

The reasonable doubt jury instruction says that unless the evidence proves my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal and you must find him not guilty. The truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that you do not have the evidence that you need to have in this case. You need specific evidence as to the precise and different and unique anatomies of these three women. And nobody gave you that. Every woman's anatomy is different.

Now, the defense expert I found to be extremely credible as balanced against M.W., who runs a 24/7 business for law enforcement, we clearly know what her bias is. This is a gal who is super impressive. She has testified as an expert in 80 trials, balanced for both the prosecutor and the defense.

Her particular focus, throughout her career has been womens' genitalia. When charge nurse J.K. is preparing to do a catheter, she tells her patient that she is "about to get all up in her business". And J.K. and O.C. testified, as well as Expert S.W., said that clitoral touching absolutely happens during catheter procedures. S.W. testified that the genital area is cleansed from clitoris to anus. I have a question. Why would a clitoris need to be cleansed if there was no possibility of it being touched?

The labia has to be separated. The tissues and anatomical structures, including but not limited to the clitoris, must be pushed back. Not sure what the confusion is of the prosecutor. But the labia are spread, the tissues are manipulated, pushed back and up or down depending on where the woman's particular anatomy is. S.W. testified you do the manipulation any way that you can in order to access the urethra.

In terms of visualization that the prosecutor was talking about, you can't do visualization unless you do manipulation first. So the non-dominant hand of the nurse is on the clitoris throughout, purposefully. There is no accident. We are not talking about, 'oops, I made a mistake'. This is one of the structures that is manipulated so that the urethra can be visualized and a catheter can be sterile and enter into the urethra. 

Nurse S.W. also says that you are constantly moving your hand because things shift and things change and perhaps you are going to slip a bit on a labia and you need to push it more forcefully. Whatever it is, there is no standard hand position. Obviously, hands are different from person to person. Finger length is different from person to person. And the most important thing above all is to make sure that the catheter remains sterile so there is no bacteria from the labia and the other anatomical structures that can get introduced into that sterile environment and cause serious risk to the patient.

So Nurse S.W. said that sometimes catheterization is an extremely difficult procedure. Of course, unfortunately, she didn't have the specific facts and details to decide what actual manipulation was going to be required during that particular catheterization. There are no photos that have been memorialized. The women didn't go and get photographed. But the bottom line is that every woman's body is different and that is how it is. O.C. says it is "a surprise" when you get down there, as she said, and looks around and cleans and visualizes. It is only then when you really realize what you are actually "contending with". Those were her words. Now, the prosecutor poo pooed this, you know, oh, catheterization isn't so difficult. Sometimes it really is. And without actually knowing what you were contending with, we can't make a decision as to what was appropriate or inappropriate.

My client testified very truthfully, very believably, very credibly that he is a nurse. It hits him to the core just upon hearing the allegations. This is so not who he is as a person, as a nurse. It kills him that these charges have even been levied. So think about all of the possibilities with regard to difficulties and issues that you have to contend with as to what possibly Nurse M. was faced with.

What factors can make catheter insertion difficult? Prolapse, rectocele, cystocele, a woman's positioning, obesity. The DA, you know is trying to slam that term. There is no offense. It's a medical term. There are medical terms that in regular parlance might not be politically correct. Obesity is a medical term. Post-menopausal, shrinkage and atrophy, urethral retraction, thick labia, no labia, hidden urethra, all sorts of things. But we had no specific facts, did we? 

Womens' sensitivities are also very different. One woman can be extremely sensitive. But women may actually feel like they are being rubbed when a catheter procedure is happening. They may feel circular motions. They will feel contact on their clitoris.

Getting the job done is not always easy, but nurses get it done. Their job is to make their patient comfortable and safe. And a lot of times, they are following doctors' orders in order to make the patient feel better. That's what my client was doing and only what he was doing. J.D. testified that surrounding tissues are actually touched. There is separation, there is manipulation, and there is pulling up. Up, being the clitoris. Tissue needs to be pushed up and out of the way so the tissue can be retracted to keep that sterile environment.

The clitoris is right at the top where the left and right labia meet at the top of the genitals. If you are holding labia separated, you have the left labia, you have the right labia, and you are separating. Where are you holding, ladies and gentlemen? You are holding the clitoris. And many folks told you that, right? Even M.W. testified that there is separation. Sometimes there is a lot of tissue, and the only way to visualize it is to separate and manipulate so you are able to see where the urethra is.

Now, as we don't know the specific facts about the particular private areas of these three women, what the prosecutor is asking you is to just take a guess that all of these women looked anatomically the same, that they had no issues, all good, easy and simple. And sometimes that's how a catheterization procedure is and sometimes it's not. And we don't guess here. We don't presume facts. We don't assume facts. We need facts! We need the truth in order to ascertain what actual evidence we have before us in order to make a decision. Based on what the prosecutor presented you and argued that she has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, she produced no specific facts that you all need to determine whether or not touching was appropriate or inappropriate. 

My client is honest, truthful and sexually appropriate. All four character witnesses, and even a fifth with Nurse J.D. The honesty and truthfulness remain uncontested by the prosecutor.

And, of course, a common thread that ran throughout the testimony is, I need to know a lot more and a lot of witnesses said that. S.W., M.W., J.D. and F.A. You all need a lot more facts that you weren't given. Again, the prosecutor wants you to imagine this Barbie world where everybody is slender and has the same body type and the same anatomy. Is that reasonable? No. I'm looking around the jury box. It's not reasonable because it's not reality. We live in reality, ladies and gentlemen. We live in reality where facts and truth are important.

SHARON BETH MARSHALL, ESQUIRE: Did you watch the videos in this case?

W1: I did.

S: All of them?

W1: Of what we're referring to, the investigation, yes.

S: About six hours' worth?

W1: Approximately.

S: Okay. And did you order them out or did your partner order them out?

W1: My partner did. 

S: And that was Officer C.; am I correct?

W1: Correct.

S: All right. And Mr. M. immediately exited the vehicle; is that right?

W1: Correct.

S: But Mr. B. stayed in the vehicle for about 15 seconds; do you agree?

W1: Correct.

S: And had to be yelled at several times?

W1: It took him some time to get out before he actually did.

S: Did you yell at him, or was it Officer C., to get out of the car?

W1: My partner.

S: Officer C.?

W1: Correct.

S: You got information from the P.R. that he was watching on his security camera?

W1: Correct.

S: And he saw Mr. B. conceal upon him what he thought was a firearm?

W1: Correct.

S: And that- well, you advised, "You were walking with a gun"? And Mr. B. said, "Yeah"; is that right?

W1: I cannot recall.

S: You don't remember that?

W1: I would have to review my report to recollect my memory.

S: It was actually from the body worn.

W1: Okay. I don't- I don't recall.

S: Okay. And you questioned him that he didn't know that he had left the firearm in the vehicle; is that right?

W1: I don't recall.

S: You don't recall that either?

W1: I don't.

S: Okay. And did you ask him, is it your gun?

W1: I don't recall.

S: Did Officer C. also have a conversation with my- with Mr. B.?

W1: I'm sure he did at some point.

S: And did you talk to Mr. B. about how much stuff was in the car?

W1: I don't recall.

S: Do you recall Mr. B. say, "That's my stuff in there, man. That's mine"?

W1: I don't recall.

S: That's interesting. So you don't remember any statements that were made under Miranda?

W1: I mean, I inputted what was pertinent to the information that was to Miranda and our discovery of the gun.

S: So, I mean, the question is possession, right?

W1: Correct.

S: And somebody developed the opinion that Mr. B. was the sole possessor of the gun; is that right?

W1: I don't recall that portion of that in which you're indicating of the possession.

S: Okay. Do you remember that Mr. M. was cited and released?

W1: He was questioned and released.

S: Detained and released?

W1: Correct.

S: Is that right?

W1: Correct.

S: And was there a determination that he was on probation?

W1: I don't recall.

S: Did you talk to Mr. B. about the fact that it was in his cup holder?

W1: I believe so.

S: And you were surprised that Mr. B. didn't know why?

W1: I don't recall.

S: Did you know Mr. B. from prior arrests?

W1: My partner did.

S: And he was difficult to understand, would you agree?

W1: Can you explain further?

S: Sure. He was muttering for a lot of it, shaking his head "No"?

W1: At some times, yes.

S: Okay. And a lot of it was undecipherable. You couldn't tell what he was saying?

W1: In some ways, yes.

S: All right. So you did question Mr. B. about who had the gun?

W1: I would have to review my report.

S: You don't remember that?

W1: No.

S: When was the last time you reviewed your report?

W1: Today.

S: When was the last time you reviewed the body worns?

W1: Approximately two weeks ago.

S: Was it your partner that believed that Mr. B. was the sole possessor of the gun?

W1: I cannot speak on that.

S: Why is that?

W1: Because if my partners believe the findings, which I don't remember discussing between each other.

S: Well, have you had not been testifying about your partner officer's beliefs and opinions throughout this examination?

W1: But not the sole purpose of Mr. B. being the possessor of the gun.

S: Did he think that he was the possessor of the gun?

W1: I don't recall.

S: And was there a phone call to your superior regarding the circumstances that you had?

W1: I believe so.

S: And, during that did the officer- it was either you or Officer C.- say "Based on everything, it's the driver"?

W1: I believe so.

S: And there was a question as to whether or not Mr. M. was even going to go to jail; is that true?

W1: Correct.

S: And it's your understanding that Mr. M had just gotten picked up from work by Mr. B.?

W1: That's what they had indicated.

S: That's what who had indicated?

W1: Your defendant.

S: Mr. M.?

W1: He had indicated that Mr. B. had picked him up.

S: And didn't Mr. B. also tell you that he had picked him up?

W1: Correct.

S: Did you release him?

W1: I don't- I don't recall. We might have both walked him out.

S: And did you believe that Mr. B. was the sole possessor of the gun?

W1: I don't recall my-

S: Beliefs?

W1: Well, indicating that Mr. B. had been- under Miranda, they had both indicated that- Mr. B. had indicated that he had seen, observed, and held the gun at one point. And, through those, we were both unsure of who was actually the possessor after we read the Miranda rights.

S: And then you detained and released him, is that right?

W1: Correct.

S: And you decided not to hold him on a probation violation; also true?

W1: Correct.

S: No further questions at this time. Thank you.

S: I would like to call Officer L. to the stand.

S: Did you speak to my client?

W2:  No, I did not.

S: You didn't. And did you watch the police videos?

W2: I saw- yes. Police videos, yes.

S: And do you understand what Mr. M.'s statement was with regard to the gun?

W2: I don't remember much. It's been a while since I viewed the video.

S: Sure. Okay. Do you remember whether or not Mr. B. saw the officers behind him, panicked, and gave Mr. M. the gun?

W2: I don't remember that part. I viewed the video, but I don't recall that part.

S: Okay. You don't remember that Mr. M. said that Mr. B. handed it to him after panicking and seeing officers?

W2: I believe I read something in the report regarding something like that.

S: Okay. And that Mr. M. returned the gun to him right away? Do you remember that too?

W2: Not much. I mean, I'll have to read the report to read back to that section. 

S: Does it sound familiar?

W2: Sounds familiar.

S: Okay. And then after Mr. M. gave Mr. B. the gun right back, Mr. B. then put it in the center console; is that right?

W2: I believe there was either something I read like that or something I heard on video.

S: Sounds familiar?

W2: Sounds familiar.

S: Okay. And you know that Mr. M. was detained but there was- it was decided that there was no probation violation; is that right?

W2: According- I believe that in the arrest report I read something about contacting probation, and they refused to hold him.

S: I have no further questions for this witness. Thank you so much.

SHARON BETH MARSHALL, ESQUIRE: "Hi, officer."

W1: "Hello."

S: "So in terms of talking to Mr. M., he advised you that there was a person named 'Brody' who was the one who brought the police scanner?"

W1: "No. He did not tell me who brought the police scanner."

S: "Okay. And no further information with regard to 'Brody'?"

W1: "Well, certainly, but nothing with regards to 'Brody' bringing the police scanner."
S: "Understood. Did you get any further information on who was with 'Brody?'"

W1: "No. I just know he was speaking to an individual- he identified the other occupant in the vehicle with the moniker of 'Brody'. I deduced that 'Brody' was L.M. based on the fact that L.M. was the only other person identified in the vehicle during our investigation."

S: "And that was a supposition on your part; is that true?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Okay. And Mr. M. also admitted his role as being a lookout?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And did you watch the video regarding the detention of my client, L.M.?"

W1: "No."

S: "And when Mr. M. said that he knowingly acted as a lookout, that was him personally, correct?"

W1: "When he said he was acting as a lookout, he was referring to himself?"

S: "Yes."

W1: "Yes. He said he was directed by 'Brody', the passenger, to act as a lookout."

S: "Well, you don't know if 'Brody' was the passenger, do you?"

W1: "Well, based on Mr. M.'s statements to me under Miranda, yes, that's what he said."

S: "Well, he said that there was a person named 'Brody', right?"

W1: "Yes."

P: "Objection. Misstates testimony. He said the moniker was 'Brody'."

C: "Okay. So he said that there was somebody with the moniker named 'Brody' that was to act as a lookout?"

W1: "Yes, your honor. His statement to me was 'Brody' was in the passenger seat directed him, told him where to drive, and directed him to act as a lookout for law enforcement personnel and civilian witnesses while 'Brody' was actively using a cell phone to communicate with the occupants of the white Chevrolet Malibu."
S: "Okay."

W1: "Sorry. I should clarify. He said the passenger 'Brody' was using his own, as in Mr. M.'s cell phone, to communicate with the occupants of the Chevrolet Malibu."

S: "He said that 'Brody' was using Mr. M.'s cell phone; is that right?"

W1: "Yes. That's how I understood his statement."

S: "Okay. And did you do any records checks in regard to L.M.?"

W1: "Records of what, ma'am?"

S: "Convictions, prior history, that kind of thing."

W1: "Those were all made available to us at the time of filing."

S: "Did you look at them?"
W1: "Yes."

S: "And is it fair to say that in those documents you didn't see anything in L.M.'s documentation that referred to him as 'Brody'; is that fair?"

W1: "I don't recall any- seeing anything by the name of 'Brody' in any booking records or any documentation."

S: "Okay. And had you seen a connection between L.M. and 'Brody' would you have made that clear in your report?"

W1: 'Absolutely."

S: "And is it fair that you did not?"

W1: "Absolutely."

S: "Did you watch any videos [in this case]?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "You watched the surveillance video from the residence?"
W1: "Yes."

S: "And you watched the A.D.T. video?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Did you watch any other videos with regard to this case?"

W1: "I'm unaware of any other videos with regard to this case, at least none that were made available to me at the time of the investigation."

S: "Are you the investigating officer?"

W1: "I am."

S: "And surely Mr. M. never used the word 'moniker' with you; correct?"
W1: "Correct. He identified the individual in the car next to him as somebody he called 'Brody'."

S: "Okay. Did Detective B. tell you that there was the odor of marijuana in the silver BMW?"

W1: "I don't recall him telling me that."

S: "Thank you. No further questions at this time."

C: "Do each of the defendants then rest?"

Defendants: "Yes."

C: "Are there any motions?"

S: "Yes."

C: "I will start with L.M."

S: "Thank you, your honor. As to the Penal Code section 466 charge, there's no evidence whatsoever that my client was in possession of anything. There was a backpack, and that's pretty much all we know. Initially I thought that the backpack was on the rear seat, in between two people who were in the rear seat, and it then seemed that shifted to the floorboard of the rear part of the car. Regardless, there was no evidence as to the backpack with regard to who it belonged to. So there's insufficient evidence with regard to the 466. In regards to the residential, I would make a motion that it should be dismissed for insufficiency of the evidence."

S: "Good afternoon."

W1: "Good afternoon."

S: Let's talk about the tattoo removal first. That has been- the picture has previously been admitted as Exhibit C. This was a picture that you alleged to have accidentally sent just a couple days before the last court date; is that right?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "You said on the last occasion that you were on the phone with a friend. Who was that?"

W1: "My friend S.G."

S: "S.G. Okay. So nothing about a 'B' or a 'p' in S.G's name; is that right?"

W1: "No."

S: "Okay. So you allege that you accidentally sent this photo to Mr. P.; was that your testimony?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And how is it that if you were intending upon sending the picture to S.G., did that automatically come up as Mr. P.?"

W1: "I think what happened is that because I was talking about Mr. P., and looking at the name [of Mr. P.], and while I was on the phone, with the multi-tasking, said send it to me. Okay. Pulled it up. I have no explanation. It was a horrible accident, and it happened. I am sorry it happened. I have not sent him anything like that in nearly three years."

S: "And the tattoo that we see or the remnants of the tattoo that we see, does that say [Mr. P's name]?

W1: "Yes."

S: "So let's go on to December of 2023 and January of 2024. During those months, did he make it clear that he was over you?"

W1: "Sometimes he says 'it's over. I never want to talk to you.' And then the next week or a few days later he is back trying to make it work. I don't recall the exact dates of messages in December, but pretty- November, December, it had gotten pretty tense, and so I wouldn't be surprised to look back through my notes and see that there was not an intent on his part to get back together with me."

S: "Okay. So you agree that it is within the realm of possibility that in December and January 2023, 2024, that he maade it clear to you that he was done with you; is that right?"

W1: "He has made it clear many times over the last two years, even longer, that he is done. It's never done."

S: "Okay. Well was there any expression in December that he wanted to get back together with you?"

W1: "I would have to review my notes. I don't recall specifically that there was in December."

S: "Would it refresh your recollection to look at your notes?"

W1: "Yes. Of course."

S: "May the court allow that?"

C: "Sure."
W1: "There is a lot of messages to me. very angry. Calling me out for a lot of things.

S: "Dated?"

W1: "12/11. 12/10. I mean mostly it's derogatory towards me, which tells me there was up down, up down, up down. There is something that happened which then results in me being barraged with derogatory names, insults, accusations. I am on the first page and I see, 'You are a miserable, horrible human. Please leave me alone. I want nothing to do with you.' So I guess on that date that indicates he wants nothing to do with me."

S: "Was there an occasion, ma'am, in December 2023, there was any indication by him that he was not done with you?"

W1: "No. No, definitely not in December."

S: "What about January of 2024?"

W1: "On January 1st he wrote, in an e-mail, that he was driving by the hotel where we had our first anniversary and missing many good times with me."

S: " Is that the same as wanting to get back together with you?"

W1: "I suppose it doesn't say I want to get back together with you, so no. Well, I mean, in the same e-mail he goes on to talk about 'what a shame it is; that everything went this far. It's a shame. But it is what it is now. Seeing you at the game reminded me to write you about this. It's hard not to communicate or have you in my life, but it's probably the only thing we can do now. Thanks for the great memories. That is what I want to remember. Take care.'"

S: "No expression in there of wanting to get back together, right?"

W1: "Not specifically, no."

S: "Okay. So that is correct?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Okay. Thank you. Let's talk about January 20th of 2024. And I want to talk about some confusion that I have. So you were sitting with a man or next to a man who had twins in your class; is that right?"

W1: "Yes. He is a fellow board member on [xxxxx] as well. I know him from my job, from my work, being a parent of two students in my class, and then I know him from the basketball culture at the high school."

S: "Okay. And were you sort of making it look like you were flirting with him and looking at Mr. P. occasionally?

W1: "No."

S: "Okay. And so why would he have said anything about it looks like you are flirting with him, if that wasn't the case?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Okay. And so you indicate in your declaration that he apparently went up to you and one parent?"

W1: "No. He approached just me after the game. I had moved towards the door, the exit."

S: "So you weren't in the bleachers at this point?"

W1: "I had exited. Left the bleachers at this point."

S: "Before you moved to the door, did anything happen in the bleachers?"

W1: "Not before."

S: "Okay."

W1: "Not anything negative. Not anything that, I even remember out of the norm."

S: "Okay. So you moved to the door, and then what happened?"

W1: "Mr. P. approached me."

S: "You were standing with one other person at this time?"

W1: "I was standing by myself."

S: "Okay. Let's talk about when you went back to the bleachers. Why did you go back to the bleachers?"

W1: "Because he was being verbally aggressive towards me. You know. 'You are dating a scum. That guy looks like a scumbag. You have to rub it right in my face.' And he reached out. He put his arm around my shoulder."

S: "And you decided to go back into the gym, into an enclosed facility?"

W1: "By the door I was isolated. I was by myself. There really wasn't a lot of people over there. They were all waiting for the players to come out of the gymnasium. The bleachers were still partially full. There were some people in them. There were some people I knew. So I went back to the bleachers to escape what he was saying to me."

S: "Then what happened?"

W1: "I went over there. I sat down in the bleachers, just waiting for my son to come out of the locker room, like we do after games, most parents do. And Mr. P. came back over to the bleachers where I was. He re-approached me, and that is when he just- he started saying 'you are an abuser. You are a cheater. You have abused for years. You are no victim.' And the person that I was with, our mutual friend D.M., looked at me after Mr. P. walked away after saying that-"

S: "It's hearsay. Calls for hearsay what you are about to say. So he went into the bleachers where you were?"

W1: "He was on the ground on the floor. I was probably four seats up in the bleachers."

S: "But he wasn't in the bleachers?"

W1: "He wasn't in the bleachers."

S: "When you testified on the last occasion that he followed you back into the bleachers after- when you went back into the bleachers; was that true?"

W1: "He followed me over to the bleachers. Not up into the bleachers."

S: "Did you distinguish that at the last court date?"

W1: "I believe in my typed statement it says sitting, because I know there was a question about this last time. I don't recall that I testified I went over and stood. My writing says that I sat. I do know that I sat. But perhaps in my testimony, I said I just went back to the bleachers."

S: "So what is the truth?"

W1: "I went to the bleachers and sat in them, and he walked up and started verbally assaulting me."

S: "Not in the bleachers?"

W1: "He was on the ground. Maybe not in a seat from me. Not in the bleachers, but I was sitting in the bleachers."

S: "Okay. And you indicate in your declaration that that kind of thing happened five to twenty times a month throughout the years?"

W1: "I selected some dates of some of the events to show the nature of what has been going on. No, I didn't enter all of them."

S: "Would there have been any problem doing that?"

W1: "I was advised upstairs not to do that."

S: "One of the dates that you wrote was January 31st, 2023. What happened on that day?"

W1: "That was another time. Another game in the bleachers. At my son's basketball game. Trying to sit next to each other as I have before, trying to be cordial, that we are going to be at all these games together. In the time that we were sitting next to, I don't know what precipitated it, but he turned to me and started yelling and calling me a cheater in the stands. And this time, I am surrounded by people. Can I show you what I did? I stood up, I grabbed my seat, and I walked to a different seat, two or three rows above, behind him."

S: "And you didn't think that was important enough to include in your declaration, being how similar that was to the incident we talked about just a moment ago?"

W1: "I put the date down with the understanding that I would be explaining what happened. I believe I included- I think it's in my anecdotal notes that I turned in."

S: "Turned in?"

W1: "That I submitted with my original request."

S: "What anecdotal notes did you file?"

W1: "I can look. I can get it for you."

S: "If it would refresh your recollection, I am sure the court would allow you."

W1: "It was submitted to the court in the first restraining order that I submitted."

S: "Would looking at something reflect your recollection?"

W1: "I can get it if I have permission."

C: "Sure."

W1: "I don't have it written in these notes."

S: "Well, you testified that you filed notes?"

W1: "I did. Just accounts of additional harassment. You marked on it."

S: "I'm remembering now. Thank you... What got you so upset in the bleachers if Mr. P. was speaking his mind? What was so upsetting?"

W1: "About being called a cheater in the middle of the bleachers in front of my students?"

S: "Yes."

W1: "Fans, parents?"

S: "Yes."

W1: "It's upsetting to be called a cheater because I am not a cheater."

S: "You are not a cheater?"

W1: "It's very unusual that somebody would get up in the stands calling them a cheater. That's very uncomfortable."

S: "So in a video that we walked about Mr. P. was outside of the house. There was no one around. You were in your car, and he talked about you cheating on James, your first husband, nine times with nine other people, you don't say anything, do you?"

W1: "I record for evidence and get out of there."

S: "I see."

W1: "I have heard these accusations many times."

S: "I am sure. So there is also a distinction in your declaration. You say that he was stating accusations in  words, and then in your testimony you said 'yell'. So which is the truth?"

W1: "He yells."

S: "He yelled. And that is nowhere in your declaration, is it?"

W1: "I don't know. I would have to go back and look at every single thing I wrote."

S: "Would that refresh your memory?"

W1: "How much time do we have? There is a lot of pages here. I don't recall if I said 'yell' or 'he stated'. It's always an angry outburst."

S: "In you declaration did you state 'yell-'"

W1: "I don't recall."

S: "-or did you say 'stated'? Would it refresh your recollection-"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Are you having trouble finding your declaration?"

W1: "I think I have it here."

S: "Okay. So take a look at the first large paragraph." 

W1: "What is the page number?"

S: "One. The first typewritten page that you filed. May I approach?"

C: "You may."

S: "Does that refresh your recollection?"

W1: "Yes. It says stated."

S: "So In your declaration you indicate that he simply talked?"

W1: "It was more than talking."

S: "He stated it?"

W1: "Loudly."

S: "You didn't write that, did you?"

W1: "No."

S: "And in testimony you said 'yelled', correct?

W1: "Within earshot of people."

S: "So let's talk about that aspect. In the paragraph you were just looking at, you indicate that you were standing near another parent. Do you see that on line six?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "That is singular, correct?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And then in testimony there were zillions of people around, right?"

W1: "I don't think I said zillions, but there were still people in the stands milling about."

S: "And you don't reference them at all in your declaration; is that right?"

W1: "I didn't reference them in my declaration, no."

S: "So which is the truth?"

W1: "There were still people milling around. There was a reason I went to that particular spot in the bleachers. Because, as I stated, our friend D.M. was standing there and I thought I would be safe there. I thought 'he wouldn't come up to D.M. and say these things to me, would he?'"

S: "Well, D.M. is his confident, no?"

W1: "D.M. is our friend."
S: "And do you understand now that he has confided in D.M.?"

W1: "We both have."

S: "Okay. So is that a yes?"

W1: "Yes. Mr. P. testified to that last court."

S: "I am asking you."

W1: "That made me aware, yes."

S: "Okay. Now, you indicate that there was no romantic involvement with Mr. P. since 7/12/2021, correct?"

W1: "Correct."

S: "Do you remember the Spring 2022 trip to Las Vegas?"

W1: "Yes, I do."

S: "Do you remember holding hands with Mr. P. all weekend?"

W1: "No, I do not."

S: "You don't?"

W1: "No."

S: "Do you remember sleeping in the same bed?"

W1: "No, I do not."

S: "When he dropped you off at the end of the weekend, you hugged and kissed him?"

W1: "I didn't hug and kiss him."

S: "You have also said 'I love you' about four times since 7/12/21, correct?"

W1: "No."

S: "And what about talking to him and how you missed your old life?"

W1: "Yes. We have had that conversation."

S: "Okay. And did you return the sentiment that you missed the old life too?"

W1: "There is things in the past I miss, yes."

S: "You have expressed that to Mr. P.?"

W1: "Maybe once or twice. I do recall saying that once. I did miss good times."

S: "Okay. Let's talk about September 2nd, 2023. Let's talk about how you went into his house. Do you remember that?"

W1: "No. I didn't go into his house. I didn't get out of my car."

S: "You used your key to get into his house?"

W1: "My son did. Mr. P. gave me a spare key months earlier and said 'use it when needed'. So my son forgot his key. I handed him the key which was on my key ring to my car fob. He brought it to get in the door. Did not wake up anybody. And before he could- shall I continue?"

S: "Sure."

W1: "Before [my son] could return the key to me, Mr. P. came out, grabbed the keys from his hand, yelling, yelling. Threw the keys."

S: "You were two hours late, right?"

W1: "There was no set time. I believe it was about a quarter to 12:00."

S: "Did Mr. P. talk to you about how you were two hours late?"

W1: "I saw it in his response to my declaration, but there was nothing about having [my son] home by 10:00."

S: "March 11th, 2023. This is the occasion where you allege that you were sexually assaulted by Mr. P.?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And you talked about the typical thing that you would do. Milling about the bleachers and waiting for your kids, and things like that? Do you remember that?"

W1: "Yes. After the game people kind of stand around and talk until the players come out of the locker room, and then we greet our children and we leave."

S: "What was the habit and custom when you guys were together with regard to how you would interact with each other afterwards? Would he pat your butt?"

W1: "When we were in a relationship? When we were married? Not unheard of. But it wasn't a standard that 'oh, we won. I get to grab your butt.' That doesn't happen in public. This was in public and it was after we were divorced."

S: "And he apologized to you, did he not? Said it was force of habit?"

W1: "I think he said force of habit. Something like that."

S: "And he apologized, right?"

W1: "I don't recall an apology. He might have. He might not have. I don't recall specifically."

S: "You wrote that that is a sexual assault in your declaration?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Did you ever call the police?"

W1: "No."

S: "Did you file a restraining order?'

W1: "No. Not then, no."

S: "Right. And that happened, you said, two to five other times?"

W1: "Not grabbing me."

S: "Well, you wrote that in your declaration, did you not? I am sorry. Not in the declaration. In your paperwork that you filed?"

W1: "It's not that he assaulted me those other times, but there is lots of verbal things. Not the assault, but harassment. Did I write assault or harassment? Somebody told me later, like 'that is assault. You need to do something about that,' but it was too late."

S: "So with regard to the sexual assault that you allege on March 11th, 2023, the document asks you to describe other times that may have happened. Do you remember that?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And do you remember saying that that had happened, a similar thing, between two and five times?"

W1: "It was similar in that it was sexual harassment. It wasn't sexual assault."

S: "Did you make that distinction in your paperwork?"

W1: "Well, I believe I did not, by the question."

S: "Okay. You said that it happened two to five other times, but only wrote two dates. One of them was July 15th, 2021. What happened on that day?"

W1: "I would have to refer to my notes, but there has been, I don't recall which is which, but he received a call from somebody at the car dealership, and allowed that person to think he was my husband. And then he contacted me later and said 'oh, hey, I talked to your boyfriend at the car dealership. Told him I am your husband. He seemed kind of surprised at that."

S: "Any physical touching there?"

W1: "No. He didn't physically touch me. He made a comment, like 'now serving number 372'. It's a reference to 'oh, you are up for service now.' It's a sexual remark. It's degradation and it's harassment."

S: "No sexual assault, correct?"

W1: "No."

S: "Even though you wrote that that was a similar incident of sexual assault, did you not?"

W1: "I did, but I was understanding it as harassment." 

S: "You didn't write harassment?"

W1: "Okay. Then I erred."

S: "Okay. Has he abused you in similar ways? And you said two to five times, right?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "The other date you wrote was September 2nd, 2023. What happened on September 2nd, 2023?"

W1: "Again, I would have to refer to my notes."

S: "Didn't we just talk about that? That was when you returned [your son] two hours late?"

W1: "That wasn't- was that the date of the key incident? I might need to look in my own records, if I can.".

S: "Well, all you have to do is look at your declaration and look at the incident that you described on September 2nd, 2023... There was no sexual assault on that date, correct?"

W1: "No. I don't know if I made a mistake if there was something he yelled at me or said at me. I don't know. It could be a mistake. There is a lot of papers, a lot of dates, a lot of incidents. I could have put the wrong date down."

S: "Okay. There is nothing in your declaration about any sexual assault that happened on September 2nd, 2023, correct?"

W1: "No."

S: "Am I right?"

W1: "Correct."

S: "So, July 15th, 2021, hadn't you just broken up?"

W1: "Yes, we had."

S: "When was the date of your break-up? The 12th, right?"

W1: "The 15th was, I believe, a Thursday morning, and that was the day when he attacked me, assaulted me, and took off in his truck."

S: "Attacked you and assaulted you?"

C: "Are we still in the 2021 calendar year?"

M: "Correct. January 15th, 2021 you said he assaulted and attacked you?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Is that anywhere in your declaration?"

W1: "No. Because again-"

S: "Question. Why wouldn't you put assault and attack in a petition for a domestic violence restraining order?"

W1: "Because it was in the last case."

S: "I see."

W1: "I referenced it just to say 'look, it has happened before'. I didn't go in to great detail because it had already-"

S: "You didn't go into any detail, did you?"

W1: "No, I just put the date down."

S: "Okay. Did you do anything about it? Call the police?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "On June 15th, 2021?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Did you write that anywhere in your declaration or in your petition?"

W1: "Well, again, this is the last court case."

S: "No. This is this court case?"

W1: "Well, I didn't put it in this. I have records from that incident. I have the police file for, I mean, I put in for an emergency restraining order, but I didn't include that in this because it was dealt with in the previous court case."

S: "Was there ever a case against Mr. P. as to that?"

W1: "There was a case number taken. A file number... Nothing ever became of it."

S: "Okay. So you say that there was repeated verbal and written harassment from 2021 to present. Yet you blocked him only three to four times on the phone>"

W1: "Yes. Some of these blocks are a long period of blocks."

S: "You only blocked him three to four times; is that right?"

W1: "I couldn't tell you. Possibly."

S: "Did you not testify to that on the court date?"

W1: "I don't recall specifically. I blocked him and unblocked him a number of times. It's been going on for two years."

S: "You don't recall testifying to that in April?"

W1: "I could have. It's possible. I don't recall."

S: "And you talk about what you consider harassment, which in your definition, correct me if I am wrong, is anything other than talking about the kids. Am I right?"

W1: "No, you are not."

S: "You didn't submit an exhibit that says exactly that?"

W1: "Oh, you know what. Okay. You are referring to a text?"

S: "No."

W1: "Can you repeat the question."

S: "Anything that you talk to me about that is not related to the kids is considered harassment by me?"

W1: "There is context to that. But yes, that does sound familiar."

S: "You remember that?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Ever changed your number?"

W1: "No."

S: "And you have been horribly verbally abusive with Mr. P., have you not?"

W1: "There was some very- it was a tempestuous marriage, both ways around, yes."

S: "And have you battered him physically?"

W1: "This was in the last court case. This is why I did not get a restraining order."

S: "You testified in the last court case that there has been numerous times that you have hit him; is that right?"
W1: "Several. I believe several. Very volatile."

S: "And that Mr. P. has hit you none?"

W1: "He hasn't hit me, but there has been plenty of everything but."

S: "Okay... With regard to the restraining order, you have made it difficult for Mr. P. to have time with his kids; is that right?"

W1: "I have never kept my kids from him, no."

S: "No? What about during his time in the [xxxxx] season with [your son], where you precluded him from going to his entire [xxxxx] season? Do you remember that?"

W1: "I do."

S: "Is that blocking access to your kids?"

W1: "Well, I was going to his game, and I understand that a restraining order means that if I'm there he can't be there."

S: "It wasn't your time though, ma'am." 

W1: "I didn't understand that the restraining order meant that I have to be punished from going to my kid's activity. I thought I was still allowed to go."

S: "You have a custody and visitation order with regard to the family law court, right?"

W1: "Not visitation, but custody. 50/50 custody."

S: "50/50 custody. So on the days when [your son] had a game, that was not your game to attend because it was Mr. P.'s time, right?"

W1: "I would have gone anyway to the game even if Mr. P. picked him up from school. I would have gone to the game. I go to all the games."

S: "What about [your son's] 16th birthday? You were supposed to take [your son] or somebody was to take [your son] to Mr. P.'s at 8:30. That never happened, did it?"

W1: "I do recall there was a problem around [my son's] birthday."

S: "And Mr. P. didn't get to see his kid on his 16th birthday; is that right?"

W1: "No. Unless he went later. I don't know. [My son] might have gone over later that night."

S: "What about Easter? Mr. P. was supposed to have the kids for Easter?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "They didn't, right?"

W1: "Well, only [my son] because [my other son] was staying at his dad's."

S: "He is still staying with his dad, isn't he?"

W1: "He is. And [my son] didn't want to go."

S: "[Your son] didn't want to go to Easter?"

W1: "[He] didn't want to go with his dad. He wanted to go with me and he didn't want to go to his dad's."

S: "Your main purpose in being here is that you are requesting, and you wrote this specifically, that you are requesting protection so that Mr. P. can't harass, embarrass, or smear your character; is that right?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "Is that the only reason you are here?"

W1: "The main thing is this incessant harassment, emotional abuse, verbal abuse, mental cruelty. Those are the reasons."

S: "One of the reasons is that you are trying to keep your character not smeared in the community?"

W1: "Nobody wants their character smeared. Of course not."

S: "Okay. And that is one of the reasons you wrote, correct?"

W1: "Correct."

S: "Got it. So you are worried about your character being tarnished, but in the public record now is a bunch of information that you put out there in the public domain, in a public filing, correct?"

W1: "Can you restate what you just said?"

S: "Sure. Did you file this petition under seal?"

W1: "Probably not since I don't know what seal means."

S: "Okay. So it's not under seal?"

W1: "I don't think so. Is that private?"

S: "It is private."

W1: "Okay, no."

S: "And you put a lot of exhibits there before you had counsel? There were a lot of exhibits with regard to what he was saying, right?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "So out in public you filed that there is allegations that you are a cheater, right?"

W1: "Yes. I had to tell what he was doing, yes."

S: "That you are an abuser, right?"

W1: "That is what he said."

S: "You put that into the world by filing this-"

W1: "I wrote it. I put it out there to make this stop. To make this screaming at me in public, yelling at me, talking, stating, humiliating me in front of my workers, my students, my student's parents, [xxxxx] players, [xxxxx] player's parents, administrators at games on campuses, in parking lots. Anywhere where people gather, he does this to me. This Is what he does."

S: "It sounds like the truth is catching up to you, would you agree?"

P: "Objection-"

W1: "This is 23 years old. What does this have to do with him? I didn't even know him. While he is entitled to his truth, what is his motive to do this, in a gymnasium stadium in front of these people, 23, 24 years later? There is a lot of context here."

S: "I am sure there is. So-"

C: "Counsel, when you assert 1st Amendment, is your argument that these statements are true, so because they are true your client has a first Amendment right to assert them?"

S: "That is part of my closing argument and there is case law to support... May I move on?"

C: "You may."

S: "So have you always been open to cooperative parenting?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "And when you were representing yourself, you had an opportunity to go to co-parenting; is that right?"

W1: Yes."

S: "And you declined?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "So you haven't always been open?"

W1: "That is not the issue."

S: "Ma'am, if I can please finish my question. So it's not true that you have always been open to cooperative parenting, correct? Yes or no?"

W1: "Not a class. I am open to cooperative parenting. I am not open to taking any class with him on cooperative parenting."

S: "Was there ever an indication of a class or was it a therapist?"

W1: "A therapist. I correct myself."

S: "So your son tried to hang himself; is that right?"

W1: "Yes."

S: "In response to that you split for four nights?"

W1: "No."

S: "You were living at home for those four nights?"

W1: "Not four. There have been many times when I have left or he has left for a night or two, somewhere."

S: "After your son attempted suicide?"

W1: "I don't recall when there was a blow-up, an incident, that caused me to leave. That has nothing to do with my son. I don't remember what the atrocious fight was about that time, but there is times when the safest place for me is to leave."

S: "Ho w long were you gone?"

W1: "I don't recall, but I can't afford four nights in a hotel, so maybe two."

S: "Where did you go?"

W1: "I have gone to the Hyatt. I have gone to my friend S.G. One time I slept in a car in the Walmart parking lot because there were no hotel rooms available on February 14th."

S: "When you were away after your son attempted suicide, you never called him; is that true?"

W1: "No. It's not true."

S: "I have no further questions for [Witness One] at this time, subject to possible recross."

PROSECUTOR: "The respondent's counsel wants to use the claim that all of the statements made by the respondent in public were not harassment but him using his first Amendment rights, to air his grievances against the petition. He has chosen forums that would specifically embarrass her. He raises his voice using exclamations and dramatizations of what place during their marriage and the petitioner's marriage previously. She has asked him to stop multiple times and he has refused to do so. That alone is harassment."

P: "Additionally, there are excessive phone calls, voicemails, videos that the court reviewed, countless e-mails, of him calling her a monster, a nasty old woman, a slut. All kinds of horrible names over and over and over, and then turning around and saying 'oh, I miss you, I love you, I want to get back together with you.' And the court has all of these e-mails. They have been admitted into evidence. I don't need to go into great detail on all of them because we did so the first day." 

P: "My client has been forthcoming with all of the information. She may not have prepared a perfect restraining order request, but it details the most recent incidents, which is what is requested of her in that documentation. She also provided additional dates of similar incidents and testified to those as well. She corrected any testimony that may have been slightly different than what was written down, and I believe that she is credible. She testified to any past history that took place during their marriage. But the reality of the situation is the parties have been separated for three years, and the contact up until a temporary restraining order was issued was significant, it was constant, and it was harassing."

P: "And the petitioned has reached agreement so that the parties can continue to co-parent, but she does not have to have anything beyond that as a relationship with the respondent. He does not respect her boundaries that she has set. She has asked him to only discuss things about the children. He does not do that. And he has not respected her physical boundaries that she has requested be put in place, and we believe that a restraining order would be the only sufficient way to have her be protected from further harassment from the respondent."

Court: "Okay. Respondent's counsel?"

SHARON BETH MARSHALL, ESQUIRE: "THANK YOU. Our theory is that this petition is pure retaliation for Mr. P. telling [Witness One] that he is no longer in love with her and over her. In December of 2023 and January of 2024, he made it clear that they were done, and again, the court has all of the exhibits. I won't belabor. But on January 21st, 2024, he said specifically to her, 'I am not getting back together with you.' And five days later she filed a petition for a restraining order. She panicked because she no longer had the ability to have him under her string."

S: "My client initially, having just been in a 18-year marriage, having not wanted this to end in divorce, having two beautiful kids with this woman, had a very hard time in the beginning getting over it, and coming to accept. That is not harassment. That is him talking to his ex-wife about how difficult of a time he is having, and he expresses that... That is him voicing to her. Right? Her petition is a request for a gag order so that she can continue being the lilly white girl that she would like to be in the bleachers and at the [xxxxx] game in the gym. She doesn't get the DVRO because she wants her character not tarnished. The sad truth about it is that her character is tarnished. That is all that it is. And her living in a lie is her living in a lie. Nobody can do anything about it, but what we can do is say, the courtroom for a restraining order is not to protect a lilly white character that is not even true. That is not what this court does."

S: "This court intervenes when the court must. When there is an emergency to the point where if the court doesn't act, somebody is going to end up killed. And the court has seen cases like that. I have seen cases like that. [The prosecutor] has as well. She has interfered with Mr. P.'s time with his boys. She specifically precluded him from enjoying any of [his son's] games, even when it was his day. She knows that if she is in the gym, he can't be in the gym with her there. That is interference of custody time. It's inappropriate. It's rude. It's not civil and it's disgusting. That is the disgusting thing about this, your honor."

S: "My client did not harass, in any respect. For [Witness One] to say that apart on the butt, 'force of habit, I apologize for that', was sexual assault, is reckless. We, in the profession, have seen sexual assault. This ain't it. This was a mistake. [Witness One], even herself, indicated that he may have apologized. Disturbing the peace means destroying the mental and emotional or emotional calm of the other party, and it is based on the totality of the circumstances. What disturbs the peace depends upon each case, which is Parris J. v. Christopher U. A 2023 case at 96.CAL.APP. 5th 108 at 116.

S: "So there are exhibits for the court to peruse where there is a time when Mr. P. is lodging his usual complaints and text messages to [Witness One], and then says, 'where is the address we are supposed to be at'. [Witness One] responds, [xxxxx] School'. It sounds like she doesn't give any wit to what has just happened. So we look at who she is, and who she is an instigator. Sometimes she will say 'leave me alone. Stop'. She wants him under her thumb. She can't have it, your honor. She doesn't get it always. Look at her attitude, her demeanor and testifying. Her reckless and inconsistent descriptions. She says that she was so upset one time that she couldn't go shopping with [her son]... That sounds like a rescheduling issue. It doesn't sound like something that we go to DVRO court over."

S: "We look at her perspective. 'Anything other than parenting issues is considered harassment by me.' Harassment according to [Witness One], who also thinks that an accidental tap on the butt is sexual assault, is not the same as harassment under the law. Sexual assault, of course, can and must be enjoined. This was a mistake, admitted to be a mistake by Mr. P, apologized for, and that was it. Let's talk about the first Amendment. [Witness One] is a cheater. She is an abuser. She has verbally abused Mr. P., toxic relationship or not. I don't think it was on his side. I think it absolutely was on her side. He has never touched her. And the first Amendment needs breathing space. It's a lovely case. People v. Hernandez. A 1991 case. 231 CAL.APP. 3rd 1376 at 1381."

S: "And Molinaro v. Molinaro. 'A prior restraint may be permissible under certain limited circumstances. In order to establish a valid prior restrain under the federal constitution, a proponent has the burden to show the countervailing interest is compelling.' A prior restraint is necessary and would be effective in promoting this interest unless extreme measures are unavailable. Prior restrain must be couched in the narrowest terms as possible that will accomplish and pinpoint the objection permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order. California requires extraordinary circumstances where relief is necessary to protect private rights and further a sufficiently strong public policy."

S: "[Witness One] is a narcissist. According to her, everything is a compelling interest. And it's not, that is not the way it works. This is her saying I want the court to tell everybody that they cannot talk bad about me, like we are in kindergarten, and we are not, This is adult court where adult issues are dealt with. And her petition is reckless. Her interest is compelling only as to her. In the marriage of Candiotti, a 1995 case at 34.CAL.APP. 4th 718, between the pages of 724 and 726. You can't prohibit people from disclosing information about a new wife unless you are doing so with certain professionals. That is at page 720 at footnote three. It would prevent the mother from talking privately to father, friends, co-workers or perfect strangers about her dissatisfaction with her children's current living situation."

S: "He is allowed to talk about it, your honor. It's part of his healing process. Mr. P. was blind-sided and hurt. He was suffering and reeling from an 18-year marriage lost. He said, 'it's none of my business but I still have feelings for you. I still love you. I love you. I am not even close to being over you. I miss you.' And I don't think [Witness One] was being truthful at all because that stuff feels good when you hear it, especially to her. My client commiserated with [her ex-husband] as he had very similar experience being married to [Witness One]."
S: "Curcio v. Pels, a 2020 case at 47 CAL.APP. 5th 1 at page 12. The issue was a single private Facebook post. It was not disclosed publicly and it was confidential. The distinguishing part in this case is that [Witness One] herself disclosed the truth about her in her petition, with her numerous exhibits. Calling her a cheat, and a liar and a narcissist and a snob and a pig, obviously not nice words, but be that as it may, she put them out in the public domain. She didn't file it under seal. Anybody who knows the case number can pull up documents from the court's website. Also, if the court really looks at it objectively and sees, you know, how many times she said leave me alone, number 1, it's not that many. And number 2, it's usually proceeded by her instigating. We need to really look in my opinion about what she is actually saying. And to me, when you look at the wholeness of the exhibits and the totality of the circumstances is 'I need you still in my realm, and I think that is the reason we are here in court today. She actually admitted in testimony that the reason she is in court today, although she backtracked, she said the reason she is in court today was because she is a teacher and there are students and parents. That's not how it works. The truth is catching up to her."

S: "Also, very important, there are mixed messages that [Witness One] is sending. She did not admit it, but in Mr. P.'s filing, in response. After the 12th of July 2021 when they broke up, they had a weekend in Vegas in the spring of 2022. They slept in the same bed. She is lying. They held hands all weekend. She is lying. And there were these continued discussions about, 'I miss you, I love you. I miss our old life. I want our family back together.' Those are incentives for Mr. P. to say, 'let's do it then. We will go slow.' That is also in their exhibits. 'We will take you out to dinner.' What is the worst thing that can happen? You get a free dinner out of it. The distinguishing case is Burquet v. Brumbaugh, which is a 2020 case at 223 CAL.APP. 4th 1140 at 1144. There are repeated calling, texting, e-mailing, and the difference is that there is a woman who is saying, 'you are not understanding what I am saying. We are done.' In the mixed messages that she is sending, that was not clear. Mr. P. had every right to explore how to keep his family together."

S: "Some of the text. 7/10/23, 'it's obvious the love is still there.' 7/13/23, 'you just told me you loved me.' She is lying when she said she didn't. 'You looked and seemed like my wife tonight,' on 7/14/23. He would be reasonable in assuming there was a chance of reconciliation. Also, looking at what [Witness One] doesn't say is almost as important as what she does say. She doesn't dispute things straight in text, right? She doesn't say this clearly over a period of time. 'This is harassment. You are bothering me. Leave me alone. Stop.' Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It is months and months between the 'leave me alone and the stops'. Credibility. It is this trial court's role to assess credibility, weigh evidence and resolve conflictys in the evidence. In Re Casey D. 1999 70 CAL.APP. 4th 38, between the pages of 52 and 53. 'The trier of fact,' which is your honor, 'is free to disbelieve a witness if there is any rational grounds for doing so,' which is en Re Jessica C."

S: "So let's talk about the tattoo. She is talking to someone with initials S.G. And she texts Mr. P. the picture of her getting her [tattoo of Mr. P's name] removed from her leg. I'm not buying it. The court itself was questioning [Witness One] about why [she] didn't include this following you into the bleachers situation. The court asked specifically, 'why didn't you include that piece of him following you around and into the bleachers? [Witness One] asked to look at the declaration again. The court wouldn't permit it. And [Witness One] testified, 'him following me back to the bleachers. That happened.' And it's weird when somebody says 'that happened' because the obvious overarching umbrella is that it absolutely did not happen."

S: "One very important thing. She testified that Mr. P. called her from multiple numbers. And then she testified last time that there was one phone number that Mr. P. called her from. And she is attaching exhibits that say 'Unknown Called', Exhibit 3. 'No Caller I.D.', Exhibit 5. Why is she doing that? Why is she misleading the court like that? Stay straight in your testimony or don't give it. She is not to be believed; she is not to be trusted. 'Were the voicemails about the kids?' was the question that was posed to her. Here are her various answers. 'No. I don't think so.' 'I don't believe so.' 'If he mentioned them it might have been a little, but not about the kids.' She was all over the place today as she was in April. Probably more all over the place today. She said she is always open to cooperative parenting. Not in April she wasn't. And she talked about a class. Nobody talked about a class. We are talking about a therapist. What is she even talking about?"

S: "Mr. P's testimony on the other hand.and, he is calm. He is measured. He tells the truth. That is all we can expect a witness to do. Just a quick public policy argument and then I will stand down. Evilsizor, I can never pronounce that one, at page 1426. 'The DVRO shouldn't be used for tactical reasons.' First of all this was a tactical petition. Again, she needs him under her thumb and she doesn't get it. This is precisely the kind of petitioner who is using this vehicle in this for for tactical reasons. She has made the courtroom her battlefield to exercise retaliation against Mr. P who has made it clear to her that he is done, and I worry that if this court permits the order to go through, this is the kind of petitioner who will commit abuse after abuse after abuse, directly relating to the petition. She is narcissistic. She will use it against Mr. P. She will use it against the kids. She will try to make him violate the restraining order and get him arrested. It will happen."

S: "We believe, your honor, very strongly, that this is a case not to issue orders. We ask that the court deny the petition for a domestic violence restraining order. Dissolve all temporary orders. We thank you very much for the court's time."