PLEASE READ THIS: smarr
To our friends and family that has been following our saga with having to defend ourselves against slander, defamation, false arrests, false accusations, false reports and false BOLOs from the Vancouver Police Department, I felt today’s victory needed a special broadcast. The following update was the outcome of this morning’s hearing regarding the petition for renewal of an anti-harassment order that has been used as a tool to intimidate us with multiple attempts to criminalize us.
At this morning’s hearing before Clark County District Court Commissioner, the honorable Jeffrey Witteman, a petition for renewal of an anti-harassment order (AHO) against me, the respondent, protecting the petitioner, Ms Cresap, was presented before the commissioner for an extension. The AHO had expired on May 28, 2015. An ex-parte petition for renewal was presented to the court the day before on May 27, 2015. Commissioner Witteman granted a temporary extension of 14 days on May 27 so the petition could have enough time to be properly serve the petitioner. The purpose of the hearing was for the petitioner to present evidence supporting her reasons why the AHO should be extended for another year.
When the case was called, my attorney, Therese Lavallee, had informed the court that the anti-harassment order had expired on May 28. The petitioner had claimed in her petition that respondent had allegedly sent via email:
“a two page letter to 7 people including DOL claiming horrendous things and lies, character assassination against me, against my brokerage real estate license and ongoing contact to my pro brokerage KW.”
The respondent had not been provided a copy of the alleged letter in the petitioner’s claim as this was the basis for her claims and reason for extension of the anti-harassment order. If the petitioner had a copy of the letter then by all means present it to the court for review by all.
The petitioner stalled by changing topic from the alleged 2 page letter to Traci’s blog. Petitioner rambled on about the blog by stating it was a vicious attack upon her and it was harassing her. Commissioner Witteman interrupted and stated “the blog is protected free speech” (and is still not the creation of the respondent). Commissioner Witteman gave the petitioner another opportunity to present the 2 page letter to the court for review by the respondent as it was alleged by the petitioner that said 2 page letter was authored by the respondent sometime in April 2015. The petitioner had a stack of papers in front of her that she was shuffling around for a few moments trying to decide if she would present whatever was in front of her.
When pressed again by Commissioner Witteman, the petitioner declined to present evidence of the alleged 2 page letter that petitioner claimed was authored by the respondent even thought the “two page letter” appeared to be in the stack of papers in front of her. After all, this was the motivating factor for petitioning the court for renewal of the anti-harassment order.
Once the request for evidence was declined by the petitioner, Commissioner Witteman promptly declined the petitioner’s request for an extension of the anti-harassment order.
Thank you very much.
Traci and I are very aware the petitioner may request a new anti-harassment order but this time we are not going to take the bad advice we were given from prior counsel last year implying that we would be hit with a “slap” order (Google it). Traci and I intend to obtain our own anti-harassment order against the petitioner.
Furthermore, given the suspicious nature of the alleged two page email and recent evidence of “email header forgery” that allows for “email spoofing” and counterfeit email transmissions, we will be gathering our evidence against the petitioner and a certain VPO detective regarding counterfeit emails. We have been harassment by others hiding behind an “email alias”.
In addition, we have evidence of “spoofed emails” that involved business transactions that were transmitted to Garrett Smith in 2011, 2012 and 2013. Whatever this email discovery is about, we want it to end. There will be more on this issue in the days to follow.
And yes, the appeal is still moving forward as it questions whether or not Commissioner Parcher’s decision was based on law. Of course, we feel that it was not.
Thank you for your continued support.
Guy & Traci
The mightiest dam coming undone will start breaking with a single crack, will it not?
Although this is, essentially, just a return to normalcy (with respect to the AH order), I feel like congratulations are in order for Guy and Traci. An axe has been lifted!