L) (civil case 99AS07138) The civil suit was not filed for financial gain. Louise researched her options very carefully before filing. Marguerite had put up a flyer with libelous and slanderous information about Louise. Claiming that she had Borderline Personality Disorder and scars from Liposuction. Untrue private things that Marguerite could not back up with hard evidence. Most importantly, Marguerite was abusing the use of the Restraining Order. So that is what Louise based her lawsuit on. Although Marguerite's lawyer did appear on their behalf.  Scott and Marguerite had to personally appear before a mediator. On June 21^st '01. Louise dropped the case, because of an illness in the family.
M) We know that Louise has tried to circumvent the restraining orders with this lawsuit, and she must be extremely cautious with the way she proceeds with it or she could be charged with willful violation once again.
L) The filing of the civil suit is protected under the 4^th amendment. Due process of the law. It was Louise's right to proceed. And her only legal remedy to protect herself against any more false accusations and harassment from Marguerite.
M) To date, every motion Louise has filed for within the lawsuit has been dismissed.
L) Every Demurrer filed against Marguerite was successful. (see calendar notes Mar 2 '00 Oct 30 '00)
M) During the discovery process of her lawsuit, Louise tried fervently to obtain my undergraduate transcript, DMV photo, current address, etc. The judge, with knowledge of her criminal history, barred Louise from even obtaining my physical residential address even though standardly a civil litigant has the right to have a physical address for the other party for the purpose of service. The judge additionally forbid Louise from firing off her handmade, improper "subpoenas" to parties such as my undergraduate acedemic institution and to campus police; this greatly upset Louise who had never expected her 22 year old victim would hire an attorney. Even though the lawsuit still names Scott as a defendant, the lawsuit is directed solely at me.
L) The judge ordered that discovery be met. Marguerite's lawyer then filed a petition to have Louise banned from receiving the address of Marguerite. And asked for a hearing. At which time the judge ordered the information be given to Louise. Not wanting to give Marguerite any more reasons to file false police reports. Louise asked that she not be given Marguerite's address. The judge never uttered a word about "handmade" subpoenas. The records in question were obtained through other means. It was a very short hearing. Which was recorded.  Louise counted on Marguerite hiring a lawyer. Till this day Marguerite still doesn't understand the real reason for the lawsuit.
M) Since the lawsuit though, there have been further instances which have been investigated and these were upped from the previous letters, e-mails and third party contact attempts. In fact, one of these instances made me fear briefly for my person. On March 17, 2000 while I was downtown with a colleague, Louise spotted me in her van. The incident began on a one-way street so when my colleage and I walked against the flow of traffic to get away from Louise, Louise panicked with not being able to turn around and follow us and instead went around the block to gain a position behind us and pulled her van nose-first to the curb with the back still blocking the oncoming 5pm traffic. From this vantage point she stayed staring at me while oncoming traffic went around her and until I got away from the scene and called the police.
L) (Police report 00-22745) This by far is the biggest confabulation of them all. Louise was downtown filing court papers on March 17, 2000. She was also on the phone with a friend helping her to make sure that the motion was drawn up properly. The incident as stated in the police report. Said that Louise parked in the center of the street directly in front of the Police Department. On a busy Friday night during 5pm rush hour traffic. Marguerite's so called "colleague" was only a friend. That sometimes accompanied her to strip bars on drinking binges. (more on this later) Marguerite also reported that Louise had driven around the block 4 times. But no license plate number was in the report. Louise has distinct vanity plates. When she was served with legal documents. It was then that she saw the time stamp of 4:30pm, March 17 '00. That she decided to file a report. As stated in the report she called the police on Monday March 20 '00. Not Friday March 17 '00. As she states here. If she was truly in fear for her safety. A short walk across the street to the police department would have sufficed.
Back to Main Menu
1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13    14   15