| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Psychology Forum » Attempts to Censor Diana Napolis Again...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Diana Napolis... |
 Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A hearing was scheduled yesterday because "anonymous" parties
had falsely alleged to San Diego Probation that I was "harassing"
people on various internet forums, including my web page. This
was in apparent efforts to have my internet privileges revoked.
The judge did not buy what probation was trying to sell and ruled
in my favor. This is what I submitted to the court in my own defense.
_________________________
June 18, 2008
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF
V.
DIANA LOUISA NAPOLIS
DEFENDANT
CASE NO. SCD 171331
RE: MODIFICATION OF A COURT ORDER
On 3/4/2008 at the hearing to Request Termination from Probation
I was allowed internet privileges for the first time in 5 years. On
3/25/2008 I filed a federal lawsuit against a satanic cult leader,
Michael Aquino, two other satanists, Michelle Devereaux and
Tani Jantsang aka Tanya Lysenko, ex-San Diego Grand Juror
Carol Hopkins, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, reporter Mark Sauer and
publisher David Copley of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and
San Diego State University, alleging Negligence, Defamation,
Violation of Right to Privacy, False Light, Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, Conspiracy to Violate Right to Privacy and
First Amendment Right to Free Speech, and Conspiracy. In the
body of my complaint I have alleged that I have been
victimized with nonlethal technology by Michael and Lilith
Aquino. I have made this allegation for years; now I am taking
legal action about it.
I proceeded to publicize this well-documented 190 page lawsuit
At http://members.cox.net/legalfed/NapolisvAquino.pdf for the
public's review. In addition, this Federal complaint is publicly
available on the District Court's web site. I filed this lawsuit in
efforts to hold the above named individuals legally accountable
for orchestrating a "sting" against me seven years ago which
was intended to ruin my reputation and career and to
stop my legal disclosure of information about them. If the
authorities involved read this lawsuit, it will be crystal clear
how these individuals set me up years ago, how I was
victimized, and it will be clear that they are using the same
MO today.
On 5/23/2008 I filed a Claim with San Diego County against
San Diego Probation Department alleging Malfeasance, False
reporting, Misconduct by a Peace officer, Violations of my
First Amendment rights to free speech, Intentional and
Negligent infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy which
I also publicly posted at
http://members.cox.net/legalfed/sandiegocounty.pdf after I
received permission to do so from the Claims Division of San
Diego County.
I have alleged that San Diego Probation has singled me out for
special treatment which culminated in an incident in March
2008 in which Anna Guzman refused to allow me a travel pass
to attend my brother's cremation in spite of Probation's own
policy that allows probationers to have travel passes if they are
in compliance. I have been in compliance for four and one
half years.
I also filed this complaint, in part, because of the fact that it
took me 13 months to have San Diego Probation correct erroneous
reports which were submitted to the court about me and after
accessing other reports which I'm alleging are false. I have taken
the Claim against the County off of my web site because it was
rejected due to the statute of limitations. However, I am contesting
that decision and plan to add San Diego Probation to my Federal
complaint as soon as possible.
I have alleged in this complaint that, in some instances, San Diego
Probation officials have been working in concert with my opponents
in efforts to cause trouble for me in furtherance of the campaign
to violate my first amendment rights to free speech which appears
to be true in this case as well. Given this information, it is clear
that San Diego Probation has a conflict of interest in this matter
because I am sure these officials would like to have my internet
privileges revoked because I named San Diego Probation in a legal
complaint which was and will be accessible via my web page and
they clearly do not care for me. One of the reasons why I made
this complaint publicly available was for my protection.
Because of the serious irregularities that have occurred with
San Diego Probation, the Director of Probation, Mack Jenkins,
assigned Lisa Donohoo as my Probation Officer (even though I
have named Ms. Donohoo in my complaint) until my probationary
status ends.
On approximately April 20, 2008 I published a web site "blog"
on the free web site called wordpress.com at
http://diananapolis.wordpress.com where I have established a
legal defense fund and have provided a professionally written
overview of my Federal lawsuit and a brief sentence about my
complaint against the County. I believe that is entirely within my
rights to provide an overview of my legal complaints no
matter how unusual the allegations might be especially so due
to the substantial amount of evidence I have which proves my
allegations. I have used the term "allege" throughout this article on
my site and it appears to me that the legal truth or falseness of the
allegations I have made is for the Federal Court to decide, not San
Diego Probation. Of note, I have not included any allegation on
my web site that is not found in the publicly available Federal
complaint I filed.
I've changed the title of my overview on the wordpress website a
few times but presently it is titled "Diana Napolis, M.A.,
Satanic Ritual Abuse Researcher/Investigator Targeted with
Nonlethal Technology by Satanists." [Exhibit 1] Other comments
I make in this article about the parties involved are my opinions
which I believe I'm entitled to express under the First Amendment.
The people who I am writing about are public figures and I
have a multitude of documents which back up my allegations
and my opinions which means that the complaining parties cannot
prove either "libel" or "malice." But if these parties do believe
that my allegations are "libelous" in any way then I believe the
proper court for them to raise their concerns in is Federal court, not
criminal court.
I have another web site which is hosted by google at
http://ritualabusecourtcasesproject.blogspot.com titled, "Ritual Abuse
Court Cases Project." [Exhibit 2] On this web site I quote directly
from my Federal complaint and provide links to it.
For the record I have received several compliments for my wordpress
blog page 1) a professor from Cal State Long Beach wants to use this
web page in her course curriculum about child abuse; 2) multiple people
have written to me from other countries including Germany and England,
thanking me for having the courage to publicize this information
which means my web sites have socially redeeming value.
On 6/10/2008 I was noticed to appear in court by San Diego
Probation for a purported "Modification of a Court Order" hearing
but despite leaving a phone message for Lisa Donohoo, I was not
informed of what this hearing was specifically about. Given that I
am legally representing myself, this is an issue because I was not
prepared. Further, Ms. Donohoo did not do me the courtesy of
speaking to me about any questions she might have had about the
contents of my web site - in other words no investigation has been
conducted.
I note that I have not received any complaints from the hosts of either
wordpress or google about the content of these two web pages and to
date the owners of these web sites have not taken down my work for
any reason which indicates to me that the complaining parties are
well aware that I am within my legal rights and instead want to
inappropriately use San Diego Probation as an instrument of censor
ship in efforts to impact the court on their behalf knowing full
well that San Diego Probation officials would probably prefer
that my internet privileges be revoked due to their conflict of interest.
I have an empty link on my wordpress website called "Censorship"
because I have been waiting for one or more parties to try to have
my web site taken down based on frivolous complaints and/or
to document their predictable attempts to try to cause trouble for
me with San Diego Probation which they have done in the past.
At the hearing on 6/12/2008 I was informed that some "anonymous"
individuals complained to my probation officer, Lisa Donohoo,
alleging that I had written and posted "malicious" information about
them on my web site. Ms. Donohoo informed the court that despite
these complaints San Diego Probation was not going to "violate"
my probationary status. At that time I requested that the Judge
ask Ms. Donohoo to release the names of these individuals and
disclose what the specific allegations were so that I could
defend myself. Ms. Donohoo refused and the Judge agreed that I did
not need to be informed about who the complaining parties were
which appears to be a gross violation of my right to due process.
Furthermore the Judge said he thought there was a "history" of this
type of behavior on my part. I correct this misrepresentation on
my web page because it is untrue and I would like an
opportunity to formally correct the record.
In order to do that I will need more than the usual 2 minutes allotted
to me to speak to the court at the hearing scheduled for 6/18/2008. I
am requesting a court date so that a full hearing about this matter
can be held at which time I would like to cross-examine the
complaining parties and to see the evidence upon which they are
using to base their frivolous complaints about me. I do not believe
that the content of my web site rises to the level of "harassing"
behavior which apparently San Diego Probation believes as well
otherwise they would have asked the court to violate my probationary
status. I welcome the opportunity to disclose the information that I
have collected which was the inspiration for my legal complaints and
the basis for my web pages.
Additionally I have made every attempt to publicize my lawsuit on
multiple forums on the internet against the satanists involved for my
protection especially so since a dead Raven was placed on my
doorstep two weeks ago and that is a common intimidation tactic
used by satanic cults. At that time I contacted the police and told
them that the parties on my lawsuit were more than likely the
offenders. The police documented this information in a report and
took pictures.
Because of the voluminous amount of information I have about all the
parties named on my web site, it would make it easier to present my
defense if I knew exactly who the complaining parties were. Since
I am representing myself in this proceeding, I am requesting discovery
and full disclosure of who the complaining parties are and the content
of the exact allegations so that I can subpoena the appropriate
individuals and defend myself in criminal court, the court my
opponents evidently prefer their civil complaints to be heard
within. If the court rejects my request to hold a hearing and revokes
my internet privileges based on what I believe is a blatant attack on my
First Amendment rights I will appeal that decision.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Diana Napolis, Pro Per |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:06 pm
|
|