Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Half of April 29th - rest(matildas comments to the investigator) left out for strategic reasons-- much more to come
April 29, 2008
Was Sp removed from the club or not let in, and how did Notaro find out?
Notaro police report-
A friend had contacted her prior to the arrival at the club and told her that Sp had been removed by security.
Notaro affidavit
As I was driving to the club, Lesley Wolff, the promoter for the show called me to inform me that Al had been inside the club and had been removed.
Notaro court testimony
I HAVE INFORMED THE CLUBS WHERE I PERFORM ABOUT AL AND HER SISTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE SHOWN UP PREVIOUSLY TO OTHER VENUES WHERE I HAVE PERFORMED, AND SO THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM. SO WHEN I WAS ARRIVING TO THE CLUB, THEY CALLED ME TO TELL ME -- THE CLUB CALLED TO TELL ME THAT AL WAS THERE AND SHE HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CLUB
Notaro to investigator-
an unknown manager called her to warn her.
Whitaker
IT STARTED OFF, SHE CAME OUT FOR A CIGARETTE AND -- I NOTICED HER FROM THE PICTURE I WAS GIVEN AND WARNED OF,
Reeta Piazza
Brian wouldn’t let her in one she was outside smoking. Not removed.
What happened next. How and when did Notaro arrive at the club and when did she encounter the Sps??
Notaro Police statement: Here she only talks of her leaving the club.
At 2130 hours Notaro finished her act and was leaving the club. Notaro was outside with a friend , Nick Kroll when she saw Lauren Sp walking towards her. Notaro went back inside the club and watched from a window.
Notaro Affidavit As I pulled up at 8.PM, I saw Al Outside talking to People. I noticed a sherriff on the street, unrelated to the situation, and asked him to see what was going on., to distract al, so I could go through the side door. They were pushing people, security and people in line.
Brian, the door security informed me that Al had announced to him my license plate number and color/make of car, and warned that she knew where I lived.
Notaro: Court testimony SO I SHOWED UP AT THE SHOW; AL, HER SISTER, AND THEN HER MOTHER, ALSO SHOWED UP WHILE I WAS PERFORMING AND SPENT TWO HOURS CASING THE PLACE AND MAKING THREATS AND HARRASSING.
What happened outside-
.Notaro police report
At 2130 hours Notaro finished her act and was leaving the club. Notaro was outside with a friend when she saw Lauren Sp walking towards her. Notaro went back inside the club and watched from a window. Sp, her sister, and mother were all outside the club yelling about Sp being removed from the club. Sp stated that R better watch her back and that she knew where she lived what car she drove. Patrol officers were called and arrived at the scene
Affidavit
Notaro
At 9:30 p.m I was informed that Al had left, and then I attempted to leave the club. Just as I took a step out of the door I saw Lauren Walking towards the venue.. Feeling unsafe I went back inside. I was informed that Al, Lauren, and their mother were now all in the front of the club. I was stuck inside the club for two more hours as the three of them verbally attacked performers, patrons, and security. The police were called and made note of the incident but because my life had not been directly threatened they were unable to take action. Eventually, the three women left and I was able to go home
Statement in temp ro order. Notaro
"They were pushing people outside"
Court testimony of Notaro- unclear but she says she’s inside the whole time and knows things somehow. Says that since they have been aggressive at other venues that she is scared and locked inside for many hours.
Notaro to investigator- deleted till further notice.
Was Sp removed from the club or not let in, and how did Notaro find out?
Notaro police report-
A friend had contacted her prior to the arrival at the club and told her that Sp had been removed by security.
Notaro affidavit
As I was driving to the club, Lesley Wolff, the promoter for the show called me to inform me that Al had been inside the club and had been removed.
Notaro court testimony
I HAVE INFORMED THE CLUBS WHERE I PERFORM ABOUT AL AND HER SISTER BECAUSE THEY HAVE SHOWN UP PREVIOUSLY TO OTHER VENUES WHERE I HAVE PERFORMED, AND SO THEY KNEW ABOUT THEM. SO WHEN I WAS ARRIVING TO THE CLUB, THEY CALLED ME TO TELL ME -- THE CLUB CALLED TO TELL ME THAT AL WAS THERE AND SHE HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CLUB
Notaro to investigator-
an unknown manager called her to warn her.
Whitaker
IT STARTED OFF, SHE CAME OUT FOR A CIGARETTE AND -- I NOTICED HER FROM THE PICTURE I WAS GIVEN AND WARNED OF,
Reeta Piazza
Brian wouldn’t let her in one she was outside smoking. Not removed.
What happened next. How and when did Notaro arrive at the club and when did she encounter the Sps??
Notaro Police statement: Here she only talks of her leaving the club.
At 2130 hours Notaro finished her act and was leaving the club. Notaro was outside with a friend , Nick Kroll when she saw Lauren Sp walking towards her. Notaro went back inside the club and watched from a window.
Notaro Affidavit As I pulled up at 8.PM, I saw Al Outside talking to People. I noticed a sherriff on the street, unrelated to the situation, and asked him to see what was going on., to distract al, so I could go through the side door. They were pushing people, security and people in line.
Brian, the door security informed me that Al had announced to him my license plate number and color/make of car, and warned that she knew where I lived.
Notaro: Court testimony SO I SHOWED UP AT THE SHOW; AL, HER SISTER, AND THEN HER MOTHER, ALSO SHOWED UP WHILE I WAS PERFORMING AND SPENT TWO HOURS CASING THE PLACE AND MAKING THREATS AND HARRASSING.
What happened outside-
.Notaro police report
At 2130 hours Notaro finished her act and was leaving the club. Notaro was outside with a friend when she saw Lauren Sp walking towards her. Notaro went back inside the club and watched from a window. Sp, her sister, and mother were all outside the club yelling about Sp being removed from the club. Sp stated that R better watch her back and that she knew where she lived what car she drove. Patrol officers were called and arrived at the scene
Affidavit
Notaro
At 9:30 p.m I was informed that Al had left, and then I attempted to leave the club. Just as I took a step out of the door I saw Lauren Walking towards the venue.. Feeling unsafe I went back inside. I was informed that Al, Lauren, and their mother were now all in the front of the club. I was stuck inside the club for two more hours as the three of them verbally attacked performers, patrons, and security. The police were called and made note of the incident but because my life had not been directly threatened they were unable to take action. Eventually, the three women left and I was able to go home
Statement in temp ro order. Notaro
"They were pushing people outside"
Court testimony of Notaro- unclear but she says she’s inside the whole time and knows things somehow. Says that since they have been aggressive at other venues that she is scared and locked inside for many hours.
Notaro to investigator- deleted till further notice.
California, this is what Martin Boags thinks is his evil mastermindery but really is just more of his edddie haskell buffoonery
Trial by Jury
Penal Code section 1369 affords criminal defendants a statutory right to a jury trial on the
issue of mental competence. (Pen. Code, § 1369.) California appellate courts have held
that the jury trial right does not stem from the state or federal constitution. (People v.
Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148; People v.
Harris, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 991.)
Either the defense or the prosecution may demand a jury trial on the question of the
defendant’s mental competence. (People v. Superior Court (McPeters) (1985) 169
Cal.App.3d 796.)
Defense counsel may waive the right to a jury trial on the competency question, even over
the objection of the defendant. (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 972; see also
People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 495.)
7
The trial court “need not advise the defendant of [the jury trial] right.” (People v.
Masterson, supra, Cal.4th at p. 972.)
Prior to the commencement of a jury trial on the question of the defendant’s competence,
the parties “are entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided for in civil
trials, even if the underlying offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment.”
(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 807.)
If either party exercises the jury right, “the court shall charge the jury, instructing them on
all matters of law necessary for the rendering of a verdict.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd.
(f).) The model jury instruction for competency trials is found at CALCRIM no. 3451.
The jury must render a unanimous verdict. (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f).)
Presumption of Competence
According to Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (f), “[i]t shall be presumed that the
defendant is mentally competent unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant is mentally incompetent.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f); see also
People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860 [“The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause
in fact permits the presumption that the defendant is mentally competent unless he is
proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be otherwise”].)
Civil Discovery Rules Apply To Competency Proceedings
Just as the number of peremptory challenges afforded both parties is governed by civil
law, the rules of civil discovery have also been held to apply in competency trials.
(Baqleh v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 478, 490-491.)
Statements from Court-Ordered Competency Evaluations May Not Be Us
Penal Code section 1369 affords criminal defendants a statutory right to a jury trial on the
issue of mental competence. (Pen. Code, § 1369.) California appellate courts have held
that the jury trial right does not stem from the state or federal constitution. (People v.
Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148; People v.
Harris, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 991.)
Either the defense or the prosecution may demand a jury trial on the question of the
defendant’s mental competence. (People v. Superior Court (McPeters) (1985) 169
Cal.App.3d 796.)
Defense counsel may waive the right to a jury trial on the competency question, even over
the objection of the defendant. (People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 972; see also
People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 495.)
7
The trial court “need not advise the defendant of [the jury trial] right.” (People v.
Masterson, supra, Cal.4th at p. 972.)
Prior to the commencement of a jury trial on the question of the defendant’s competence,
the parties “are entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided for in civil
trials, even if the underlying offense is punishable by death or life imprisonment.”
(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 807.)
If either party exercises the jury right, “the court shall charge the jury, instructing them on
all matters of law necessary for the rendering of a verdict.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd.
(f).) The model jury instruction for competency trials is found at CALCRIM no. 3451.
The jury must render a unanimous verdict. (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f).)
Presumption of Competence
According to Penal Code section 1369, subdivision (f), “[i]t shall be presumed that the
defendant is mentally competent unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant is mentally incompetent.” (Pen. Code, § 1369, subd. (f); see also
People v. Rells (2000) 22 Cal.4th 860 [“The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause
in fact permits the presumption that the defendant is mentally competent unless he is
proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be otherwise”].)
Civil Discovery Rules Apply To Competency Proceedings
Just as the number of peremptory challenges afforded both parties is governed by civil
law, the rules of civil discovery have also been held to apply in competency trials.
(Baqleh v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 478, 490-491.)
Statements from Court-Ordered Competency Evaluations May Not Be Us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
