Vicki Pate found that she was working against two forces. One is the attorney for Blackbutterfly7 who had some of Vicki’s material removed from Scribd and other material edited by Scribd to remove false information that also falls under the category of identity theft. The other is an order of the California Superior Court restraining David Piercy from harassing, contacting directly and indirectly the protected parties, and posting the personal information of Santiago and Santiago’s wife on the internet.
Santiago is a writer for Blackbutterfly7. (As of November 23, 2015, Santiago is no longer a writer for Blackbutterfly7.)
This is how it began.
Santiago emailed the Lake Mary Chief of Police about George Zimmerman. The Chief of Police responded. His response was published on Think Progress and the story picked up by the Huffington Post and other news sources.
David Piercy searched for the Santiago Rodriguez who sent the email to the Lake Mary Chief of Police and discovered that they had some exchanges on Youtube and Twitter. He went after Santiago in a vicious manner. Santiago contacted the residential social worker where Piercy resides and asked if he could stop Piercy’s harassment. Piercy then filed for a restraining order against Santiago alleging that Santiago was harassing him. Piercy is on disability, and the court waived his fees.
Vicki Pate voluntarily interjected herself in the case on Piercy’s behalf. Her sworn declaration filed with the court served as proof of her connection with Piercy. A declaration might serve a benefit in obtaining a temporary restraining order, but courts do not consider them in hearings for plenary restraining orders. The body must be there for cross-examination. It falls under the category of due process where you get to face your accuser.
Before the hearing on the plenary restraining order, Piercy paper-terrorized the court, filing numerous motions and declarations. On Twitter, Piercy alleged that the U.S. Marshall was going to knock on Santiago’s door. He threatened numerous times that Santiago was going to jail. More importantly however is that Piercy, who publicly states that he is a paralegal student at Fresno City College, did not properly serve Santiago with the summons and complaint. Piercy sent the summons and complaint to the U.S. Marshall. They returned it.
Piercy asked the court to continue the hearing on the basis that he could not serve Santiago. The court denied Piercy’s motion because there was still time to serve Santiago with the complaint and summons before the scheduled hearing date.
Piercy then reached out to the Fresno Police Department to serve the summons about 200 miles away. They refused. Piercy asked the court for another continuance to give him time to serve Santiago.
While Piercy was using improper means to serve Santiago, he continued to harass Santiago, including using the TRO to say that he was winning. He also used the TRO as a means to threaten me with an extortion demand that I delete Blackbutterfly7.
Turns out that what Piercy meant by “named party” is that in his request for a civil harassment restraining order, Piercy included a long list of Twitter handles and requested the court to order Santiago to identify and describe each of those persons and their participation in harassment. For those persons whose real names he knows or purports to know, Piercy included them, and if he had their residential address and telephone number, he included that also, thereby exposing their personal information in a court document where others can obtain their information from “public record.”
Interestingly, although Piercy and his co-extortionists purport that my name is not Xena, and that they know my real name, in his aforementioned petition, he referred to me solely by my Twitter handle, @XenaBb7. As soon as time allows to redact the personal information of others from Piercy’s petition, I shall post his petition here.
Because Piercy announced on Twitter that he had filed for a restraining order against Santiago, Santiago knew and contacted the court. The court denied Piercy’s second request for a continuance because Santiago let the court know that he was voluntarily subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the court without being served.
It appeared that Piercy was deliberately failing to use proper service, did not want to prove his case in court, and wanted to deprive Santiago of having his day in court to face his accuser while his accuser used the TRO to continue to taunt Santiago.
Here is one example of what Piercy posted on Twitter about filing for a restraining order;
Santiago drove the approximate 200 miles to Fresno the evening before the hearing. He bore that cost and the cost for lodging. Santiago also retained a lawyer in Fresno. He had to pay legal fees.
In her declaration, Vicki swore that she was willing to testify and provide documents. However, Vicki failed to appear at the hearing and thus, also failed to provide documents to support her assertions.
In his request for a civil harassment restraining order, Piercy named his ex-wife and her daughter as parties seeking protection. They too failed to appear at the hearing.
The court denied Piercy’s petition, finding no evidence that Santiago harassed him. Piercy filed a notice of appeal.
The same day that Vicki Pate’s declaration was filed with the court, she consoled Piercy.
It was almost as though they knew that Piercy could not prove his case, and the real agenda behind Piercy’s filing was to cause Santiago financial harm. Santiago responded by opening a Facebook page in his wife’s name, and by convincing others on Twitter to attack Vicki and Piercy.
Piercy, or someone on his behalf, then engaged in impersonating Santiago’s wife on Twitter, including using her photograph that he obtained from the website of the University of California, Long Beach website where she is employed as an Associate Professor. He posted vile comments about Santiago as if written by Santiago’s wife. Piercy also posted Santiago’s address, email address, and telephone number on the internet on various places. Vicki made statements about Santiago’s wife, showing the next hand they planned, which was to go beyond the internet into Santiago’s personal life.
A Google search for “Selena Nguyen-Rodriguez returns the following:
The link in the screenshot is to a petition for an order of protection filed by Santiago’s first wife who at that time, was pregnant with their third child. She alleged that he spat in her face, attempted to smother her, slapped her about her face and head, held her down on a futon with a cigarette over her face while he choked her, smothered her, and when she tried calling 911, he locked the phone outside and made her sit and only be where he was for 9 hours. He then placed a knife to his throat and threatened to kill himself. Santiago’s ex-wife alleged that he neglected their children and tried to make them sleep all the time.
On information and belief, Santiago filed a supplemental declaration to his order to show cause adding allegations that court documents were posted on the internet in violation of the restraining order.
At the same time, on Piercy’s notice of appeal to challenge the court’s order denying him a restraining order against Santiago, Piercy filed an application with the Appellate Court to waive his fees, and the court so granted. However, Piercy opened a GoFundMe account to raise money for the appeal, and he used that page to disparage and defame Santiago, often introducing the documents he was filing with words such as “retarded”, “mentally ill,” “butthurt,” and “deranged” directed towards Santiago. GoFundMe took down that campaign.
On June 13, 2014, the court granted Santiago a restraining order against Piercy, ordering Piercy to stop harassing Santiago and his wife, remove their personal information from the internet where he had posted it, and among other things, to not harass, intimidate or disturb the peace of the protected parties. Piercy was ordered not to contact Santiago nor Santiago’s wife, directly or indirectly.
The same day that the court entered the restraining order, Piercy submitted the following comment to Blackbutterfly7.
Piercy filed a notice of appeal to the court’s order granting Santiago a restraining order. He now had two appeals pending involving the same matter and same parties. Piercy also opened another GoFundMe page to raise money for his appeal. Repeating the same behavior as he did previously, GoFundMe also took down that campaign and blocked Piercy from opening another.
Three days after the court granted Santiago a restraining order against David Piercy, Vicki Pate posted the following on Twitter.
On the day after the court entered a restraining order on Santiago’s behalf restraining David Piercy from civil harassment, Annette Kelly inferred to Piercy, by way of a question, that someone should contact Santiago’s wife’s employer to report what a “handle” was doing on social media. I use “handle” because to the best of my knowledge, it was a new handle that appeared after Santiago was granted the restraining order.
Annette Kelly (@Nettles18) uses a method of posing questions to spread rumors and indirectly give instructions. Her reference to “Teachers” is understood to be directed towards Santiago’s wife, who is a college professor. Annette alleges that Santiago’s wife is either a party to harassment or that her husband is, thereby inferring that his wife should not have her job.
Here’s another example of how she taunts and places their targets in emotional distress.
Annette was now building on her false foundation that Santiago’s wife is harassing/bullying on the internet, and that the University would have to terminate a teacher that does that.
In or about September 2014, Piercy returned to the court in Fresno and petitioned for another restraining order against Santiago.
The court denied Piercy a temporary restraining order and the case went no further. Piercy filed a notice of appeal to that order. Santiago learned of that filing when receiving a copy of the notice of appeal. Piercy now had three appeals pending involving the same matter and same parties.
Failing twice to get a restraining order against Santiago, Piercy went on a rampage violating the court’s restraining order. To justify his violations of the order of the court, Piercy alleged that the restraining order was not “valid” because he filed a notice of appeal. By that logic, every person with a restraining order against them who commits domestic violence can file a notice of appeal, return to the residence of their victim, and beat the living daylights out of them on an hourly basis for months until the appeal is decided.
November 2014 came, and the same material that the court ordered Piercy to remove from the internet appeared again, first on Vicki Pate’s blog hosted by Blogger and her Scribd account.
Up Next; Why Hosting Companies Removed Some of Vicki Pate’s Written Material – Part 2. David Piercy Uses Vicki Pate As His Surrogate, and a Stranger Road Into Town As Vicki Pate’s Surrogate.