Harasser’s Petition For Injunction Dismissed

The photo to the left is that of the man who has viciously harassed and threatened me since November 23, 2015.  His name is Santiago C. Rodriguez.  He formerly lived in Alhambra, California and on information and belief, currently resides in Orange County, California.  If you’ve followed this blog or that of supabutterfly, then you know some of what he has done to harass and threaten me, including using another person to do the same.

In May 2014, Santiago asked to be a writer for my blog, We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident.  His first post was not until September 2014 and 11 posts later, on the evening of November 22, 2015, I cancelled Santiago’s writer’s privileges for several reasons.

On the morning of November 23, 2015, Santiago let me know that he was furious.   Based on his emails, he was angry because I had not, did not, and would not believe his misrepresentations; had refused his methodology of attempting to take control of my blogs; and a host of other madness that accumulated over the previous 10 months.  He construed every single post on this blog as material written about a case he is involved in.  He wanted them deleted which based on his perception, would require me to delete this entire blog.

I asked Santiago to leave me, my friends, and my son alone.  He did not.  I blocked his email address.  He emailed me from another email address.  I blocked his phone number.  I received calls from California from phone numbers I did not recognize and did not answer.  I placed his IP address in the blacklist queue.  He submitted comments to this blog by signing-in through his Twitter account.

In March 2016, I sent Santiago a cease and desist.  He agreed, but continued in stealth by emailing and direct messaging others on Twitter with the same disparaging and doxed information that he claims is my personal information.

Several times, I asked Santiago’s attorney, Richard Lubetzky of Los Angeles, CA., to instruct Santiago to leave me alone.   I had known attorney Lubetzky for about 15 years, and was the person who referred Santiago to him.  In November, 2016, I put that in writing, asking attorney Lubetzky to instruct Santiago to leave me, my friends, and my son alone.

But Santiago has not stopped.

The following is the background that Santiago used to have on his protected Twitter account.  Please notice the profile.  “BB7” is an acronym for Blackbutterfly7, which is the URL for We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident.  Also, My Twitter handle is @XenaBb7.  There is no mistake that the visualization used by Santiago is directed at me.

Expounding on his imagery of shooting in the head with bloody butterflies coming out, on March 2, 2017, Santiago posted the following gif on his public Twitter account.

In January 2017, Santiago changed the handle on his protected account and the following was his background and a profile stating, “I am going to hurt you Really really bad.”

Santiago also has another account on Twitter that he opened in January 2017.  Since that time, Santiago posts harassing and threatening tweets on his public account, deletes them, starts over again, protects the account, opens it to public, and repeats the same process.

So you might be asking, what does Santiago C. Rodriguez’s mug shot have to do with this post.  Here’s your answer …

On October 9, 2016, Soroya Fambro posted the following on Twitter.   I’ve experienced Santiago using false hypothesis and how, as he attempts to make it true, he develops conspiracy theories where the end result has nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothesis. For example, what Soroya retweeted is not a screenshot that supports that I ever direct messaged (“DM”) her about anything.  Had I done so, she could have presented the screenshot of my DM rather than a screenshot from Facebook that does not involve me, nor miamidecor, nor supabutterfly.

The relevant part of Soroya’s tweet is where she says “Washington State threw DP Right Under the [bus].” As we shall see, that it not true.  Maybe Soroya merely posted as instructed by Santiago.  Maybe she posted the misrepresentation to harass.   Without question, she posted about “Federal Charges” to intimidate.

On June 1, 2016, Santiago filed a case in the State of Washington, Thurston County.  The case was docketed as case number 16-2-02199-34.  Santiago sought an injunction against the Department of Corrections.  The complaint alleged that the Department of Corrections released public records of Santiago’s felony case, including his juvenile criminal history, to a man named David Piercy.  When Santiago and Soroya use the initials “DP”, they are referring to David Piercy.

On December 23, 2016, the Honorable Carol Murphy of the Thurston .County Superior Court dismissed Santiago’s petition for an injunction, finding that Santiago’s criminal records are not exempt under the Public Records Act.  The order is below.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cases, Cyber Abuse, cyberharasment, S. Rodriguez and S. Fambro, Santiago C. Rodriguez and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Harasser’s Petition For Injunction Dismissed

  1. Xena says:

    You are correct. It was not my idea to write about Santiago’s case. It was his idea. And, each time he criticized me for not name-calling and writing in a matter which he described as to “humiliate” David Piercy.

    As far as his attorney telling me I wasn’t welcomed to information about the case, I was not the person who inquired.

    No my dear. It was Santiago who wanted to keep me silent about his abuse, harassment, doxing, and threats. The moment I publicly revealed his behavior, he came up with the “sabotage” accusation.

    Sabotaging the case? Please describe how one tries to sabotage a case when both parties are represented by legal counsel? I’m not the person standing before the judge litigating the case. Why would Santiago continue using the attorney who I referred him to if he believes there is a conflict of interest?

  2. Another lie debunked

    “We also observe that jail booking records, when certified, are the kinds of records that are automatically admissible under RCW 5.44.040, the public records statute.”
    State v. Iverson, 125 Wn. App. 1034 (2005)

    • Xena says:

      Well David, since I approved your comment, chances are that Santiago will regurgitate his theory that we colluded and I tried to sabotage his case. He could never distinguish between being a blog administrator managing comments, being cordial, or wanting to respond, from following his commands that I NEVER approve comments from people he doesn’t like, regardless of the content.

      Then too, he came up with a lie saying that his restraining order restrains you from submitting comments to my public blogs. Based on that lie, he said that I was colluding with you by approving your comments.

Join the discussion

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s