Page 1
Aaron Greenspan (Pro Se)
956 Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-Phone: +1 415 670 Fax: +1 415 373 E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT
MARLBORO DIVISION
DIEGO MASMARQUES, JR. a/k/a DIEGO
MAS HOWARD a/k/a RICKY,
Date: May 9, Time: 2:30 P.M.
Judge: Clerk-Magistrate Paul F. Malloy
Petitioner,
Case No.: 1921AC
v.
Date of First Filing: April 8,
AARON GREENSPAN,
Respondent.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
I.
Introduction
Respondent is a data journalist and a former CodeX Fellow at Stanford Law School.
Following more than two years of sustained telephone, e-mail and internet harassment by
Petitioner Diego MasMarques, Jr., on November 15, 2018, the Marlborough, Massachusetts
Police Prosecutor brought charges against Petitioner of Criminal Harassment in violation of Mass.
General Laws Chapter 265 § 43A(a) and Harassment in Violation of a Prevention Order in
violation of Mass. General Laws Chapter 258E § 9. On November 28, 2018, this Court found
probable cause for both of those offenses, and a criminal complaint issued against Petitioner with
Docket No. 1821CR001157. The matter is presently pending.
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 2
Now, Petitioner, who has continued harassing Respondent directly and indirectly even
since the criminal complaint was issued, has filed his own application for a criminal complaint
against Respondent in a brazen act of retribution. Petitioner’s complaint—one of numerous
baseless complaints Petitioner has filed with various government agencies regarding
Respondent—is completely unfounded and should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a
claim and/or lack of probable cause.
II.
Argument
A. Petitioner’s Complaint Is Entirely Based Upon an Invalid and Unenforceable
Counter-Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioner’s complaint, dated April 8, 2019, invokes a single charge of “HARASSMENT
/ STALKING VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER, VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN
JULY 3, 2018 UNTIL [ILLEGIBLE].” According to this Court’s Notice of Magistrate’s Hearing
on Complaint Application dated April 11, 2019, the “Date of Offense” is “July 3, 2018” for the
supposed violation of an abuse prevention order under Chapter 209A § 7.
The “abuse prevention order” cited by Petitioner in his complaint is a counter-Temporary
Restraining Order (the “Counter-TRO”) that Petitioner applied for in an earlier act of
retribution, after Respondent initially secured a five-year permanent restraining order against
Petitioner effective on June 19, 2018. Respondent’s initial restraining order originated in Santa
Clara County (California) Superior Court, Case No. 18CH008067. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO
was automatically granted on July 3, 2018 by submitting Judicial Council of California Form CH100 in the same Case No. 18CH008067 on that same day. See Exhibits A & B. Based on the
false representations made in Petitioner’s Form CH-100, Superior Court Judge Deborah Ryan
granted Petitioner’s request and waived his filing fee.
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 3
1. The Counter-TRO Is Invalid Because Petitioner Did Not Pay The
Requisite Filing Fee
California courts waive filing fees for restraining order applications where the applicant
warrants that any of three conditions are true:
a.
“There should be no filing fee because the [Respondent] has used or threatened
to use violence against me, has stalked me, or has acted or spoken in some
other way that makes me reasonably fear violence.”
b.
“The sheriff or marshal should serve (notify) the [Respondent] about the orders
for free because my request for orders is based on unlawful violence, a credible
threat of violence, or stalking.”
c.
“There should be no filing fee and the sheriff or marshal should serve the
[Respondent] for free because I am entitled to a fee waiver. (You must
complete and file form FW-001, Application for Waiver of Court Fees and
Costs.)”
California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6(y); Judicial Council of California Form CH-100.
On page 5 of Form CH-100, Petitioner checked the boxes corresponding to (a) and (b)
above, despite the fact that Respondent has never used or threatened to use violence against him,
and has never stalked Respondent (and unlike Petitioner, has no criminal record or history of
violent acts). Accordingly, Petitioner was and is required to pay the filing fee by law.
He did not. Petitioner has a documented tendency to misconstrue the availability of any
information about him on the internet—even public record information—as “harassing, stalking,
terrorizing, and online bullying” by whomever the publisher happens to be. Respondent’s
company and non-profit organization jointly run a website called PlainSite that lists several of
Petitioner’s federal civil and criminal court cases among millions of others.2 Petitioner has
attempted to seal his cases in court repeatedly, and each motion to seal has been firmly denied.
Rather than honor the decision of United States District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf, or the
“Stalking” in the context of California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, which governs civil harassment restraining
orders, is defined in California Penal Code § 646.9(a), and does not apply to routine publication of public records.
PlainSite is not the only website that has listed Petitioner’s public record cases. In addition, Leagle.com,
CourtListener, and UnitedStatesCourts.org have indexed or currently index Petitioner’s cases. According to its
founder, UnitedStatesCourts.org is no longer operational in part because of Petitioner’s relentless harassment.
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 4
decision of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch—both of
whom denied his motions to seal—Petitioner decided to do an end-run around the federal courts
by lying his way to a nominal restraining order in state court against one publisher of the content
instead: Respondent Aaron Greenspan.
As a direct result of those falsehoods, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Deborah
Ryan granted Petitioner’s improper request for a fee waiver, tainting the resulting Counter-TRO
and rendering it invalid until at least such time as the proper filing fee is paid.
2. The Counter-TRO Is Invalid Because Respondent Did Not Reside in
Santa Clara County When It Was Applied For or Issued
The Santa Clara County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the Counter-TRO,
but issued the invalid order nonetheless. In large part due to Petitioner’s harassment, Respondent
moved on June 26, 2018, leaving Santa Clara County. See Exhibit C. Respondent spent the
remainder of June, July, August, and part of September with his family in Ohio. When
Respondent returned to California on September 5, 2018, he lived in San Francisco County.Nonetheless, in response to the “Venue” question, “Why are you filing in [Santa Clara] county?”
Petitioner indicated on page 2 of Form CH-100 that as of June 28, 2018, “[Respondent] lives in
[Santa Clara] county;” that “[Petitioner] was harassed by [Respondent] in this county” and
“AARON JACOB GREENSPAN IS USING COMPUTERS BASED OUT OF THIS
COUNTY.” None of those statements were true as of the date of filing, and the second
statement was never true. Furthermore, PlainSite’s servers are not based in Santa Clara County.
3. Petitioner Made Numerous False Claims Under Penalty Of Perjury
To Deceive The Court Into Granting His Counter-TRO
Petitioner signed his name on page 6 of Form CH-100 on June 28, 2018 just after the
statement, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
In fact, Petitioner indicated on page 1 of his application that Respondent now lives in San Francisco, California,
which is in San Francisco County.
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 5
information above and on all attachments is true and correct.” Nonetheless, several of the
representations made by Petitioner, in Petitioner’s handwriting, are false. Specifically:
a) Respondent is “selectively downloading legal documents from PACER.”
(Form CH-100, Page 1)
This is false. Petitioner is a criminal defendant in numerous court dockets across
the country, many of which are not even posted on PlainSite. Respondent has
made no effort to selectively post dockets related to Petitioner and prior to his
harassment campaign, Respondent had no idea who he even was. Furthermore,
documents on PACER not already under seal are in the public domain. Plaintiff
has a First Amendment right to publish, through Think Computer Corporation,
Think Computer Foundation, or any other entity, any public domain materials.
Petitioner’s allegations about “sealed” documents stem from his own confusion or
deliberate lying.
b) “…he is sending selective documents to people and agencies where I have filed
complaints against him.”
(Form CH-100, Page 1)
This is false. Nonetheless, Respondent has a First Amendment right to
communicate with law enforcement agencies about Petitioner’s unlawful behavior,
especially insofar as it is harassing and violates the initial restraining order against
him.
c) “3/17;08/17;03/29/18;04/01/18 and many calls”
(Form CH-100, Page 2)
This is false; it is unclear what Petitioner is referring to on (presumably)
March 17, August 17, March 29, and April 1, 2018. Respondent did not
place any outgoing calls to Petitioner, and has refused to speak with him when
Petitioner has called repeatedly. (Petitioner once called from an alternative phone
number and just before identifying himself as “Diego MasMarques,” began the call
with, “Shalom, Aaron,” an inappropriate and possibly anti-Semitic reference to
Respondent’s Jewish religion.) Petitioner sent scores of e-mails, including threats,
to PlainSite both using his own name and several false names; Respondent
responded only to a select few, and reasonably each time, including on May 3,
2017 when Respondent declined Petitioner’s attempted bribe.
d) “Mary Mas Marques who has witnessed annoying phone calls with hang ups and
an individual requesting money on behalf of Aaron Jacob Greenspan to remove
URL’s [sic] from the search engines.”
(Form CH-100, Page 2)
This is false; while it is conceivable that Defendant’s wife may have
witnessed annoying phone calls, they had no relation to Respondent
whatsoever. Respondent has never called or authorized anyone else to call
Petitioner or his relatives, besides which no one calling on behalf of Respondent
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 6
would use his middle name in typical conversation. On the other hand,
Respondent has received several harassing phone calls and threats from Petitioner
and individuals making the same exact allegations as Petitioner.
e) “This individual has somehow gained access to sealed documents from DOJ and
unlocked sensitive documents, then uploads these documents in a selective
manner.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
This is false. Neither PlainSite nor Respondent has posted any sealed documents
concerning Petitioner, let alone documents from the United States Department of
Justice. In court in Santa Clara County, California on February 28, 2019,
Petitioner for the first time identified what he meant by “sealed documents:” the
docket in Massachusetts District Court Case No. 1:12-cv-11100, which is not sealed
(and is not a “DOJ” document). None of the sealed court documents linked to
that specific docket are posted at all on PlainSite. See Exhibit D (February 28,
2019 Transcript at 20:17-24:28; 82:6-12; 91:4-18).
f) “Did the person in [2] use or threaten to use a gun or any other weapon? Yes.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
This is completely false. Respondent does not own a gun or weapon and made
no such threat. Nor does Respondent have any history of violence or threats of
violence whatsoever (unlike Petitioner). Petitioner’s argument that Respondent’s
weapon “is his computer” is ludicrous.
g) “This individual’s weapon is his computer and hacking skills that he uses in a
malicious manner, in order to harass, stalk, terrorize, shame and defame any one at
his whim.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
This is false. Respondent’s computer is not reasonably classified as a “weapon.”
The posting of public domain materials similarly cannot be reasonably construed as
harassing, stalking, terrorizing, shaming, defamatory, or malicious.
h) “This individual has been harassing and stalking my family non-stop since March
of 2017. He has somehow gained access to sealed documents from the federal
database PACER that he selectively is [sic] uploads online.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
This is false. Again, Petitioner apparently regards anyone publishing information
regarding his serious crimes as “harassing, stalking, terrorizing, [and] online
bullying,” which it is not. All that transpired in March of 2017 is that Petitioner
received a formal notice that PlainSite would not suppress his public domain court
cases. See Exhibit E.
i) “At the end of March 2018 I explained to Aaron Jacob Greenspan that if he did
not stop with the harassment that I was moving forward with a restraining order.
That was the second and last call.”
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 7
(Form CH-100, Page 5)
This is false and a complete fabrication. No such call took place. No such
advisement took place. Upon information and belief, Petitioner MasMarques
projects his own thoughts and experiences onto others, including his crimes. In
this case, because Respondent obtained a restraining order against him, Petitioner
now insists that he originally warned Respondent that he would obtain a
restraining order. He did not.
j) “The Proof of Service was faulty, as the wrong person was served the court
documents on May 19, 2018.”
(Form CH-600, Page 2)
Upon information and belief, this is false. Plaintiff confirmed with the
Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office that the correct individual, Petitioner Diego
MasMarques, Jr. was served, based upon multiple photographs. Furthermore, if
the wrong individual had been served, that individual should not have accepted
the court papers from the process server.
k) “Aaron Jacob Greenspan has blatantly committed perjury at this Santa Clara
Superior Court and has lied under Oath…”
(Form CH-600, Page 2)
This is false.
l) “Aaron Jacob Greenspan then proceeded to upload a few more URL’s and has
even gone so far as to repeat the uploading of these legal documents on other
websites that this individual has created and uploaded these same documents o [sic]
third party websites.”
(Form CH-600 / Form MC-025, Page 4)
This is false. As a technical matter, URLs are not “uploaded.” Respondent has
not uploaded Petitioner’s case documents to other websites.
m) “This entire 501(c)(3) was at first For Profit when it started in 1998 and then
changed to a Non Profit in the year 2000 and consequently was transferred to the
State of Delaware, in order to avoid turning in yearly earnings reports.”
(Form CH-600 / Form MC-025, Page 4)
Every part of this statement is false.
n) “Attorney’s Fees: 7,500; Court Costs: 2,000”
These amounts are false. On the first day he began filing in Case No.
18CH008067, Petitioner claimed that he had already paid $7,500.00 in attorney’s
fees and $2,000.00 in court costs. In fact, in connection with the case, he had paid
no attorney’s fees (Petitioner was and is not represented by an attorney in
California) and no court costs (which were waived based on his false
representations about Respondent owning a weapon, as described above).
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 8
Petitioner was simply attempting to extract $9,500.00 from Respondent using the
legal system as a vehicle for extortion.
In summary, Petitioner perjured himself no fewer than fifteen (15) times when he filed
Form CH-100 on July 3, 2018.
4. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO Was Never Served on Respondent
Respondent was never served with Petitioner’s Counter-TRO. Rather, Respondent
waived service of the Counter-TRO at a court appearance on October 9, 2018 for the limited
and express purpose of contesting its many false statements. See Exhibit F (October 9, Transcript 2:21-25, 3:9-13). Consequently, even if this Court were to deem the Counter-TRO
valid, which it is not, it would only be binding starting on October 9, 2018 at the point when
Respondent waived service.
5. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO Is Unconstitutional on Multiple Grounds
Petitioner’s Counter-TRO ultimately seeks to enjoin Respondent from making use of his
First Amendment rights, rendering the Counter-TRO unconstitutional. “[S]peech cannot be
restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207,
1219 (2011). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection... is to shield just those choices of
content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d (1995).
Furthermore, the Counter-TRO seeks to enjoin Respondent from performing tasks that
are functionally impossible and/or pointless, such as “uploading” URLs to search engines for
indexing, rendering the Counter-TRO unconstitutional and moot. “It is axiomatic that this
Court cannot order a party to perform an impossible task.” United States v. Silvio, 333 F. Supp.
264, 266 (W.D. Mo. 1971). It follows that no Court can order a party to refrain from performing
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 9
an impossible task, and then subject that party to criminal penalties when someone wrongly
alleges that the impossible task was somehow performed anyway.
B. Petitioner’s Criminal Complaint Is Factually False and Misleading
Petitioner’s criminal complaint before this Court also contains numerous false and
misleading statements. In the first place, no criminal charges involving the Counter-TRO can be
brought for any date prior to October 9, 2018, which Petitioner himself acknowledges by writing
“HE WAS FINALLY SERVED THE R/O ON 10/09/2018” in the complaint. (In fact, formal
service was waived solely to contest the Counter-TRO.) False statements include:
a) “SINCE March OF 2017, AARON JACOB GREENSPAN HAS BEEN
THREATENING, HARASSING, STALKING, DEFAMING AND CYBER
BULLYING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.”
This is false.
b) “THI [sic] STARTED AFTER I FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST
LEAGLE.COM WITH THE ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE.”
While technically this may or may not be true, Respondent has no
connection whatsoever to leagle.com or Arkansas and any assertion of a
link is false. Petitioner is obsessed with his own conspiracy theory that through a
registered agent in Arkansas, Respondent owns leagle.com, another website that
has published his public domain case documents. Respondent’s only interaction
with the Arkansas government has been responding to the query of a confused staff
member at the Attorney General’s office who was researching an erroneous
complaint filed by Petitioner.
c) “HE TOOK TO TWITTER @PlainSite and @aarongreenspan at @5PM
California time and every single day FOR WEEKS ON END WAS
HARASSING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY WITH VILE COMMENTS,
POSTNG MY HOME ADDRESS AND MUCH MORE.”
This is false. Respondent did not write about Petitioner “every day for weeks
on end.” On October 9, 2018, the PlainSite Twitter account wrote, “We have
posted additional documents in Greenspan v. MasMarques. Mr. MasMarques now
falsely accuses our ‘weapon’ (read ‘laptop’)-owning founder of hacking his e-mail
account, newspaper websites in Spain (describing his murder case), and
CourtListener. https://t.co/u8N9YqfZ4t.” Images of translated articles from the
Spanish newspaper Ultima Hora profiling Petitioner’s 1999 murder case—the
ultimate underlying cause of these proceedings—followed with no additional
commentary except the date of each article. These very limited comments were
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 10
neither harassing nor vile, nor did they involve Petitioner’s family.
Upon information and belief, on or around October 17, 2018, Petitioner
conspired with another disaffected individual, Matthew Mahgrefteh of Woodland
Hills, California, to report PlainSite to Twitter for a supposed violation of the new
European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—nominally
based upon the posting of a California (not EU) court form that happened to
contain Petitioner’s public domain home address in the United States.4 Twitter
suspended the PlainSite account in the United States based on the meritless report
concerning EU law. Respondent appealed and won the account’s reinstatement
the next day. Just before and after the reinstatement, Respondent accurately
explained to PlainSite’s many confused followers why the account had been
temporarily suspended. These explanations were also not harassing or vile, nor did
they involve Petitioner’s family. The image of the court form containing
Petitioner’s home address was removed almost immediately when the account was
suspended per Twitter policy. (PlainSite has since posted countless other unrelated
addresses on Twitter with no problem at all.)
Of those few communications on Twitter pertaining to Petitioner from
Respondent’s personal account or the PlainSite account, all were merely about
him, not directed at him. Nor did Respondent suggest in any way that others
should contact or in any way harass Petitioner. See Exhibit G.
d) “ON DECEMBER 12, 2018 BEFORE JUDGE CAROL OVERTON AT THE
SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT, AARON JACOB GREENSPAN (HE
IS USING A WIDE VARIETY OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS TO
HARASS) ADMITTED TO VIOLATING THE R/O OVER A DOZEN
TIMES AND HE IS STILL CONTINUING W/ THESE VIOLATIONS
TODAY.”
This is false. There was no such admission. There was no such violation.
There is no continuing violation. Respondent does not use a wide variety of
social media accounts; aside from PlainSite, Respondent’s accounts are in his own
name (Aaron Greenspan) or the username “thinkcomp.”
Taken together, these false statements indicate that there is no probable cause for a
criminal complaint to issue against Respondent, but rather, that Petitioner has a tendency to
perjure himself.5 Petitioner’s statements are in fact the opposite of “reasonably trustworthy
information…sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had
committed…an offense.” Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972).
Petitioner confirmed these actions himself when he filed evidence of them in court in Santa Clara County on
December 4, 2018. Mr. Mahgrefteh used a pseudonym, but identified himself via other factors. See Exhibit H.
According to Mass. Criminal Procedure Rule 3(g)(1), “Procedure for obtaining a complaint,” “The complainant
shall sign the complaint under oath, before an appropriate judicial officer.” If this procedure was in fact followed and
the oath involves telling the truth, then Petitioner violated that oath.
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 11
C. Petitioner’s Complaint Lacks Any Evidence Whatsoever
The copy of Petitioner’s complaint provided by the Court to Respondent via fax does not
include any evidence of the assertions made therein. That is because no such evidence exists, or
to the extent that it does exist but has not been provided, Petitioner has wildly misinterpreted the
facts (or simply lied about them) to fit his own pre-conceived narrative.
D. Petitioner Has a Documented History of Mental Illness, Harassment and
Violent Criminal Activity
Petitioner has a documented history of mental illness. When released from federal prison
in 2008, the United States Parole Commission mandated that Petitioner be subject to the “Special
Mental Health Aftercare Condition that requires you participate in an in-patient or an out-patient
mental health program as directed by your U.S. Probation Officer.” USA v. MasMarques, Case
No. 1:09-cr-10304-MLW, Document 1-2 at 5 (D. Mass., October 15, 2009).
Numerous individuals consider themselves victims of Petitioner, have at some point
considered themselves victims, or would consider themselves victims, were they still alive:
1. Petitioner’s wife, Mary Bulman, who formally accused Petitioner of assault;
2. An unnamed person or persons who charged Petitioner with two counts of rape in
South Boston District Court in 1994;
3. Tatiana Vasic, whom Petitioner was convicted of murdering in Caliu, Spain in late
1999;
4. The parents of Tatiana Vasic, themselves the victims of unrelenting harassment by
Petitioner, who left them with a significant long distance telephone bill after
murdering their daughter. See Exhibit I;
5. An unnamed woman quoted in Ultima Hora on December 12, 1999, who stated
with regard to Petitioner (based on translation from Spanish to English), “the
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 12
madness of the same man turned our lives into an ordeal,” after having suffered
“physical and mental aggressions, harassment and persecution;”
6. The at least two women that are the subject of the December 20, 1999 report in
Periódico de Ibiza y Formentera that (based on translation from Spanish to English),
“when the defendant lived in Boston (Massachusetts), the police arrested him
twice, for hitting two young people who were his fellow sentimental
[companions]. These people claim that, afterwards, Diego Mas[Marques] had
problems of the same characteristics in Miami (Florida);”
7. An unnamed man whom Petitioner attacked with a motor vehicle in Palma, Spain,
for which Petitioner was subject to criminal proceedings and found guilty on
November 30, 1998. According to the same translated December 20, 1999 report,
“The events occurred on October 16, 1997. The ruling states that Diego
Mas[Marques] was driving with his car when he noticed the presence of his former
partner. The woman was driving in a car driving by another man. Diego
Mas[Marques] started a persecution. Mas[Marques] rammed the man with his car
and caused erosions and bruises on his right hand and left thigh;”
8. Jeffrey Steinport, an American lawyer, who wrote to and called the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and numerous police departments after Petitioner began
relentlessly harassing him for publishing public domain court records that
happened to include Petitioner’s cases, forcing him to shut down his business. See
Exhibit J;
9. Lisa Dubé, Petitioner’s federal probation officer in Massachusetts, about whom
Petitioner authored an anonymous harassing post on the now-defunct gripe site
BlackListReport.com on January 20, 2018, calling her a “hypocrite who’s [sic]
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 13
moral compass is totally out of whack” and a “control freak” while criticizing her
“feminist viewpoints;”
10. “John Fuenchem,” a Canadian lawyer using a pseudonym who supports PlainSite’s
efforts with regard to the publication of public records. Respondent does not
know this individual’s true identity. Petitioner has repeatedly and falsely accused
Respondent of masquerading as John Fuenchem, whose pseudonym now appears
in dozens of harassing on-line posts targeting Respondent;
11. Respondent’s family members: his father, mother, brother, uncle, and cousins;
12. Respondent’s female professional colleague.
In sum, Petitioner has left in his wake roughly twenty victims, not including those with
whom Petitioner has had civil court disputes (of which there are several). When weighing the
legitimacy of Petitioner’s complaint and the Counter-TRO it is based upon, this context should
be a factor.
E. The Marlborough District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Enforce a California
Restraining Order Against a California Resident
Even presuming that the Counter-TRO is valid, which it is not; that Petitioner’s
representations giving rise to the Counter-TRO were true, which they were not; and that the
representations in Petitioner’s application for a criminal complaint are true, which they are not;
the Marlborough District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. Respondent is a full-time
resident of the State of California. The proper venue to enforce the Counter-TRO would be the
Superior Court of San Francisco County, based on Respondent’s current place of residence.
F. No “Abuse” Has Taken Place Under Mass. General Laws Chapter 209A
Unlike the criminal charge pending against Petitioner under Chapter 258E of the Mass.
General Laws, Petitioner seeks a criminal charge against Respondent under Chapter 209A.
Chapter 209A concerns “abuse,” which is defined in § 1 as “the occurrence of one or more of the
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 14
following acts between family or household members…” (emphasis added). Respondent is not a
family or household member of Petitioner’s. Therefore, no “abuse” could have occurred. Nor is
the Counter-TRO an “abuse prevention order” under Chapter 209A.
III.
Conclusion
Journalism is not a crime. For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully
requests that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s above criminal complaint.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of April, 2019.
Aaron Greenspan
956 Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-Phone: +1 415 670 Fax: +1 415 373 E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1921AC000120Page 15 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND SERVICE
I, Aaron Greenspan, hereby certify that this document has been e-mailed to the Court
subject to a prior written agreement.
Aaron Greenspan
aaron.greenspan@plainsite.orgPage 16 EXHIBIT A
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CHJudicial Council of California Form CH-Petitioner’s Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders Filed July 3, (Excluding 73 Pages of Immaterial Attachments)Page 17 ~
r:
CH
Read Can a
WFO)
Request for
Civil
Harassment
Restraining Orders
before completing this form. Also fill out Confidential
much
n
k
SWPS‘NfifieI ’°”"'Sfi’°d-
2m
Harassment Restraining Order Help Me? (form CH—100—
Infbrmation (form CLETS-OOI) with as
Cl)
Civil
C’e’“
'-
JUL _ a
p
.
3:
-
CLETS
information as you know.
Person Seeking Protection
Your Full Name:
Diego Mas Marques
a.
Age:
Your Lawyer (Ifyou have onefor
Name:
this case)
State
Fill
Bar No.:
in
mun name and street address:
Firm Name:
Superior Court of California, County of
Your Address (Ifyou have a lawyer, give your lawyer 's
information. Ifyou do not have a lawyer and want to keep your
home address private, you may give a diflkrem mailing address
instead. You do not have to give telephone, fax, or e-maiI.)
/ 7/
d
ex’
Santa Clara
b.
PO BOX
Address:
.
clty
Medford
I
State
Telephone:
Person From
Name:
W
Court fills
:
imggf
in
case number when form
Kg“
ma
is filed.
Case Number:
-
ZIP
”f
f
wcyooéowfl/
I
56546@protonmail.com
Whom
Protection
ls
Sought
Aaron Jacob Greenspan
Address (ifknown):
City:
fl
"J a
q/
J 0N 9 Ofé/ C 4 9{//§
C VZ‘L Co a/(V/ffl U J
Fax:
E—MailAddress:
Full
/
P ”11' ’7 (SEMI Mééf
500 Race
Age:
Street, Suite
z
and the
Description of Harassment
Harassment means violence or threats of violence against you, or a couise ofconduct that seriously
alarmed,
annoyed, or harassed you and caused you substantial emotional distress. A course of conduct ls more than one
a.
Tell the court about the last time the person in
(l)
When did
(2)
Who
it
1-
2°”
harassed you.
happen? (provide date or esn‘mated date):
03/ l7;08/l7;03/29/1 8;04/Ol/l8 and
many
calls
was there?
Mary Mas Marques who has witnessed annoying phone calls with hanups and an individual requesting
money on behalfoanron Jacob Greenspan to remove URL's fi'om the search :gines.
else
This
““mmm‘”
®
act.
Request for
Civil
(Civil
is
not a Court Order.
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH'1°°- P398 2 °‘
'9Page 19 ®
a.
W
@232?“
¥f
ac
W
WW
WWHow did the person
(3)
E
in
®
harass you? (Explain below):
Check here ifthere
is not enough spacefor your amnver. Put your complete answer 0n the attached
orform MC-025 and write “A ttachment 7a(3)—Describe Harassment "for a title.
sheet ofpaper
Aaron Jacob Greenspan has been using
his
computer
plainsite.org to selectively upload only certain
WV
individual has
somehow gained access to
skills
documents
and
his
monetized websites such as
to harass, stalk,
sealed documents from
shame and defame
online. This
DOJ
and unlocked sensitive documents,
then upload's fliese documents 1n a selective manner. I have been recewmg annoymg phone calls fiom a
Filo Alto, Lalltomla phone number and other numbers as wefl. An 1nd1v1dual has called me and explained
uaI""
'emy ar'fin'j—‘Baco GWnsp
up
ve
Is m
oney.
y
"'
..
.
Did the person
(4)
E
D
D
Yes
®
in
No
Rim
"
.
.‘
'
m
I
".""I‘I.
‘.
‘a‘.
use or threaten to use a gun or any other weapon?
(Ifyes, explain below):
nrt/m
i
TWZJ"
is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 7a(4)—Use of Weapons "for a title.
um ’J‘
M
Yes
D
No
4J
o
Were you harmed
E
D
'ré_o—d‘f1m
'
Check here zfthere
sheet ofpaper
(5)
'
I
a_r/rzw A
”a
U
mar
w é)
E
2-47,
or injured because of the harassment?
(lfyes, explain below):
WWKD
c
n
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Pu! your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 7a(5)—Harm or Injury "for a title.
sheet ofpaper
WWW
WM
gmg 9&MégngJ gzfiga
Jfiié/ch
077 (mew vm5~r 5ND£
Mféo
(mo mlué c
$:ar77z 5f r-
Did the police come?
(6)
[f yes, did
amonl é
D
Yes
E
my
h/y 4N
324—
nyxzéf.
No
they give you or the person in
®
an Emergency Protective Order?
D
Yes
D
No
If yes, the order protects (check all that apply):
D
(Attach
b.
Has
D
Me
The person
D
in®
a copy ofthe order ifyou have
the person in
®
The persons
in
@.
one.)
harassed you at other times?
E Yes D No (Ifyes, describe prior incidents andprovide dates ofharassment below):
@heck here Ifthere not enough spacefbr your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached sheet of
is
paper orform MC—025 and write “Attachment 7b—Previous Harassment ”for a
title.
EM”
mo /
0N, 70p;
,r
’DooumE/Ufr F/Lam 7k! Féaéfifi
?gn
xgcgméc
7775f
5.:
This
not a Court Order.
0/4949“ [U
é"
{41:12:706—
3W
is
“WW“
‘-
2°”
Request for
Civil
(Civil
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH4“!
Page 3 °f
'9Page 20 £6,400 ea 63L a
Case Number:
/
Check the orders you want.
E
I
Personal Conduct Orders
ask the court to order the person
protected listed
E
a.
in@:
in
®
not to do any ofthe following things to
me
or to any person to be
Harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise),
hit,
abuse, destroy
personal property of, or disturb the peace of the person.
E
b.
Contact the person, either directly or indirectly, in any way, including, but not limited to, in person, by
telephone, in writing, by public or private mail, by interofi'xce mail, by e-mail, by text message, by fax, or
by
other electronic means.
E Other (specgfiz):
Z
C.
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 8c—Other Personal Conduct Orders, ” for a
sheet ofpaper
litle.
7v Céfixé
mp
2g gonmmfi
7‘f
m®
courIfinds good
The person
.
®
fox: 7-);é
wrll be ordered no! to take
I
(l)
E
(2)
El The otherpersons
(4)
E
E
(s) E]
(6)
(7)
D
D
c.
.
®
(8)
®.
listed in
(9)
home.
Myjob
or workplace.
Myscnool.
My children’s
My children’s
school.
place ofchild care.
If the court orders the person in
to get to his or her
D
m
Ill
E
E
My
®
to stay
home, school, orjob?
away from (check all that apply):
omewspecifi»);
I em fie a «ewrwo Tkwr Amy
Mo xffzfi’u 4M? Dim
away fi'om
Yes
E
yards
vehicle.
E
Z
:
a
the places listed above, will he or she
N0 (Ifno. explain below):
all
D
still
par“
be able
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Pu! your complete answer on the attached sheet of
paper orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 9b——Stay—Away Orders, ”for a title.
Guns or Other Firearms and Ammunition
Does the person
in
® own
or possess any guns or other firearms?
D
Yes
D
No
E
l
don’t
know
®
Ifthejudge grants a protective order, the person in
will be prohibitedfi'om owning, possessing, purchasing,
receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive a gun, otherfirearm, and ammunition while the protective order
is in fleet. Ihe person in
will also be ordered to turn in to law enforcement, or sell to or store with a
®
licensed gun dealer, any guns orfirearms within his or her immediate possession 0r control.
This
R°V“°°J'"""V
‘-
2°“
.
WWW
WM}?
:M—W
50D
I
b.
Fé/Ud u g
mama.
o
.
to stay at least
Me.
My
ag’
cause not to make the order.
ask the court to order the person in
(3)
my
any action to gel the addresses or locations ofany protectefpersony
Stay-Away Orders
a.
704pom
.
unless the
E
u .rzu o
Oéczzrf
is
not a Court Order.
Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders
(Civil
Harassment Prevention)
CH4”,
P399 4 0'
‘9Page 21 Case Number:
/
®E
l
Temporary Restraining Order
request that a
Temporary Restmining Order (TRO) be issued against the person
am presenting form CH-l [0, Temporary Restraining
Wm
WW
Has
Yes
in
®
I
in®been told that you were going to go to court to seek
D No ([fyou answered no, explain why below):
a
TRO against him/her?
W
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached sheet of
paper orform MC— 025 and write "Attachment 1 1—Temporary Restraining Order "for a title.
MK
AV
D
maz/20¢
g égflameo mm“
HE pro uors‘rofl 44m
tun 0/
2w” moan;
-
-
flaufirg
-
-
Request to Give Less Than Flve Days Notice of Hearing
-
You must have your papers personally served 0n the person
in
CH—200, Proof of Personal Service,
®
5 AZ; f”,”‘2” me
{gdo’up
at leastfive days before the hearing, unless the
CH—200—1NFO explains What Is “Proof of Personal Service”? Form
may be used to show the court that the papers have been served.)
court orders a shorter timefor service. (Form
Ifyou want there to bc fewer than five days between service and the hearing, explain
D
to last until the hearing.
Order, for the court’s signature together with this Request.
the person
E
D
®
fawo 80m fl
why
below:
Check here i there is not enough sPace or your answer. Put your comP Iete answer on the attached sheet o
paper orfbrm MC-025 and write “Attachment 12—Request to Give Less Than Five Days Notice "fiar a title.
'
® DE
No Fee
a.
for Filing or Service
There should be no filing fee because the person
has stalked me, or has acted or spoken in
b.
E
The
D
®way
has used or threatened to use violence against me,
that
®
makes me reasonably
fear violence.
about the orders for free because
my
request
based on unlawful violence, a credible threat ofviolence, or stalking.
There should be no filing fee and the sheriff or marshal should serve the person in
am
entitled to a fee waiver.
Fees and Costs
@D
.
in
other
sheriff or marshal should serve (notify) the person in
for orders is
c.
some
®for free because I
(You must complete andfileform FW—001, Application for Waiver of Court
.)
Lawyer's Fees and Costs
I
E
ask the court to order payment of my
The amounts requested
are:
mm
Hem
Arndugy’s {Ker
D
Check here ifthere are more
lawyer’s fees
$
items.
$7754
E
Court
costs.
Amount
item
(Ami career
$_20_o_0_
$
$
$
$
Put the items and amounts on the attached sheet ofpaper orform
MC—025 and write “Attachment 1 4—Lawyer 's Fees and Costs "finr a title.
This
“WWW 12°”
Request for
Civil
(Civil
is
not a Court Order.
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH-100- Page 5 0'
9Page 22 Case Number:
/
®D
Possession and Protection of Animals
ask the court
I
a.
game (809:7 9/
D
That
I
to
order the following:
be given the sole possession, care, and control ofthe animals listed below, which
lease, keep, or hold, or
(Iclenlifi'
in
my
D
Check here
slteel
D
[ftlzere
own, possess,
breed. name, color, sex.)
e.g.. Iype,
is
I
household.
request sole possession of the animals because (specifi'
I
b-
animals by,
which reside
good causefor granting
order):
not enough spaceforyour answer. Puryour complete answer on
t/ze
ofpaper orform MC-025 and write “Auac/nnent I5a—Possess1'0n ofAnimals "fbr a
That the person in ®must stay
yards
at least
away from, and
not take,
attached
title.
sell, transfer,
encumber,
conceal, molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of, the animals listed above.
@fl
Additional Orders Requested
ask the court
I
to
make
W;
D
Check here
nor enough spacefbryour answer. Put your complete annver 0n (he attached sheer 0f
paper orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 1 6—.4dtlin'onal Orders Requested. "for a title.
7‘
{/‘Ilzere
céw‘g
N
®
the following additional orders (specifir):
Number of pages
mm
x
aérrrr
zu/afl
a, Kan 7775 flo/Mmr-g
/
Z 8/ 20/ P
urzya Aflp
a/y
c
{/Zom rezéc¢zmécv
-
attached to this fonn, ifany:
J—u/Uf
Date:
1‘s
?'
'
rmxzw.
i
}
Lawyer '3 name (ifany)
I
Lmvyer
'
signature
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the information above and on
attachments
is
true
and
20/?
91—540 M45“ Mazaue’f
Date:
L70“; Z
F/
fvpe or print your name
“m
Request
b
(BA
Sign your
This
Rev'se‘m'ma’y
all
correct.
for Civil
(Civil
is
name
not a Court Order.
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH-100' P
0f 6Page 23 EXHIBIT B
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CHJudicial Council of California Form CH-Temporary Restraining Order Granted July 3, 2018Page 24 .
CH—1 1 O
Person
in
®
Clerk stamps date here
.
Temporary Restraining Order
must complete items@,
®,
and
®
F
only.
Jg’J/l
case):
State
S"pom”
Bar No.:
3y
.
Fu-m Name:
a
Our! or
CA
(1:
filed.
E
L
l
W
Protected Person
a.
Your Full Name: Diego Mas Marques
Your Lawyer (ifyou have onefor this
Name:
when fonn is
m
‘
I'
'
CO
my
0’
Sam
DEP
b.
Your Address (Ifyou have a lawyer, give your lawyer’s information.
Ifyou do not have a lawyer and want to keep your home address
private, you may give a dtfierent mailing address instead You do not
Fm in court name and street addressSuperior Court of California, County of
have to give telephone, fax, or e—mail.):
Addrws:
-
-
Clty.
Santa Clara
P0 Box
/ 9/ ”0271'.”
l
MA e.
/ 9/
-
.
Medford
State.
Telephone:
.
w
56546@pr0t0nmail.com
in
?N’
MI] 27724::
me
005,6,
I
Court fills
Restrained Person
Full
.
II
dz V: L
Fax:
E-Mail Addrfis:
NO
CA 757/;
66 orkf/rlajé
case number when fotm is filed.
c3”;
8"‘32:;Owé
Name: Aaron Jacob Greenspan
Description:
Sex:
E M D
Hair Color:
Weight:
Height:
Brown
Home Address
City:
F
500 Race
Age:
Race:
Street, Suite
San Jose
Smte:
Relationship to Protected Person:
E
Brown
Eye Color:
(ifknown):
Date ofBinh:
This individual
is
continuously harassing
CA
Zip:
L
me
Additional Protected Persons
In addition to the person
named
in
®, the following family or household members ofthat person are protected by
the temporary orders indicated below:
FullName
S£(
M/m y Mar H.4/ZAz/ér
$
AWN
D
gummy
Household Member? Relation to Promcmd Person
5;
,
Mfls-‘erzauaf
Age
g
Yes
1:)
Yes
a
wzre
No
M
a
M Lo ammm
9v;
fflr/rem
Jog?“
No
Check here D’there are additionalpersons. List them on an attached sheet ofpaper and write “Attachment
"
as a title. You may useform MC-025, Attachment.
3—
Additional Protected Persons
®
77w court will complete the rest ofthisform.
Expiration Date
This Order
Date:
wires at the end oflhe hearing scheduledfar the date and time below:
m‘n“
24
Time:
This
mfimfimfi
ucm Hm. meme 5m
-W~°°::m“'°'
ooo-
WWW.)
ss
is a
q-S!
m
a.m.
p.m.
Court Order.
Temporary Restraining Order (CLETS-TCH)
(Civil
D
Harassment Prevention)
CH-"Ov
Pane
‘
2.
No
Contact Order: Ifthere
is
it
has precedence in enforcement over
no EPO, a no-contact order that
is
all
restrictive
than other
other orders.
included in a restraining or protective order has
precedence over any other mtraining or protective order.
3.
Criminal Order: If none ofthe orders includes a no contact order, a domastic violence protective order issued in a
criminal case takes precedence in enforcement over any conflicting civil court order. Any nonconflicting terms of
4.
Family, Juvenile, or Civil Order: If more than one family, juvenile, or other civil restraining or protective order
the civil restraining order
remain in efl'ect and enforceable.
has been issued, the one that
was issued
last
must be enforced.
(Clerk wiIIfiII out this part.)
—C|erk's Certificate—
Clerk’s Certificate
[3301]
I
certify that this
original
on file
Temporary Restraining Order
Date:
Clerk,
This
“WWW
‘-2°"-""“‘°" ‘°"“
is
a u'ue and correct copy ofthe
in the court.
is a
by
Deputy
Court Order.
Temporary Restraining Order (CLETS-TCH)
(Civil
,
Harassment Prevention)
CH4“. P3995 °f6Page 30 EXHIBIT C
Respondent’s June 26, 2018 United Airlines Tickets from San Jose, CA to Cleveland, OH
and September 5, 2018 United Airlines Tickets from Cleveland, OH to San Jose, CAPage 31 PRINTED IN U.S.A. BY MAGNETIC TICKET & LABEL CORP., DALLAS, TX
PRINTED IN U.S.A. BY MAGNETIC TICKET & LABEL CORP., DALLAS, TX
— | oar
ua
GREENSPAN / AARON
UA
SAN JOSE TO CHICAGO
U6 20ti(i‘is — BOARDING BEGINS: SEAT
41.04 amare BOARDING
SJC-GRD 3 1:24P CUP Group
TUE JUNE 26 2018 GATE MAY CHANGE BOARDING ENDS: 1:44 PM WINDOW
FLIGHT DEPARTS: 1:59 PM ECONOMY
FLIGHT ARRIVES: 8:19 PM
CONFIRMATION: P|
TICKET:
ua 976)
GREENSPAN / AARON
UA-»
CHICAGO TO CLEVELAND
UAS76 at” er BOARDING BEGINS: = caT
APM fir o.frnn AAA BOARDING
VAD - LE oO.JVUr ~“tFA = GROUP
TUE JUNE 26 2018 BOARDING ENDS: 9:10 PM WINDOW |
FLIGHT DEPARTS: 9:25 PM ECONOMY |
FLIGHT ARRIVES:11:41 PM
—s |
TICKET:
UNITED Sy a x. UA 467 ECLE@@GREENSPAN/ AARON
x i
=
eo
Cleveland to Denver
STAR ALLIANCE MEMBER ¥ ms
UA 467 GATE BOARDING BEGINS SEAT
CLE-DEN C25 4:09pm 27D ‘nove
WED @5 SEP 2018 Gate May Change Boarding Ends: 4229 PM aisle A
Flight Departs: 4:44 PM economy
Flight Arrives: 5:54 PM
Confirmation: mzPage 32 25A
UA
GREENSPAN/AARON
UA-*****
Denver to San Jose, CA
GATE
UA
DEN-SJC
Wednesday, September 05,
Not Yet
Assigned
BOARDING BEGINS
SEAT
6:35 PM
25A
Boarding ends: 6:55 PM
Window
Flight departs:
Flight arrives:
Economy
7:10 PM
8:42 PM
Confirmation:
Ticket:
Have you downloaded the United app?
Check your flight status, watch movies and TV shows in flight directly on your device, and more. Download at united.com/app
Bag check must be completed no later than 45 minutes before departure. You must be at the boarding gate at least 15 minutes prior to departure. Failure to
be at the boarding gate by the required time could result in the loss of your seat without compensation, regardless of whether you are already checked in or
have a confirmed seat. Refer to United's Contract of Carriage at united.com for more information about United's terms and conditions.Page 33 EXHIBIT D
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CHFebruary 28, 2019 Hearing Transcript Excerpt Concerning “Sealed” MaterialsPage 34
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DEPARTMENT
BEFORE HONORABLE CAROL OVERTON, JUDGE
AARON GREENSPAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
DIEGO MASMARQUES,
Respondent,
And related cross-request.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18CH
San Jose, California
February 28,
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
A P P E A R A N C E S:
For the Plaintiff:
Timothy B. Broderick,
Attorney at Law
For the Defendant:
Diego MasMarques,
In Propria Persona
Reported by:
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 35
Here we have clear and convincing evidence.
be established that there is a strong probability or
likelihood, and it's difficult for the Court to conclude
that absent some additional information.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
So it has to
Yes, Your Honor.
So you can proceed.
Go ahead.
So, Your Honor, would you like
me to go through the documents?
THE COURT:
Well, I think that before you do
that, why don't you sort of summarize.
primary issue was at least initially was publication of
information about criminal history that essentially was
confidential in nature and had been sealed and that
Mr. Greenspan was violating the law or certain court
directives that that information not be published or
disseminated; right?
MR. MASMARQUES:
Yes.
I think that your
For example, there was one
case, a Social Security case, I applied for when I came
back to the United States, but I dismissed it after, like,
two years.
judge, I requested that it be sealed or --
I dismissed it.
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
And I requested from the
That what be sealed?
That case be sealed.
And it was
approved, and I was told by the clerk that only the parties
involved directly in that case will be able to access the
Social Security case.
Mr. Greenspan's website, PlainSite.org.
files weren't opened, on the bottom of each file or each
And lo and behold I found my case on
And although the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 36
date there was a -- Mr. Greenspan left on the bottom a
little -- this word "requests."
request the documents from Mr. Greenspan, and he will be
able to acquire them for you, if you wanted to see them.
THE COURT:
In other words, you can
What was the basis for sealing of the
court file in that matter?
MR. BRODERICK:
Your Honor, we do move to strike
the testimony that there was a sealing.
evidence of that.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
MR. BRODERICK:
There has been no
No, not a sealing.
Well, if the records were sealed -In fact, they were never sealed.
There was nothing that -THE COURT:
Well, you can cross-examine him.
You
can rebut it.
obviously if there's a court order, that would be the most
useful evidence to the Court.
The Court is not going to strike it.
But
The objection, however, is overruled.
So what was it about that Social Security case that you
feel was confidential that would warrant a sealing order?
Just help me understand in plain terms.
MR. MASMARQUES:
personal -- you know, just personal.
personal case.
THE COURT:
Yeah.
Essentially it's
You know, it is a
Are you saying that the case should
have been redacated to eliminate identifying information
like your Social Security number, or are you saying there
was some basis to seal the entire record because of the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 37
subject matter?
saying is confidential and not subject to publication?
need to know that.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
that are protected.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
Social Security number, or you're not
sure?
MR. MASMARQUES:
I'm not sure if it was in there
or not.
THE COURT:
Okay.
So you're saying some
identifying -MR. MASMARQUES:
Like, information, like, date of
birth, for example.
THE COURT:
Information e.g., date of birth, but
you're not sure what else.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
I don't recall at this point,
Your Honor.
Like Social Security number or some
other type of number?
Also I had, like, identifying
information.
Yes.
What else besides medical documents?
MR. MASMARQUES:
Yeah, basically it had personal
So you are saying medical documents
I
medical documents in there.
What was it about that file that you are
Yeah.
And the judge --
But how did you know that
Mr. Greenspan was going to make that information available
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 38
in an unredacted version as opposed to making it available
in some redacted version?
I'm trying to find out if the case in its entirety was
protected by some confidentiality or whether it was just
certain information, like, you know, date of birth --
that's what you mentioned -- or Social Security number or
something else that was confidential in nature.
MR. BRODERICK:
We also have a relevance
objection because there has been no showing that any Social
Security case was ever published.
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
Well, it's just his testimony.
Mr. Greenspan has been
acquiring -- if I may just side track real quick.
Mr. Greenspan got a hold of the police report from the
Marlborough District Court.
THE COURT:
Well, now you're on to a different
topic so hold that aside for just a minute.
You're telling me about him publishing information from
a case that was sealed.
Security case.
documents that would be confidential by law.
You described it as a Social
You indicated that there were some medical
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
Yes.
As well as possibly some identifying
information, but you're not sure exactly what that was.
What else, if anything, about what you called the
Social Security case in your estimation was confidential
and should not have been published?
MR. MASMARQUES:
It's -- the main things are the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 39
medical documents.
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
information about your medical history?
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
No, he has not.
He did not.
THE COURT:
No, he did not, Your Honor.
So what did he do that you believe
was improper and harassing?
That's the main thing.
And are you saying that he published
Yeah.
Mr. Greenspan should not be accessing any of that.
Medical documents.
MR. MASMARQUES:
He posted the Social Security
case online.
THE COURT:
Okay.
And then that takes me back to
my original question:
Security case -- you're calling the Social Security case
protected in terms of confidentiality.
documents, or was it something else as well?
In what aspect was that Social
MR. MASMARQUES:
Was it the medical
It's been a while since I looked
at it but the medical document, I guess.
THE COURT:
Medical documents.
Now you can move on to the other matter, which is the
criminal history, because you had started to mention that
as well.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
So --
And again my understanding was that
you had said that the information was sealed, but I'm not
sure why it would need to be confidential.
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 40
and I'm just describing what he's already described.
talked about charges and fees.
out of this, but we need to move on.
MR. BRODERICK:
THE COURT:
Q.
He's
And I'll be glad to step
I'm trying, Your Honor.
All right.
BY MR. BRODERICK:
Do you have any evidence that
Mr. Greenspan posted anything about your Social Security
case?
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
What is that?
And does that document purport to
be a docket?
A.
I'm not exactly sure what this is.
THE COURT:
Listen, Counsel, if you don't want
the Court to step in, you're going to have to take
ownership here.
to know whether it's been marked or whether it needs to be
marked or whether -- wait a second -- or whether you're
asking the question just based on the witness's personal
recall because we have a record to protect here.
If we're referring to a document, I need
And it's 4:30, and we need to conclude
cross-examination.
So please go ahead and make sure we have a clear record
here.
THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, with all due respect,
you've already seen this, and you know this exists.
THE COURT:
You're ignoring the Court's
admonition here.
THE WITNESS:
Oh, sorry.
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 41
THE WITNESS:
This is the same one as before.
A lot of these are duplicate.
There is something on top of this one so I can't
actually read it.
These are more newspaper articles from Spain, which are
already in the public domain and, therefore, not my words.
THE COURT:
Well, let's not editorialize at this
point because you're going to have ample opportunity to
expand your arguments.
Why don't you see if you can
factually respond.
THE WITNESS:
This tweet says from PlainSite on
November 6th, 2018, that Mr. MasMarques has marked with a
Post-It, Meet convicted murderer Diego MasMarques.
writes this crazy stuff ten times a day.
And we have a restraining order.
It's not true.
And finally -- this is the same one actually, and
that's the last Post-It.
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
Okay.
There are other things in there
that he didn't read, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
That's fine.
But we're conducting --
you know, we can let this become a free for all.
do that.
the same opportunity you had.
more questions for him then I will return to you.
He
Q.
This is examination of Mr. Greenspan.
BY MR. BRODERICK:
Let's not
Now he has
Let's see if counsel has any
Did you post any Social
Security cases about Mr. MasMarques?
A.
So not selectively or intentionally as he has
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 42
alleged.
PlainSite.
he filed against the Social Security Administration.
There are roughly 11 million dockets on
And one of them does appear to be a case that
I think he may be conflating the difference between a
docket and a document.
on -- I don't know if it is marked yet -- but based on one
of the papers in his binder, there was it appears an
electronic order issued by the court in that Social
Security case that said that as a general rule in federal
And it would appear that based
court, documents in Social Security cases are protected and
are under seal.
PlainSite never actually posted any documents.
Security dockets are publicly available.
that docket appears on PlainSite.
THE COURT:
It is not --
without documents that are deemed confidential?
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
And so that's why
So you're saying it is a docket
Social
Correct.
Got it.
If we don't wrap up in the next five minutes, we are
going to have to schedule another session.
MR. MASMARQUES:
trying to do, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
That's what I think they are
Well, let's not go there, okay?
Everybody has an entitlement to be heard including you,
Mr. MasMarques.
Q.
that you --
BY MR. BRODERICK:
THE COURT:
We heard Mr. MasMarques say
How do you pronounce your last name?
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148Page 43 EXHIBIT E
PlainSite E-Mail Notices to Diego MasMarques, Jr.
Denying Search Engine Suppression RequestsPage 44 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 44JX7ZA Response
March 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 44JX7ZA
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding US v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite TeamPage 45 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 44KHCTH Response
March 1, 2017 at 5:07 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 44KHCTH
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding US v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite TeamPage 46 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 471YV0L Response
March 7, 2017 at 2:17 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 471YV0L
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding 24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1286, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P
31,415 Diego Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corporation, and Digital
Equipment Gmbh has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,Page 47 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 4747EDD Response
March 7, 2017 at 2:17 AM
Diego MasMarques rickymas@msn.com
PlainSite Request 4747EDD
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding USA v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite TeamPage 48 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 49P1PLN Response
March 13, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Diego MasMarques rickymas@msn.com
PlainSite Request 49P1PLN
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding USA v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
You have been involved in more than one case in our database.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,Page 49 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
rick rickymas@icloud.com
URL removal
May 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM
greenspan@post.harvard.edu
Hi Aaron,
Would like to speak to you about the removal of two or three URL’s posted by your website. I would like to sign up for your services
and could make a donation, in order to have these URL’s removed.
Thanks,
Rick
6174168670Page 50 From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
Re: URL removal
May 2, 2017 at 3:13 PM
rick rickymas@icloud.com
Hi Rick,
If you are inquiring about Diego MasMarques’s cases, they will not be removed without a court order as per our policy.
As for your offer of a bribe, we decline.
Aaron
PlainSite | http://www.plainsite.orgPage 51 EXHIBIT F
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CHOctober 8, 2018 Hearing Transcript Excerpt Concerning Service of Counter-TROPage 52
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. RYAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
---oOo---
AARON GREENSPAN, et al,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Versus
)
)
DIEGO MASMARQUES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
No.18CH
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 9,
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
In Pro Per
For the Defendant:
In Pro Per
Official Court Reporter:
Kathryn A. Keay, CSR
CSR No. 7915Page 53
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 9,
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT:
Numbers 1 and 2 on the
9:00 o'clock calendar, Aaron Greenspan and Diego
MasMarques.
MR. MASMARQUES:
Mr. MasMarques, present,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
And apparently you have been
authorized to appear by phone by Judge Overton for
this proceeding.
My understanding was --
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
-- that was due to the fact that
you were going to be requesting a continuance for
proof of service on Mr. Greenspan; is that correct?
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
Good morning, sir.
MR. GREENSPAN:
THE COURT:
Mr. Greenspan is present.
of these actions?
MR. GREENSPAN:
THE COURT:
Good morning.
Have you been served with notice
That's correct, Your Honor.
I have not.
Are you prepared to proceed,
notwithstanding that?
MR. GREENSPAN:
I am, for the purpose of
refuting the allegations being made.
THE COURT:
So there's a cross-request.
There's a request to terminate the restraining order
that you obtained and there's a cross-request that'sPage 54
been granted.
Mr. MasMarques is attempting to secure a
temporary restraining order against you.
understand that?
MR. GREENSPAN:
THE COURT:
I do.
So you are, in essence,
accepting service of those matters?
the paperwork?
Do you
Have you received
Are you aware of what --
MR. GREENSPAN:
I never actually received
the paperwork.
because I was never properly served, so I am prepared
to proceed.
in that paperwork.
But again, I completely refute everything
THE COURT:
Mr. MasMarques, how long would
you anticipate these two matters taking?
I attempted to obtain it myself
MR. MASMARQUES:
I apologize, Your Honor.
You mean for a continuance?
THE COURT:
Mr. Greenspan, in essence, has
accepted service of the documents and is prepared to
proceed is what he is indicating.
We are not going to be able to do that today
with you on the telephone, so we need to discuss the
next step.
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
Okay.
Do you have copies of the
restraining order?
MR. GREENSPAN:
Not in front of me.
I do
have exhibits that would prove that everything inPage 55
those documents is essentially false.
THE COURT:
So since you are accepting
service, I think we will just provide you with those
documents so that you have them the next time.
Sir, are you planning to be in the state
sometime soon?
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
Me, Your Honor?
Yes, you.
Yes, I can fly out there.
I can fly out there.
but I was told since I didn't have the papers served
on Mr. Greenspan that, you know, it wouldn't make
sense to go out there.
going to be there or not.
I actually had a ticket today,
But I wasn't sure if he was
But he is fully aware of everything.
He has
a website where he collects people's legal documents.
And he has everything on there, so he's been fully
aware of this since day one.
THE COURT:
He's indicated that he is
prepared to go forward and he is accepting proof of
service.
actual documents so there's no issue when the matter
is set.
So we are just going to provide him with the
What I need to know is what is your
anticipation as to the amount of time this matter will
take?
MR. MASMARQUES:
California?
You mean to fly out toPage 56 EXHIBIT G
October 2018 Twitter Posts Concerning PetitionerPage 57 4/19/
PlainSite on Twitter: "We have posted additional documents in Greenspan v. MasMarques. Mr. MasMarques now falsely accuses our "weapon" (read "la…
Home
Moments
Search Twitter
PlainSite
Follow
@PlainSite
Have an account? Log in
We have posted additional documents in
Greenspan v. MasMarques. Mr.
MasMarques now falsely accuses our
"weapon" (read "laptop")-owning
founder of hacking his e-mail account,
newspaper websites in Spain
(describing his murder case), and
CourtListener.
plainsite.org/dockets/3a4l9q …
5:21 PM - 9 Oct 1 Like
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 17 Oct In retaliation, MasMarques filed for and was automatically granted a counterTRO based on false information. See plainsite.org/dockets/downlo…. He's
created at least 2 fake Twitter accounts, 3 fake Reddit accounts, 3 fake
Facebook accounts, and ~12 fake Quora accounts.
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 17 Oct One of his fake accounts, @badbadwebsites, has a copyrighted photograph of
me that he is using without permission. This copyright is registered with the
United States Copyright Office. I reported this to Twitter. Twitter did nothing.
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 17 Oct Instead, Twitter is carrying out the exact kind of harassment that the Santa Clara
Superior Court has ordered MasMarques to stop, and which he refuses to.
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 18 Oct Here's page 2 of the July 22, 2000 article, translated from Ultima Hora in Spain.
He harasses you, then breaks into your house, and then kills you. He sends me
e-mails from mafioso names. In August, he sent a PI to where I had just lived.
Get it?
Eddie @edandadie · 18 Oct Replying to @AaronGreenspan @jack and 2 others
Wow. What a scumbag
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 18 Oct Here is how @vijaya and @Damokieran's team responded when I reported one
of his many harassing fake accounts. "Context matters." How about the context
of eight years in federal prison for burglary and murder?
Aaron Greenspan @AaronGreenspan · 18 Oct Or this context?
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct Special thanks to our amazing contributor Christine Richard, @richardorionllc,
for pointing out the dangerous hypocrisy of whichever Twitter moderator hadn't
had their morning coffee. And to Roddy Boyd @RodBoydILM and Herb
Greenberg @herbgreenberg. Your support means everything.
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct This week the number one news story concerns a Washington Post contributor
who was threatened by thugs posing as dignified human beings and ultimately
murdered in gruesome fashion by them. CPJ (cpj.org) has documented
journalist murders at an alarming rate.
Committee to Protect Journalists – Defending Jour…
Latest press freedom news from around the globe.
cpj.org
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct With that context, we have been on the receiving end of threats and literally
thousands of harassing, libelous posts (see complaintsboard.com/?
search=aaron+… for a few) for almost two years. This is mostly the work of
Diego MasMarques, Jr. of Marlborough, MA. @MarlboroughMaPD refuses to
act.
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct Here's one such threat we received from him. He is dangerous, but we will not
back down. Diego MasMarques's court cases will be posted on PlainSite as
long as PlainSite is on-line, no matter how many lies he tells, and how many
grotesque photos he posts. plainsite.org/profiles/masma…
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct For the record, the way Twitter handled this was atrocious. First we were told
that we posted private information, but not exactly what or where, and there
was nothing resembling private information in the text of the cited tweet (above).
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct Tonight, suddenly, this screen appeared. The account was downgraded from
"suspended" to "locked", now because of a more specific reason: we had
posted "private media of an individual from a country with a recognized right to
privacy law." This is 100%, completely, false.
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct We posted a United States court document, namely one submitted to the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, CA. Although Diego MasMarques, Jr.
f/k/a "Diego Mas Howard" did murder his girlfriend in Spain, he is an American
national, which is why he was extradited back to the U.S.
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct It's possible MasMarques is a citizen of some EU country that enforces the
GDPR. But the GDPR does not apply to U.S. court documents, and if
MasMarques is a citizen of an EU member state, it's not clear how he could also
be an American national for prison transfer status.
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct More likely: he lied. We have lost track of the number of lies he's told. But here
are a few. plainsite.org/dockets/downlo…
PlainSite @PlainSite · 18 Oct The next court date in the restraining order case is presently December 12,
2018 at 1:30 P.M. in San Jose, CA. And with that, it's back to our regularly
scheduled program.
1
2
3
Aaron Greenspan (Pro Se)
956 Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-3337
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
4
5
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT
MARLBORO DIVISION
6
7
8
9
DIEGO MASMARQUES, JR. a/k/a DIEGO
MAS HOWARD a/k/a RICKY,
10
Date: May 9, 2019
Time: 2:30 P.M.
Judge: Clerk-Magistrate Paul F. Malloy
Petitioner,
11
Case No.: 1921AC000120
v.
Date of First Filing: April 8, 2019
12
AARON GREENSPAN,
13
Respondent.
14
15
MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
16
17
18
I.
Introduction
Respondent is a data journalist and a former CodeX Fellow at Stanford Law School.
19
Following more than two years of sustained telephone, e-mail and internet harassment by
20
Petitioner Diego MasMarques, Jr., on November 15, 2018, the Marlborough, Massachusetts
21
Police Prosecutor brought charges against Petitioner of Criminal Harassment in violation of Mass.
22
General Laws Chapter 265 § 43A(a) and Harassment in Violation of a Prevention Order in
23
violation of Mass. General Laws Chapter 258E § 9. On November 28, 2018, this Court found
24
probable cause for both of those offenses, and a criminal complaint issued against Petitioner with
25
Docket No. 1821CR001157. The matter is presently pending.
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
1
1921AC000120
PDF Page 3
1
Now, Petitioner, who has continued harassing Respondent directly and indirectly even
2
since the criminal complaint was issued, has filed his own application for a criminal complaint
3
against Respondent in a brazen act of retribution. Petitioner’s complaint—one of numerous
4
baseless complaints Petitioner has filed with various government agencies regarding
5
Respondent—is completely unfounded and should be summarily dismissed for failure to state a
6
claim and/or lack of probable cause.
7
II.
8
Argument
A. Petitioner’s Complaint Is Entirely Based Upon an Invalid and Unenforceable
Counter-Temporary Restraining Order
9
Petitioner’s complaint, dated April 8, 2019, invokes a single charge of “HARASSMENT
10
/ STALKING VIOLATION OF RESTRAINING ORDER, VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN
11
JULY 3, 2018 UNTIL [ILLEGIBLE].” According to this Court’s Notice of Magistrate’s Hearing
12
on Complaint Application dated April 11, 2019, the “Date of Offense” is “July 3, 2018” for the
13
supposed violation of an abuse prevention order under Chapter 209A § 7.
14
The “abuse prevention order” cited by Petitioner in his complaint is a counter-Temporary
15
Restraining Order (the “Counter-TRO”) that Petitioner applied for in an earlier act of
16
retribution, after Respondent initially secured a five-year permanent restraining order against
17
Petitioner effective on June 19, 2018. Respondent’s initial restraining order originated in Santa
18
Clara County (California) Superior Court, Case No. 18CH008067. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO
19
was automatically granted on July 3, 2018 by submitting Judicial Council of California Form CH20
100 in the same Case No. 18CH008067 on that same day. See Exhibits A & B. Based on the
21
false representations made in Petitioner’s Form CH-100, Superior Court Judge Deborah Ryan
22
granted Petitioner’s request and waived his filing fee.
23
24
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
2
1921AC000120
PDF Page 4
1
1. The Counter-TRO Is Invalid Because Petitioner Did Not Pay The
Requisite Filing Fee
2
California courts waive filing fees for restraining order applications where the applicant
3
warrants that any of three conditions are true:
4
a.
“There should be no filing fee because the [Respondent] has used or threatened
to use violence against me, has stalked me, or has acted or spoken in some
other way that makes me reasonably fear violence.”
b.
“The sheriff or marshal should serve (notify) the [Respondent] about the orders
for free because my request for orders is based on unlawful violence, a credible
threat of violence, or stalking.”
c.
10
“There should be no filing fee and the sheriff or marshal should serve the
[Respondent] for free because I am entitled to a fee waiver. (You must
complete and file form FW-001, Application for Waiver of Court Fees and
Costs.)”
11
California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6(y); Judicial Council of California Form CH-100.1
5
6
7
8
9
On page 5 of Form CH-100, Petitioner checked the boxes corresponding to (a) and (b)
12
13
above, despite the fact that Respondent has never used or threatened to use violence against him,
14
and has never stalked Respondent (and unlike Petitioner, has no criminal record or history of
15
violent acts). Accordingly, Petitioner was and is required to pay the filing fee by law.
16
He did not. Petitioner has a documented tendency to misconstrue the availability of any
17
information about him on the internet—even public record information—as “harassing, stalking,
18
terrorizing, and online bullying” by whomever the publisher happens to be. Respondent’s
19
company and non-profit organization jointly run a website called PlainSite that lists several of
20
Petitioner’s federal civil and criminal court cases among millions of others.2 Petitioner has
21
attempted to seal his cases in court repeatedly, and each motion to seal has been firmly denied.
22
Rather than honor the decision of United States District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf, or the
23
1
24
25
“Stalking” in the context of California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, which governs civil harassment restraining
orders, is defined in California Penal Code § 646.9(a), and does not apply to routine publication of public records.
2
PlainSite is not the only website that has listed Petitioner’s public record cases. In addition, Leagle.com,
CourtListener, and UnitedStatesCourts.org have indexed or currently index Petitioner’s cases. According to its
founder, UnitedStatesCourts.org is no longer operational in part because of Petitioner’s relentless harassment.
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
3
1921AC000120
PDF Page 5
1
decision of United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch—both of
2
whom denied his motions to seal—Petitioner decided to do an end-run around the federal courts
3
by lying his way to a nominal restraining order in state court against one publisher of the content
4
instead: Respondent Aaron Greenspan.
5
As a direct result of those falsehoods, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Deborah
6
Ryan granted Petitioner’s improper request for a fee waiver, tainting the resulting Counter-TRO
7
and rendering it invalid until at least such time as the proper filing fee is paid.
8
2. The Counter-TRO Is Invalid Because Respondent Did Not Reside in
Santa Clara County When It Was Applied For or Issued
9
The Santa Clara County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the Counter-TRO,
10
but issued the invalid order nonetheless. In large part due to Petitioner’s harassment, Respondent
11
moved on June 26, 2018, leaving Santa Clara County. See Exhibit C. Respondent spent the
12
remainder of June, July, August, and part of September with his family in Ohio. When
13
Respondent returned to California on September 5, 2018, he lived in San Francisco County.3
14
Nonetheless, in response to the “Venue” question, “Why are you filing in [Santa Clara] county?”
15
Petitioner indicated on page 2 of Form CH-100 that as of June 28, 2018, “[Respondent] lives in
16
[Santa Clara] county;” that “[Petitioner] was harassed by [Respondent] in this county” and
17
“AARON JACOB GREENSPAN IS USING COMPUTERS BASED OUT OF THIS
18
COUNTY.” None of those statements were true as of the date of filing, and the second
19
statement was never true. Furthermore, PlainSite’s servers are not based in Santa Clara County.
20
3. Petitioner Made Numerous False Claims Under Penalty Of Perjury
To Deceive The Court Into Granting His Counter-TRO
21
22
23
Petitioner signed his name on page 6 of Form CH-100 on June 28, 2018 just after the
statement, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
24
25
3
In fact, Petitioner indicated on page 1 of his application that Respondent now lives in San Francisco, California,
which is in San Francisco County.
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
4
1921AC000120
PDF Page 6
1
information above and on all attachments is true and correct.” Nonetheless, several of the
2
representations made by Petitioner, in Petitioner’s handwriting, are false. Specifically:
3
a) Respondent is “selectively downloading legal documents from PACER.”
(Form CH-100, Page 1)
4
5
6
7
8
This is false. Petitioner is a criminal defendant in numerous court dockets across
the country, many of which are not even posted on PlainSite. Respondent has
made no effort to selectively post dockets related to Petitioner and prior to his
harassment campaign, Respondent had no idea who he even was. Furthermore,
documents on PACER not already under seal are in the public domain. Plaintiff
has a First Amendment right to publish, through Think Computer Corporation,
Think Computer Foundation, or any other entity, any public domain materials.
Petitioner’s allegations about “sealed” documents stem from his own confusion or
deliberate lying.
9
10
b) “…he is sending selective documents to people and agencies where I have filed
complaints against him.”
(Form CH-100, Page 1)
11
12
13
14
This is false. Nonetheless, Respondent has a First Amendment right to
communicate with law enforcement agencies about Petitioner’s unlawful behavior,
especially insofar as it is harassing and violates the initial restraining order against
him.
c) “3/17;08/17;03/29/18;04/01/18 and many calls”
(Form CH-100, Page 2)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This is false; it is unclear what Petitioner is referring to on (presumably)
March 17, August 17, March 29, and April 1, 2018. Respondent did not
place any outgoing calls to Petitioner, and has refused to speak with him when
Petitioner has called repeatedly. (Petitioner once called from an alternative phone
number and just before identifying himself as “Diego MasMarques,” began the call
with, “Shalom, Aaron,” an inappropriate and possibly anti-Semitic reference to
Respondent’s Jewish religion.) Petitioner sent scores of e-mails, including threats,
to PlainSite both using his own name and several false names; Respondent
responded only to a select few, and reasonably each time, including on May 3,
2017 when Respondent declined Petitioner’s attempted bribe.
d) “Mary Mas Marques who has witnessed annoying phone calls with hang ups and
an individual requesting money on behalf of Aaron Jacob Greenspan to remove
URL’s [sic] from the search engines.”
(Form CH-100, Page 2)
23
24
25
This is false; while it is conceivable that Defendant’s wife may have
witnessed annoying phone calls, they had no relation to Respondent
whatsoever. Respondent has never called or authorized anyone else to call
Petitioner or his relatives, besides which no one calling on behalf of Respondent
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
5
1921AC000120
PDF Page 7
1
2
3
4
would use his middle name in typical conversation. On the other hand,
Respondent has received several harassing phone calls and threats from Petitioner
and individuals making the same exact allegations as Petitioner.
e) “This individual has somehow gained access to sealed documents from DOJ and
unlocked sensitive documents, then uploads these documents in a selective
manner.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is false. Neither PlainSite nor Respondent has posted any sealed documents
concerning Petitioner, let alone documents from the United States Department of
Justice. In court in Santa Clara County, California on February 28, 2019,
Petitioner for the first time identified what he meant by “sealed documents:” the
docket in Massachusetts District Court Case No. 1:12-cv-11100, which is not sealed
(and is not a “DOJ” document). None of the sealed court documents linked to
that specific docket are posted at all on PlainSite. See Exhibit D (February 28,
2019 Transcript at 20:17-24:28; 82:6-12; 91:4-18).
f) “Did the person in [2] use or threaten to use a gun or any other weapon? Yes.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
11
12
13
14
15
This is completely false. Respondent does not own a gun or weapon and made
no such threat. Nor does Respondent have any history of violence or threats of
violence whatsoever (unlike Petitioner). Petitioner’s argument that Respondent’s
weapon “is his computer” is ludicrous.
g) “This individual’s weapon is his computer and hacking skills that he uses in a
malicious manner, in order to harass, stalk, terrorize, shame and defame any one at
his whim.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
16
17
This is false. Respondent’s computer is not reasonably classified as a “weapon.”
The posting of public domain materials similarly cannot be reasonably construed as
harassing, stalking, terrorizing, shaming, defamatory, or malicious.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
h) “This individual has been harassing and stalking my family non-stop since March
of 2017. He has somehow gained access to sealed documents from the federal
database PACER that he selectively is [sic] uploads online.”
(Form CH-100, Page 3)
This is false. Again, Petitioner apparently regards anyone publishing information
regarding his serious crimes as “harassing, stalking, terrorizing, [and] online
bullying,” which it is not. All that transpired in March of 2017 is that Petitioner
received a formal notice that PlainSite would not suppress his public domain court
cases. See Exhibit E.
i) “At the end of March 2018 I explained to Aaron Jacob Greenspan that if he did
not stop with the harassment that I was moving forward with a restraining order.
That was the second and last call.”
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
6
1921AC000120
PDF Page 8
1
(Form CH-100, Page 5)
2
This is false and a complete fabrication. No such call took place. No such
advisement took place. Upon information and belief, Petitioner MasMarques
projects his own thoughts and experiences onto others, including his crimes. In
this case, because Respondent obtained a restraining order against him, Petitioner
now insists that he originally warned Respondent that he would obtain a
restraining order. He did not.
3
4
5
6
j) “The Proof of Service was faulty, as the wrong person was served the court
documents on May 19, 2018.”
(Form CH-600, Page 2)
7
8
9
Upon information and belief, this is false. Plaintiff confirmed with the
Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office that the correct individual, Petitioner Diego
MasMarques, Jr. was served, based upon multiple photographs. Furthermore, if
the wrong individual had been served, that individual should not have accepted
the court papers from the process server.
10
11
k) “Aaron Jacob Greenspan has blatantly committed perjury at this Santa Clara
Superior Court and has lied under Oath…”
(Form CH-600, Page 2)
12
This is false.
13
14
15
l) “Aaron Jacob Greenspan then proceeded to upload a few more URL’s and has
even gone so far as to repeat the uploading of these legal documents on other
websites that this individual has created and uploaded these same documents o [sic]
third party websites.”
(Form CH-600 / Form MC-025, Page 4)
16
17
18
19
This is false. As a technical matter, URLs are not “uploaded.” Respondent has
not uploaded Petitioner’s case documents to other websites.
m) “This entire 501(c)(3) was at first For Profit when it started in 1998 and then
changed to a Non Profit in the year 2000 and consequently was transferred to the
State of Delaware, in order to avoid turning in yearly earnings reports.”
(Form CH-600 / Form MC-025, Page 4)
20
Every part of this statement is false.
21
n) “Attorney’s Fees: 7,500; Court Costs: 2,000”
22
23
24
25
These amounts are false. On the first day he began filing in Case No.
18CH008067, Petitioner claimed that he had already paid $7,500.00 in attorney’s
fees and $2,000.00 in court costs. In fact, in connection with the case, he had paid
no attorney’s fees (Petitioner was and is not represented by an attorney in
California) and no court costs (which were waived based on his false
representations about Respondent owning a weapon, as described above).
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
7
1921AC000120
PDF Page 9
1
Petitioner was simply attempting to extract $9,500.00 from Respondent using the
legal system as a vehicle for extortion.
2
In summary, Petitioner perjured himself no fewer than fifteen (15) times when he filed
3
Form CH-100 on July 3, 2018.
4
4. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO Was Never Served on Respondent
5
Respondent was never served with Petitioner’s Counter-TRO. Rather, Respondent
6
waived service of the Counter-TRO at a court appearance on October 9, 2018 for the limited
7
and express purpose of contesting its many false statements. See Exhibit F (October 9, 2018
8
Transcript 2:21-25, 3:9-13). Consequently, even if this Court were to deem the Counter-TRO
9
valid, which it is not, it would only be binding starting on October 9, 2018 at the point when
10
Respondent waived service.
11
5. Petitioner’s Counter-TRO Is Unconstitutional on Multiple Grounds
12
Petitioner’s Counter-TRO ultimately seeks to enjoin Respondent from making use of his
13
First Amendment rights, rendering the Counter-TRO unconstitutional. “[S]peech cannot be
14
restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207,
15
1219 (2011). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection... is to shield just those choices of
16
content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay,
17
Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487
18
(1995).
19
Furthermore, the Counter-TRO seeks to enjoin Respondent from performing tasks that
20
are functionally impossible and/or pointless, such as “uploading” URLs to search engines for
21
indexing, rendering the Counter-TRO unconstitutional and moot. “It is axiomatic that this
22
Court cannot order a party to perform an impossible task.” United States v. Silvio, 333 F. Supp.
23
264, 266 (W.D. Mo. 1971). It follows that no Court can order a party to refrain from performing
24
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
8
1921AC000120
PDF Page 10
1
an impossible task, and then subject that party to criminal penalties when someone wrongly
2
alleges that the impossible task was somehow performed anyway.
3
B. Petitioner’s Criminal Complaint Is Factually False and Misleading
4
Petitioner’s criminal complaint before this Court also contains numerous false and
5
misleading statements. In the first place, no criminal charges involving the Counter-TRO can be
6
brought for any date prior to October 9, 2018, which Petitioner himself acknowledges by writing
7
“HE WAS FINALLY SERVED THE R/O ON 10/09/2018” in the complaint. (In fact, formal
8
service was waived solely to contest the Counter-TRO.) False statements include:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
a) “SINCE March OF 2017, AARON JACOB GREENSPAN HAS BEEN
THREATENING, HARASSING, STALKING, DEFAMING AND CYBER
BULLYING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.”
This is false.
b) “THI [sic] STARTED AFTER I FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST
LEAGLE.COM WITH THE ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE.”
While technically this may or may not be true, Respondent has no
connection whatsoever to leagle.com or Arkansas and any assertion of a
link is false. Petitioner is obsessed with his own conspiracy theory that through a
registered agent in Arkansas, Respondent owns leagle.com, another website that
has published his public domain case documents. Respondent’s only interaction
with the Arkansas government has been responding to the query of a confused staff
member at the Attorney General’s office who was researching an erroneous
complaint filed by Petitioner.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
c) “HE TOOK TO TWITTER @PlainSite and @aarongreenspan at @5PM
California time and every single day FOR WEEKS ON END WAS
HARASSING MYSELF AND MY FAMILY WITH VILE COMMENTS,
POSTNG MY HOME ADDRESS AND MUCH MORE.”
This is false. Respondent did not write about Petitioner “every day for weeks
on end.” On October 9, 2018, the PlainSite Twitter account wrote, “We have
posted additional documents in Greenspan v. MasMarques. Mr. MasMarques now
falsely accuses our ‘weapon’ (read ‘laptop’)-owning founder of hacking his e-mail
account, newspaper websites in Spain (describing his murder case), and
CourtListener. https://t.co/u8N9YqfZ4t.” Images of translated articles from the
Spanish newspaper Ultima Hora profiling Petitioner’s 1999 murder case—the
ultimate underlying cause of these proceedings—followed with no additional
commentary except the date of each article. These very limited comments were
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
9
1921AC000120
PDF Page 11
1
neither harassing nor vile, nor did they involve Petitioner’s family.
2
Upon information and belief, on or around October 17, 2018, Petitioner
conspired with another disaffected individual, Matthew Mahgrefteh of Woodland
Hills, California, to report PlainSite to Twitter for a supposed violation of the new
European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—nominally
based upon the posting of a California (not EU) court form that happened to
contain Petitioner’s public domain home address in the United States.4 Twitter
suspended the PlainSite account in the United States based on the meritless report
concerning EU law. Respondent appealed and won the account’s reinstatement
the next day. Just before and after the reinstatement, Respondent accurately
explained to PlainSite’s many confused followers why the account had been
temporarily suspended. These explanations were also not harassing or vile, nor did
they involve Petitioner’s family. The image of the court form containing
Petitioner’s home address was removed almost immediately when the account was
suspended per Twitter policy. (PlainSite has since posted countless other unrelated
addresses on Twitter with no problem at all.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Of those few communications on Twitter pertaining to Petitioner from
Respondent’s personal account or the PlainSite account, all were merely about
him, not directed at him. Nor did Respondent suggest in any way that others
should contact or in any way harass Petitioner. See Exhibit G.
11
12
d) “ON DECEMBER 12, 2018 BEFORE JUDGE CAROL OVERTON AT THE
SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT, AARON JACOB GREENSPAN (HE
IS USING A WIDE VARIETY OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS TO
HARASS) ADMITTED TO VIOLATING THE R/O OVER A DOZEN
TIMES AND HE IS STILL CONTINUING W/ THESE VIOLATIONS
TODAY.”
13
14
15
16
This is false. There was no such admission. There was no such violation.
There is no continuing violation. Respondent does not use a wide variety of
social media accounts; aside from PlainSite, Respondent’s accounts are in his own
name (Aaron Greenspan) or the username “thinkcomp.”
17
18
Taken together, these false statements indicate that there is no probable cause for a
19
criminal complaint to issue against Respondent, but rather, that Petitioner has a tendency to
20
perjure himself.5 Petitioner’s statements are in fact the opposite of “reasonably trustworthy
21
information…sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the defendant had
22
committed…an offense.” Commonwealth v. Stevens, 362 Mass. 24, 26 (1972).
23
4
24
25
Petitioner confirmed these actions himself when he filed evidence of them in court in Santa Clara County on
December 4, 2018. Mr. Mahgrefteh used a pseudonym, but identified himself via other factors. See Exhibit H.
5
According to Mass. Criminal Procedure Rule 3(g)(1), “Procedure for obtaining a complaint,” “The complainant
shall sign the complaint under oath, before an appropriate judicial officer.” If this procedure was in fact followed and
the oath involves telling the truth, then Petitioner violated that oath.
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
10
1921AC000120
PDF Page 12
1
C. Petitioner’s Complaint Lacks Any Evidence Whatsoever
2
The copy of Petitioner’s complaint provided by the Court to Respondent via fax does not
3
include any evidence of the assertions made therein. That is because no such evidence exists, or
4
to the extent that it does exist but has not been provided, Petitioner has wildly misinterpreted the
5
facts (or simply lied about them) to fit his own pre-conceived narrative.
6
D. Petitioner Has a Documented History of Mental Illness, Harassment and
Violent Criminal Activity
7
Petitioner has a documented history of mental illness. When released from federal prison
8
in 2008, the United States Parole Commission mandated that Petitioner be subject to the “Special
9
Mental Health Aftercare Condition that requires you participate in an in-patient or an out-patient
10
mental health program as directed by your U.S. Probation Officer.” USA v. MasMarques, Case
11
No. 1:09-cr-10304-MLW, Document 1-2 at 5 (D. Mass., October 15, 2009).
12
Numerous individuals consider themselves victims of Petitioner, have at some point
13
considered themselves victims, or would consider themselves victims, were they still alive:
14
1. Petitioner’s wife, Mary Bulman, who formally accused Petitioner of assault;
15
2. An unnamed person or persons who charged Petitioner with two counts of rape in
16
South Boston District Court in 1994;
17
3. Tatiana Vasic, whom Petitioner was convicted of murdering in Caliu, Spain in late
18
1999;
19
4. The parents of Tatiana Vasic, themselves the victims of unrelenting harassment by
20
Petitioner, who left them with a significant long distance telephone bill after
21
murdering their daughter. See Exhibit I;
22
5. An unnamed woman quoted in Ultima Hora on December 12, 1999, who stated
23
with regard to Petitioner (based on translation from Spanish to English), “the
24
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
11
1921AC000120
PDF Page 13
1
madness of the same man turned our lives into an ordeal,” after having suffered
2
“physical and mental aggressions, harassment and persecution;”
3
6. The at least two women that are the subject of the December 20, 1999 report in
4
Periódico de Ibiza y Formentera that (based on translation from Spanish to English),
5
“when the defendant lived in Boston (Massachusetts), the police arrested him
6
twice, for hitting two young people who were his fellow sentimental
7
[companions]. These people claim that, afterwards, Diego Mas[Marques] had
8
problems of the same characteristics in Miami (Florida);”
9
7. An unnamed man whom Petitioner attacked with a motor vehicle in Palma, Spain,
10
for which Petitioner was subject to criminal proceedings and found guilty on
11
November 30, 1998. According to the same translated December 20, 1999 report,
12
“The events occurred on October 16, 1997. The ruling states that Diego
13
Mas[Marques] was driving with his car when he noticed the presence of his former
14
partner. The woman was driving in a car driving by another man. Diego
15
Mas[Marques] started a persecution. Mas[Marques] rammed the man with his car
16
and caused erosions and bruises on his right hand and left thigh;”
17
8. Jeffrey Steinport, an American lawyer, who wrote to and called the Federal Bureau
18
of Investigation and numerous police departments after Petitioner began
19
relentlessly harassing him for publishing public domain court records that
20
happened to include Petitioner’s cases, forcing him to shut down his business. See
21
Exhibit J;
22
9. Lisa Dubé, Petitioner’s federal probation officer in Massachusetts, about whom
23
Petitioner authored an anonymous harassing post on the now-defunct gripe site
24
BlackListReport.com on January 20, 2018, calling her a “hypocrite who’s [sic]
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
12
1921AC000120
PDF Page 14
1
moral compass is totally out of whack” and a “control freak” while criticizing her
2
“feminist viewpoints;”
3
10. “John Fuenchem,” a Canadian lawyer using a pseudonym who supports PlainSite’s
4
efforts with regard to the publication of public records. Respondent does not
5
know this individual’s true identity. Petitioner has repeatedly and falsely accused
6
Respondent of masquerading as John Fuenchem, whose pseudonym now appears
7
in dozens of harassing on-line posts targeting Respondent;
8
11. Respondent’s family members: his father, mother, brother, uncle, and cousins;
9
12. Respondent’s female professional colleague.
10
In sum, Petitioner has left in his wake roughly twenty victims, not including those with
11
whom Petitioner has had civil court disputes (of which there are several). When weighing the
12
legitimacy of Petitioner’s complaint and the Counter-TRO it is based upon, this context should
13
be a factor.
14
E. The Marlborough District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Enforce a California
Restraining Order Against a California Resident
15
Even presuming that the Counter-TRO is valid, which it is not; that Petitioner’s
16
representations giving rise to the Counter-TRO were true, which they were not; and that the
17
representations in Petitioner’s application for a criminal complaint are true, which they are not;
18
the Marlborough District Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter. Respondent is a full-time
19
resident of the State of California. The proper venue to enforce the Counter-TRO would be the
20
Superior Court of San Francisco County, based on Respondent’s current place of residence.
21
F. No “Abuse” Has Taken Place Under Mass. General Laws Chapter 209A
22
Unlike the criminal charge pending against Petitioner under Chapter 258E of the Mass.
23
General Laws, Petitioner seeks a criminal charge against Respondent under Chapter 209A.
24
Chapter 209A concerns “abuse,” which is defined in § 1 as “the occurrence of one or more of the
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
13
1921AC000120
PDF Page 15
1
following acts between family or household members…” (emphasis added). Respondent is not a
2
family or household member of Petitioner’s. Therefore, no “abuse” could have occurred. Nor is
3
the Counter-TRO an “abuse prevention order” under Chapter 209A.
4
III.
5
6
Conclusion
Journalism is not a crime. For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully
requests that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s above criminal complaint.
7
8
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of April, 2019.
9
10
Aaron Greenspan
956 Carolina Street
San Francisco, CA 94107-3337
Phone: +1 415 670 9350
Fax: +1 415 373 3959
E-Mail: aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MOTION TO DISMISS CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
14
1921AC000120
PDF Page 16
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING AND SERVICE
I, Aaron Greenspan, hereby certify that this document has been e-mailed to the Court
subject to a prior written agreement.
Aaron Greenspan
aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
PDF Page 17
EXHIBIT A
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067
Judicial Council of California Form CH-100
Petitioner’s Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders Filed July 3, 2018
(Excluding 73 Pages of Immaterial Attachments)
®
a.
W
@232?“
¥f
ac 6
W
WW
WW7
How did the person
(3)
E
in
®
harass you? (Explain below):
Check here ifthere
is not enough spacefor your amnver. Put your complete answer 0n the attached
orform MC-025 and write “A ttachment 7a(3)—Describe Harassment "for a title.
sheet ofpaper
Aaron Jacob Greenspan has been using
his
computer
plainsite.org to selectively upload only certain
WV
individual has
somehow gained access to
skills
documents
and
his
monetized websites such as
to harass, stalk,
sealed documents from
shame and defame
online. This
DOJ
and unlocked sensitive documents,
then upload's fliese documents 1n a selective manner. I have been recewmg annoymg phone calls fiom a
Filo Alto, Lalltomla phone number and other numbers as wefl. An 1nd1v1dual has called me and explained
uaI""
'emy ar'fin'j—‘Baco GWnsp
up
ve
Is m
oney.
y
"'
..
.
Did the person
(4)
E
D
D
Yes
®
in
No
Rim
"
.
.‘
'
m
I
".""I‘I.
‘.
‘a‘.
use or threaten to use a gun or any other weapon?
(Ifyes, explain below):
nrt/m
i
TWZJ"
is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 7a(4)—Use of Weapons "for a title.
um ’J‘
M
Yes
D
No
1
4J6
o
Were you harmed
E
D
'ré_o—d‘f1m
'
Check here zfthere
sheet ofpaper
(5)
'
I16
14
a_r/rzw A
”a
U
mar
w é)
E
2-47,
or injured because of the harassment?
(lfyes, explain below):
WWKD
c
n
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Pu! your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 7a(5)—Harm or Injury "for a title.
sheet ofpaper
WWW
WM
gmg 9&2
MégngJ gzfiga
Jfiié/ch
077 (mew vm5~r 5ND£
Mféo
(mo mlué c
$:ar77z 5f r-
Did the police come?
(6)
[f yes, did
amonl é
D
Yes
E
my
h/y 4N0
324—54554
nyxzéf.
No
they give you or the person in
®
an Emergency Protective Order?
D
Yes
D
No
If yes, the order protects (check all that apply):
D
(Attach
b.
Has
D
Me
The person
D
in®
a copy ofthe order ifyou have
the person in
®
The persons
in
@.
one.)
harassed you at other times?
E Yes D No (Ifyes, describe prior incidents andprovide dates ofharassment below):
@heck here Ifthere not enough spacefbr your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached sheet of
is
paper orform MC—025 and write “Attachment 7b—Previous Harassment ”for a
title.
EM”
mo /
0N, 70p;
,r
’DooumE/Ufr F/Lam 7k! Féaéfifi
?g64
n
xgcgméc
7775f
5.:
This
not a Court Order.
0/4949“ [U
é"
{41:12:706—
3W5
is
“WW“
‘-
2°”
Request for
Civil
(Civil
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH4“!
Page 3 °f6
'9
PDF Page 21
£6,400 ea 63L a
Case Number:
/
Check the orders you want.
E
I
Personal Conduct Orders
ask the court to order the person
protected listed
E
a.
in@:
in
®
not to do any ofthe following things to
me
or to any person to be
Harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise),
hit,
abuse, destroy
personal property of, or disturb the peace of the person.
E
b.
Contact the person, either directly or indirectly, in any way, including, but not limited to, in person, by
telephone, in writing, by public or private mail, by interofi'xce mail, by e-mail, by text message, by fax, or
by
other electronic means.
E Other (specgfiz):
Z
C.
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached
orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 8c—Other Personal Conduct Orders, ” for a
sheet ofpaper
litle.
7v Céfixé
mp
2g gonmmfi
7‘6
f
m®
courIfinds good
The person
.
®
fox: 7-);é
04
wrll be ordered no! to take
I
(l)
E
(2)
El The otherpersons
(4)
E
E
(s) E]
(6)
(7)
D
D
c.
.
®
(8)
®.
listed in
(9)
home.
Myjob
or workplace.
Myscnool.
My children’s
My children’s
school.
place ofchild care.
If the court orders the person in
to get to his or her
D
m
Ill
E
E
My
®
to stay
home, school, orjob?
away from (check all that apply):
omewspecifi»);
I em fie a «ewrwo Tkwr Amy
Mo xffzfi’u 4M? Dim
away fi'om
Yes
E
yards
vehicle.
E
Z
:
4
a
the places listed above, will he or she
N0 (Ifno. explain below):
all
D
still
par“
be able
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Pu! your complete answer on the attached sheet of
paper orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 9b——Stay—Away Orders, ”for a title.
Guns or Other Firearms and Ammunition
Does the person
in
® own
or possess any guns or other firearms?
D
Yes
D
No
E
l
don’t
know
®
Ifthejudge grants a protective order, the person in
will be prohibitedfi'om owning, possessing, purchasing,
receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive a gun, otherfirearm, and ammunition while the protective order
is in fleet. Ihe person in
will also be ordered to turn in to law enforcement, or sell to or store with a
®
licensed gun dealer, any guns orfirearms within his or her immediate possession 0r control.
This
R°V“°°J'"""V
‘-
2°“
.
WWW
WM}?
:M—W
50D
I
b.
Fé/Ud u g
mama.
o
.
to stay at least
Me.
My
ag’
cause not to make the order.
ask the court to order the person in
(3)
my
any action to gel the addresses or locations ofany protectefpersony
Stay-Away Orders
a.
704pom5
6
.
unless the
E
u .rzu o
Oéczzrf
is
not a Court Order.
Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders
(Civil
Harassment Prevention)
CH4”,
P399 4 0'6
‘9
PDF Page 22
Case Number:
/
®E
l
Temporary Restraining Order
request that a
Temporary Restmining Order (TRO) be issued against the person
am presenting form CH-l [0, Temporary Restraining
Wm
WW
Has
Yes
in
®
I
in®been told that you were going to go to court to seek
D No ([fyou answered no, explain why below):
a
TRO against him/her?
W4
Check here ifthere is not enough spacefor your answer. Put your complete answer on the attached sheet of
paper orform MC— 025 and write "Attachment 1 1—Temporary Restraining Order "for a title.
MK
AV
D
maz/20¢
g égflameo mm“
HE pro uors‘rofl 44m
tun 0/
77747
7775
2w” moan;
-
-
flaufirg
-
-
Request to Give Less Than Flve Days Notice of Hearing
-
You must have your papers personally served 0n the person
in
CH—200, Proof of Personal Service,
®
5 AZ; f”,”‘2” me
{gdo’up
at leastfive days before the hearing, unless the
CH—200—1NFO explains What Is “Proof of Personal Service”? Form
may be used to show the court that the papers have been served.)
court orders a shorter timefor service. (Form
Ifyou want there to bc fewer than five days between service and the hearing, explain
D
to last until the hearing.
Order, for the court’s signature together with this Request.
the person
E
D
®
fawo 80m fl
why
below:
Check here i there is not enough sPace or your answer. Put your comP Iete answer on the attached sheet o
paper orfbrm MC-025 and write “Attachment 12—Request to Give Less Than Five Days Notice "fiar a title.
'
® DE
No Fee
a.
for Filing or Service
There should be no filing fee because the person
has stalked me, or has acted or spoken in
b.
E
The
D
®way
has used or threatened to use violence against me,
that
®
makes me reasonably
fear violence.
about the orders for free because
my
request
based on unlawful violence, a credible threat ofviolence, or stalking.
There should be no filing fee and the sheriff or marshal should serve the person in
am
entitled to a fee waiver.
Fees and Costs
@D
.
in
other
sheriff or marshal should serve (notify) the person in
for orders is
c.
some
®for free because I
(You must complete andfileform FW—001, Application for Waiver of Court
.)
Lawyer's Fees and Costs
I
E
ask the court to order payment of my
The amounts requested
are:
mm
Hem
Arndugy’s {Ker
D
Check here ifthere are more
lawyer’s fees
$
items.
$7754 0
E
Court
costs.
Amount
item
(Ami career
$_20_o_0_
$
$
$
$
Put the items and amounts on the attached sheet ofpaper orform
MC—025 and write “Attachment 1 4—Lawyer 's Fees and Costs "finr a title.
This
“WWW 12°”
Request for
Civil
(Civil
is
not a Court Order.
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH-100- Page 5 0'5
9
PDF Page 23
Case Number:
/
®D
Possession and Protection of Animals
ask the court
I
a.
game (809:7 9/
D
That
I
to
order the following:
be given the sole possession, care, and control ofthe animals listed below, which
lease, keep, or hold, or
(Iclenlifi'
in
my
D
Check here
slteel
D
[ftlzere
own, possess,
breed. name, color, sex.)
e.g.. Iype,
is
I
household.
request sole possession of the animals because (specifi'
I
b-
animals by,
which reside
good causefor granting
order):
not enough spaceforyour answer. Puryour complete answer on
t/ze
ofpaper orform MC-025 and write “Auac/nnent I5a—Possess1'0n ofAnimals "fbr a
That the person in ®must stay
yards
at least
away from, and
not take,
attached
title.
sell, transfer,
encumber,
conceal, molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of, the animals listed above.
@fl
Additional Orders Requested
ask the court
I
to
make
W;
D
Check here
nor enough spacefbryour answer. Put your complete annver 0n (he attached sheer 0f
paper orform MC-025 and write “Attachment 1 6—.4dtlin'onal Orders Requested. "for a title.
7‘0
{/‘Ilzere
céw‘g
N
®
the following additional orders (specifir):
Number of pages
mm
x1
aérrrr
75
zu/afl
a, Kan 7775 flo/Mmr-g
/
Z 8/ 20/ P
urzya Aflp
a/y
c
{/Zom rezéc¢zmécv
-
attached to this fonn, ifany:
J—u/Uf
Date:
1‘s
?'
'
rmxzw.
i
}
Lawyer '3 name (ifany)
I
Lmvyer
'5
signature
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the information above and on
attachments
is
true
and
20/?
91—540 M45“ Mazaue’f
Date:
L70“; Z
F/
fvpe or print your name
“m
Request
b
(BA
Sign your
This
Rev'se‘m'ma’y
all
correct.
for Civil
(Civil
is
name
not a Court Order.
Harassment Restraining Orders
Harassment Prevention)
CH-100' P8966
0f 6
PDF Page 24
EXHIBIT B
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067
Judicial Council of California Form CH-110
Temporary Restraining Order Granted July 3, 2018
PDF Page 25
.
CH—1 1 O
Person
in
®
Clerk stamps date here
.
Temporary Restraining Order
must complete items@,
®,
and
®
F
only.
Jg’J/l
case):
State
S"pom”
Bar No.:
3y
.
Fu-m Name:
a
Our! or
CA
3
(1:29
filed.
E
L
l
W
Protected Person
a.
Your Full Name: Diego Mas Marques
Your Lawyer (ifyou have onefor this
Name:
when fonn is
m
‘
I8
'
'
CO
my
0’
Sam
DEP
b.
Your Address (Ifyou have a lawyer, give your lawyer’s information.
Ifyou do not have a lawyer and want to keep your home address
private, you may give a dtfierent mailing address instead You do not
Fm in court name and street addressSuperior Court of California, County of
have to give telephone, fax, or e—mail.):
Addrws:
-
-
Clty.
Santa Clara
P0 Box 560042
/ 9/ ”0271'.”
l
MA e.
/ 9/
-
.
Medford
State.
Telephone:
.
02156
w
56546@pr0t0nmail.com
in
?N’
MI] 27724::
me
005,6,
I
Court fills
Restrained Person
Full
.9
II
dz V: L
Fax:
E-Mail Addrfis:
NO
CA 757/;
66 orkf/rlajé
case number when fotm is filed.
c3”;
8"‘32:;Owé 7
Name: Aaron Jacob Greenspan
Description:
Sex:
E M D
Hair Color:
Weight:
Height:
Brown
Home Address
City:
F
500 Race
Age: 35
Race:
4321
Street, Suite
San Jose
Smte:
Relationship to Protected Person:
E
Brown
Eye Color:
(ifknown):
Date ofBinh:
This individual
is
continuously harassing
CA
Zip:
951
L6
me
Additional Protected Persons
In addition to the person
named
in
®, the following family or household members ofthat person are protected by
the temporary orders indicated below:
FullName
S£(
M/m y Mar H.4/ZAz/ér
$1640
AWN
D
gummy
Household Member? Relation to Promcmd Person
5;
,6
Mfls-‘erzauaf
Age
g
Yes
1:)
Yes
a
wzre
No
M
a
M Lo ammm
9v;
fflr/rem
Jog?“
No
Check here D’there are additionalpersons. List them on an attached sheet ofpaper and write “Attachment
"
as a title. You may useform MC-025, Attachment.
3—
Additional Protected Persons
®
77w court will complete the rest ofthisform.
Expiration Date
This Order
Date:
wires at the end oflhe hearing scheduledfar the date and time below:
m‘n“
24 2018
Time:
This
mfimfimfi
ucm Hm. meme 5m
-W~°°::m“'°'
ooo-
WWW.)
ss
is a
q-S!
2
m
a.m.
p.m.
Court Order.
Temporary Restraining Order (CLETS-TCH)
(Civil
D
Harassment Prevention)
CH-"Ov
Pane
1
0'5
‘9
Case Number:
/J’c#oo 8067/
'
Whether or not you file a response, you should attend the hearing. Ifyou have any witnesses, they must also go to the
hearing.
At
'
the hmring, the judge can
make twining
orders against you that last for up to five years. Tell thejudge
why you
disagree with the orders requested.
Instructions for
Law Enforcement
Enforcing the Restraining Order
This order
is
verified
existence
enforceable by any law enforcement agency that has received the order,
is shown a copy of the order, or has
on the California Recuaining and Protective Orders System (CARPOS). If the law enforcement
agency has not received proofof service on the resnained person, the agency must advise the restrained person of the
terms of the order and then must enforce it. Violations ofthis order are subject to criminal penalties.
its
Start Date
and End Date of Orders
This order starts on the date next to the judge’s signature on page 4. The order ends on the expiration date in item
page l.
Arrest Required
if
Order
ls
@
on
Violated
If an officer has probable cause to believe that the restrained petson
had notice ofthe order and has disobeyed the order,
the ofiicer must arrest the restrained person. (Pen. Code, §§ 836(c)(1), 13701(b).)
violation ofthe order may be a
violation of Penal Code section 166 or 273.6. Agencies are encouraged to enter violation messages into CARPOS.
A
NoticelProof of Service
The law enforcement agency must
first detemtine ifthe remained person had notice ofthe order. Consider the restrained
person “served” (given notice) if(Pen. Code, § 836(c)(2)):
°
An
The omcer sees a copy ofthe Proof of Service or confirms that the Proof of Service
The remained person was informed ofthe order by an officer.
officer can obtain information about the contents ofthe order and proof of service in
is
on
file; or
CARPOS.
If proof of service
on
the restrained person cannot be verified, the agency must advise the restrained person ofthe terms ofthe order and then
enforce
If
it.
the Protected Person
Even
Contacs the Restrained Person
protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person, this order remains in efi'ect and must
be enforced. The protected person cannot be arrested for inviting or consenting to contact with the restrained person. The
if the
order can be changed only
WJM‘-2°‘7-
WM
by another court
order. (Pen.
Code, § 13710(b).)
This
a Court Order.
is
Temporary Restraining Order (CLEl'S-TCH)
(Clvll
Harassment Prevention)
CH-"O- Pace 5 0‘6
'9
PDF Page 30
Case Number:
/?c://ooréo
?—
Conflicting Orders—Priorities for Enforcement
If more than one restraining order has been issued, the orders must be enforced according to
the following priorities (see Pen. Code, § 136.2; Fam. Code, §§ 6383(h)(2), 6405(b)):
l. EPO: If one ofthe orders is an Emergency Protective Order (form BPO-OOI) and is more
restraining or protective orders,
3
‘
2.
No
Contact Order: Ifthere
is
it
has precedence in enforcement over
no EPO, a no-contact order that
is
all
restrictive
than other
other orders.
included in a restraining or protective order has
precedence over any other mtraining or protective order.
3.
Criminal Order: If none ofthe orders includes a no contact order, a domastic violence protective order issued in a
criminal case takes precedence in enforcement over any conflicting civil court order. Any nonconflicting terms of
4.
Family, Juvenile, or Civil Order: If more than one family, juvenile, or other civil restraining or protective order
the civil restraining order
remain in efl'ect and enforceable.
has been issued, the one that
was issued
last
must be enforced.
(Clerk wiIIfiII out this part.)
—C|erk's Certificate—
Clerk’s Certificate
[3301]
I
certify that this
original
on file
Temporary Restraining Order
Date:
Clerk,
This
“WWW
‘-2°"-""“‘°" ‘°"“
is
a u'ue and correct copy ofthe
in the court.
is a
by
Deputy
Court Order.
Temporary Restraining Order (CLETS-TCH)
(Civil
,
Harassment Prevention)
CH4“. P3995 °f6
PDF Page 31
EXHIBIT C
Respondent’s June 26, 2018 United Airlines Tickets from San Jose, CA to Cleveland, OH
and September 5, 2018 United Airlines Tickets from Cleveland, OH to San Jose, CA
PDF Page 32
PRINTED IN U.S.A. BY MAGNETIC TICKET & LABEL CORP., DALLAS, TX
PRINTED IN U.S.A. BY MAGNETIC TICKET & LABEL CORP., DALLAS, TX
— | oar 136
ua 346
GREENSPAN / AARON
UA
SAN JOSE TO CHICAGO
U6 20ti(i‘is — BOARDING BEGINS: SEAT
41.04 amare BOARDING
SJC-GRD 3 1:24P CUP Group
TUE JUNE 26 2018 GATE MAY CHANGE BOARDING ENDS: 1:44 PM WINDOW
FLIGHT DEPARTS: 1:59 PM ECONOMY 3
FLIGHT ARRIVES: 8:19 PM
CONFIRMATION: P|
TICKET: 016
ua 976) 0
GREENSPAN / AARON
UA-»
CHICAGO TO CLEVELAND
UAS76 at” er BOARDING BEGINS: = caT
APM fir o.frnn AAA BOARDING
VAD - LE oO.JVUr ~“tFA = GROUP
TUE JUNE 26 2018 BOARDING ENDS: 9:10 PM WINDOW |
FLIGHT DEPARTS: 9:25 PM ECONOMY | 3
FLIGHT ARRIVES:11:41 PM
—s |
TICKET: 016
UNITED Sy a 58
x. UA 467 ECLE@@13
GREENSPAN/ AARON
x i
=
eo
Cleveland to Denver
STAR ALLIANCE MEMBER ¥ ms
UA 467 GATE BOARDING BEGINS SEAT
CLE-DEN C25 4:09pm 27D ‘nove
WED @5 SEP 2018 Gate May Change Boarding Ends: 4229 PM aisle A
Flight Departs: 4:44 PM economy
Flight Arrives: 5:54 PM
Confirmation: mz
PDF Page 33
25A
49
UA 2122
GREENSPAN/AARON
UA-*****
Denver to San Jose, CA
GATE
UA 2122
DEN-SJC
Wednesday, September 05,
2018
Not Yet
Assigned
BOARDING BEGINS
SEAT
6:35 PM
25A
Boarding ends: 6:55 PM
Window
Flight departs:
Flight arrives:
Economy
7:10 PM
8:42 PM
Confirmation:
Ticket:
Have you downloaded the United app?
Check your flight status, watch movies and TV shows in flight directly on your device, and more. Download at united.com/app
Bag check must be completed no later than 45 minutes before departure. You must be at the boarding gate at least 15 minutes prior to departure. Failure to
be at the boarding gate by the required time could result in the loss of your seat without compensation, regardless of whether you are already checked in or
have a confirmed seat. Refer to United's Contract of Carriage at united.com for more information about United's terms and conditions.
PDF Page 34
EXHIBIT D
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067
February 28, 2019 Hearing Transcript Excerpt Concerning “Sealed” Materials
PDF Page 35
1
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
3
DEPARTMENT 11
4
BEFORE HONORABLE CAROL OVERTON, JUDGE
5
6
AARON GREENSPAN,
Petitioner,
7
8
9
10
11
vs.
DIEGO MASMARQUES,
Respondent,
And related cross-request.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 18CH008067
12
13
14
San Jose, California
February 28, 2019
15
16
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A P P E A R A N C E S:
For the Plaintiff:
Timothy B. Broderick,
Attorney at Law
For the Defendant:
Diego MasMarques,
In Propria Persona
24
25
26
27
Reported by:
28
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 36
20
1
Here we have clear and convincing evidence.
2
be established that there is a strong probability or
3
likelihood, and it's difficult for the Court to conclude
4
that absent some additional information.
5
MR. MASMARQUES:
6
THE COURT:
7
MR. MASMARQUES:
So it has to
Yes, Your Honor.
So you can proceed.
Go ahead.
So, Your Honor, would you like
8
me to go through the documents?
9
THE COURT:
Well, I think that before you do
10
that, why don't you sort of summarize.
11
primary issue was at least initially was publication of
12
information about criminal history that essentially was
13
confidential in nature and had been sealed and that
14
Mr. Greenspan was violating the law or certain court
15
directives that that information not be published or
16
disseminated; right?
17
MR. MASMARQUES:
Yes.
I think that your
For example, there was one
18
case, a Social Security case, I applied for when I came
19
back to the United States, but I dismissed it after, like,
20
two years.
21
judge, I requested that it be sealed or --
I dismissed it.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. MASMARQUES:
And I requested from the
That what be sealed?
That case be sealed.
And it was
24
approved, and I was told by the clerk that only the parties
25
involved directly in that case will be able to access the
26
Social Security case.
27
Mr. Greenspan's website, PlainSite.org.
28
files weren't opened, on the bottom of each file or each
And lo and behold I found my case on
And although the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 37
21
1
date there was a -- Mr. Greenspan left on the bottom a
2
little -- this word "requests."
3
request the documents from Mr. Greenspan, and he will be
4
able to acquire them for you, if you wanted to see them.
5
6
7
THE COURT:
In other words, you can
What was the basis for sealing of the
court file in that matter?
MR. BRODERICK:
Your Honor, we do move to strike
8
the testimony that there was a sealing.
9
evidence of that.
10
MR. MASMARQUES:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. BRODERICK:
13
14
There has been no
No, not a sealing.
Well, if the records were sealed -In fact, they were never sealed.
There was nothing that -THE COURT:
Well, you can cross-examine him.
You
15
can rebut it.
16
obviously if there's a court order, that would be the most
17
useful evidence to the Court.
The Court is not going to strike it.
But
18
The objection, however, is overruled.
19
So what was it about that Social Security case that you
20
feel was confidential that would warrant a sealing order?
21
Just help me understand in plain terms.
22
MR. MASMARQUES:
23
personal -- you know, just personal.
24
personal case.
25
THE COURT:
Yeah.
Essentially it's
You know, it is a
Are you saying that the case should
26
have been redacated to eliminate identifying information
27
like your Social Security number, or are you saying there
28
was some basis to seal the entire record because of the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 38
22
1
subject matter?
2
saying is confidential and not subject to publication?
3
need to know that.
4
5
MR. MASMARQUES:
THE COURT:
that are protected.
MR. MASMARQUES:
9
THE COURT:
10
THE COURT:
MR. MASMARQUES:
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT:
Social Security number, or you're not
sure?
MR. MASMARQUES:
I'm not sure if it was in there
or not.
THE COURT:
Okay.
So you're saying some
identifying -MR. MASMARQUES:
Like, information, like, date of
birth, for example.
THE COURT:
Information e.g., date of birth, but
you're not sure what else.
26
MR. MASMARQUES:
27
THE COURT:
28
I don't recall at this point,
Your Honor.
18
19
Like Social Security number or some
other type of number?
16
17
Also I had, like, identifying
information.
14
15
Yes.
What else besides medical documents?
MR. MASMARQUES:
12
13
Yeah, basically it had personal
So you are saying medical documents
8
11
I
medical documents in there.
6
7
What was it about that file that you are
Yeah.
And the judge --
But how did you know that
Mr. Greenspan was going to make that information available
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 39
23
1
in an unredacted version as opposed to making it available
2
in some redacted version?
3
I'm trying to find out if the case in its entirety was
4
protected by some confidentiality or whether it was just
5
certain information, like, you know, date of birth --
6
that's what you mentioned -- or Social Security number or
7
something else that was confidential in nature.
8
9
10
MR. BRODERICK:
We also have a relevance
objection because there has been no showing that any Social
Security case was ever published.
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. MASMARQUES:
13
14
15
16
17
18
Well, it's just his testimony.
Mr. Greenspan has been
acquiring -- if I may just side track real quick.
Mr. Greenspan got a hold of the police report from the
Marlborough District Court.
THE COURT:
Well, now you're on to a different
topic so hold that aside for just a minute.
You're telling me about him publishing information from
19
a case that was sealed.
20
Security case.
21
documents that would be confidential by law.
You described it as a Social
You indicated that there were some medical
22
MR. MASMARQUES:
23
THE COURT:
24
Yes.
As well as possibly some identifying
information, but you're not sure exactly what that was.
25
What else, if anything, about what you called the
26
Social Security case in your estimation was confidential
27
and should not have been published?
28
MR. MASMARQUES:
It's -- the main things are the
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 40
24
1
medical documents.
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. MASMARQUES:
4
THE COURT:
information about your medical history?
MR. MASMARQUES:
8
THE COURT:
9
MR. MASMARQUES:
10
No, he has not.
He did not.
THE COURT:
No, he did not, Your Honor.
So what did he do that you believe
was improper and harassing?
12
13
That's the main thing.
And are you saying that he published
7
11
Yeah.
Mr. Greenspan should not be accessing any of that.
5
6
Medical documents.
MR. MASMARQUES:
He posted the Social Security
case online.
14
THE COURT:
Okay.
And then that takes me back to
15
my original question:
16
Security case -- you're calling the Social Security case
17
protected in terms of confidentiality.
18
documents, or was it something else as well?
19
20
In what aspect was that Social
MR. MASMARQUES:
Was it the medical
It's been a while since I looked
at it but the medical document, I guess.
21
THE COURT:
Medical documents.
22
Now you can move on to the other matter, which is the
23
criminal history, because you had started to mention that
24
as well.
25
MR. MASMARQUES:
26
THE COURT:
So --
And again my understanding was that
27
you had said that the information was sealed, but I'm not
28
sure why it would need to be confidential.
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 41
82
1
and I'm just describing what he's already described.
2
talked about charges and fees.
3
out of this, but we need to move on.
4
MR. BRODERICK:
5
THE COURT:
6
Q.
He's
And I'll be glad to step
I'm trying, Your Honor.
All right.
BY MR. BRODERICK:
Do you have any evidence that
7
Mr. Greenspan posted anything about your Social Security
8
case?
9
A.
Yes, I do.
10
Q.
What is that?
11
12
And does that document purport to
be a docket?
A.
13
I'm not exactly sure what this is.
THE COURT:
Listen, Counsel, if you don't want
14
the Court to step in, you're going to have to take
15
ownership here.
16
to know whether it's been marked or whether it needs to be
17
marked or whether -- wait a second -- or whether you're
18
asking the question just based on the witness's personal
19
recall because we have a record to protect here.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
If we're referring to a document, I need
And it's 4:30, and we need to conclude
cross-examination.
So please go ahead and make sure we have a clear record
here.
THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, with all due respect,
you've already seen this, and you know this exists.
THE COURT:
You're ignoring the Court's
admonition here.
THE WITNESS:
Oh, sorry.
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 42
90
1
THE WITNESS:
This is the same one as before.
2
A lot of these are duplicate.
3
There is something on top of this one so I can't
4
5
6
actually read it.
These are more newspaper articles from Spain, which are
already in the public domain and, therefore, not my words.
7
THE COURT:
Well, let's not editorialize at this
8
point because you're going to have ample opportunity to
9
expand your arguments.
10
Why don't you see if you can
factually respond.
11
THE WITNESS:
This tweet says from PlainSite on
12
November 6th, 2018, that Mr. MasMarques has marked with a
13
Post-It, Meet convicted murderer Diego MasMarques.
14
writes this crazy stuff ten times a day.
15
And we have a restraining order.
16
17
It's not true.
And finally -- this is the same one actually, and
that's the last Post-It.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. MASMARQUES:
20
Okay.
There are other things in there
that he didn't read, Your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
That's fine.
But we're conducting --
22
you know, we can let this become a free for all.
23
do that.
24
the same opportunity you had.
25
more questions for him then I will return to you.
26
27
28
He
Q.
This is examination of Mr. Greenspan.
BY MR. BRODERICK:
Let's not
Now he has
Let's see if counsel has any
Did you post any Social
Security cases about Mr. MasMarques?
A.
So not selectively or intentionally as he has
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 43
91
1
alleged.
2
PlainSite.
3
he filed against the Social Security Administration.
4
There are roughly 11 million dockets on
And one of them does appear to be a case that
I think he may be conflating the difference between a
5
docket and a document.
6
on -- I don't know if it is marked yet -- but based on one
7
of the papers in his binder, there was it appears an
8
electronic order issued by the court in that Social
9
Security case that said that as a general rule in federal
And it would appear that based
10
court, documents in Social Security cases are protected and
11
are under seal.
12
PlainSite never actually posted any documents.
13
Security dockets are publicly available.
14
that docket appears on PlainSite.
15
16
THE COURT:
It is not --
without documents that are deemed confidential?
THE WITNESS:
18
THE COURT:
20
And so that's why
So you're saying it is a docket
17
19
Social
Correct.
Got it.
If we don't wrap up in the next five minutes, we are
going to have to schedule another session.
21
MR. MASMARQUES:
22
trying to do, Your Honor.
23
THE COURT:
That's what I think they are
Well, let's not go there, okay?
24
Everybody has an entitlement to be heard including you,
25
Mr. MasMarques.
26
Q.
27
that you --
28
BY MR. BRODERICK:
THE COURT:
We heard Mr. MasMarques say
How do you pronounce your last name?
LISA L. BROWN, CSR
License Number CSR 13148
PDF Page 44
EXHIBIT E
PlainSite E-Mail Notices to Diego MasMarques, Jr.
Denying Search Engine Suppression Requests
PDF Page 45
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 44JX7ZA Response
March 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 44JX7ZA
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding US v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite Team
PDF Page 46
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 44KHCTH Response
March 1, 2017 at 5:07 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 44KHCTH
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding US v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite Team
PDF Page 47
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 471YV0L Response
March 7, 2017 at 2:17 AM
Diego MasMarques 87764a@gmail.com
PlainSite Request 471YV0L
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding 24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1286, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P
31,415 Diego Mas Marques v. Digital Equipment Corporation, and Digital
Equipment Gmbh has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
PDF Page 48
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 4747EDD Response
March 7, 2017 at 2:17 AM
Diego MasMarques rickymas@msn.com
PlainSite Request 4747EDD
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding USA v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
The PlainSite Team
PDF Page 49
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
PlainSite Request 49P1PLN Response
March 13, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Diego MasMarques rickymas@msn.com
PlainSite Request 49P1PLN
Response
Thank you for getting in touch with us about your docket on PlainSite. After
reviewing the details of your request and the associated docket, we have come to
the following decision:
Your request regarding USA v. MasMarques has been denied.
Based on our research, the following factors were used to make this determination:
There is a presumption of public access to court records and you have not
identified a compelling privacy interest. "'Historically, courts have recognized a
‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’' Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 'This right is justified by the interest of citizens
in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’' Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Access to judicial records, however, is not absolute. Id.
A party seeking to seal a pleading or a dispositive motion (as well as any
attached exhibits) must show that there are 'compelling reasons' to do so and
that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure." See also Doe v. Lee, Docket
No. 23, and Eng v. Pacermonitor.com et al.
You have been involved in more than one case in our database.
Your case involves a serious criminal charge.
This appears to be a duplicate of a request we have already handled.
If you do not agree with our decision, please keep in mind that you still may have
several options, including filing a motion, such as a motion to seal, before the court
or administrative agency responsible for the records in question. Typically
individuals are not required to hire lawyers to file such motions, and examples are
available on PlainSite.
You can also consult our Privacy Policy to learn more about why public access to
government records is important, and how we make our decisions.
Best regards,
PDF Page 50
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
rick rickymas@icloud.com
URL removal
May 2, 2017 at 3:04 PM
greenspan@post.harvard.edu
Hi Aaron,
Would like to speak to you about the removal of two or three URL’s posted by your website. I would like to sign up for your services
and could make a donation, in order to have these URL’s removed.
Thanks,
Rick
6174168670
PDF Page 51
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
PlainSite Help Line help@plainsite.org
Re: URL removal
May 2, 2017 at 3:13 PM
rick rickymas@icloud.com
Hi Rick,
If you are inquiring about Diego MasMarques’s cases, they will not be removed without a court order as per our policy.
As for your offer of a bribe, we decline.
Aaron
PlainSite | http://www.plainsite.org
PDF Page 52
EXHIBIT F
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067
October 8, 2018 Hearing Transcript Excerpt Concerning Service of Counter-TRO
PDF Page 53
1
1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
3
THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. RYAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
4
---oOo---
5
6
7
8
9
10
AARON GREENSPAN, et al,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Versus
)
)
DIEGO MASMARQUES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
No.18CH8067
11
12
13
14
15
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
16
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
17
OCTOBER 9, 2018
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES:
26
For the Plaintiff:
In Pro Per
27
For the Defendant:
In Pro Per
28
Official Court Reporter:
Kathryn A. Keay, CSR
CSR No. 7915
PDF Page 54
2
1
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
2
3
OCTOBER 9, 2018
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT:
Numbers 1 and 2 on the
4
9:00 o'clock calendar, Aaron Greenspan and Diego
5
MasMarques.
6
7
8
9
10
MR. MASMARQUES:
Mr. MasMarques, present,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
And apparently you have been
authorized to appear by phone by Judge Overton for
this proceeding.
My understanding was --
11
MR. MASMARQUES:
12
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
-- that was due to the fact that
13
you were going to be requesting a continuance for
14
proof of service on Mr. Greenspan; is that correct?
15
MR. MASMARQUES:
16
THE COURT:
17
Good morning, sir.
18
MR. GREENSPAN:
19
THE COURT:
20
Mr. Greenspan is present.
of these actions?
MR. GREENSPAN:
22
THE COURT:
24
25
26
Good morning.
Have you been served with notice
21
23
That's correct, Your Honor.
I have not.
Are you prepared to proceed,
notwithstanding that?
MR. GREENSPAN:
I am, for the purpose of
refuting the allegations being made.
THE COURT:
So there's a cross-request.
27
There's a request to terminate the restraining order
28
that you obtained and there's a cross-request that's
PDF Page 55
3
1
been granted.
2
Mr. MasMarques is attempting to secure a
3
temporary restraining order against you.
4
understand that?
5
MR. GREENSPAN:
6
THE COURT:
I do.
So you are, in essence,
7
accepting service of those matters?
8
the paperwork?
9
Do you
Have you received
Are you aware of what --
MR. GREENSPAN:
I never actually received
10
the paperwork.
11
because I was never properly served, so I am prepared
12
to proceed.
13
in that paperwork.
14
15
But again, I completely refute everything
THE COURT:
Mr. MasMarques, how long would
you anticipate these two matters taking?
16
17
I attempted to obtain it myself
MR. MASMARQUES:
I apologize, Your Honor.
You mean for a continuance?
18
THE COURT:
Mr. Greenspan, in essence, has
19
accepted service of the documents and is prepared to
20
proceed is what he is indicating.
21
We are not going to be able to do that today
22
with you on the telephone, so we need to discuss the
23
next step.
24
MR. MASMARQUES:
25
THE COURT:
26
27
28
Okay.
Do you have copies of the
restraining order?
MR. GREENSPAN:
Not in front of me.
I do
have exhibits that would prove that everything in
PDF Page 56
4
1
those documents is essentially false.
2
THE COURT:
So since you are accepting
3
service, I think we will just provide you with those
4
documents so that you have them the next time.
5
6
Sir, are you planning to be in the state
sometime soon?
7
MR. MASMARQUES:
8
THE COURT:
9
MR. MASMARQUES:
Me, Your Honor?
Yes, you.
Yes, I can fly out there.
10
I can fly out there.
11
but I was told since I didn't have the papers served
12
on Mr. Greenspan that, you know, it wouldn't make
13
sense to go out there.
14
going to be there or not.
15
I actually had a ticket today,
But I wasn't sure if he was
But he is fully aware of everything.
He has
16
a website where he collects people's legal documents.
17
And he has everything on there, so he's been fully
18
aware of this since day one.
19
THE COURT:
He's indicated that he is
20
prepared to go forward and he is accepting proof of
21
service.
22
actual documents so there's no issue when the matter
23
is set.
24
So we are just going to provide him with the
What I need to know is what is your
25
anticipation as to the amount of time this matter will
26
take?
27
28
MR. MASMARQUES:
California?
You mean to fly out to
PDF Page 57
EXHIBIT G
October 2018 Twitter Posts Concerning Petitioner
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Twitter notify@twitter.com
Your Twitter account has been suspended
October 17, 2018 at 6:46 PM
PlainSite help@plainsite.org
Hello PlainSite,
Your account, PlainSite has been suspended for
violating the Twitter Rules.
Specifically, for:
Violating our rules against posting private
information.
You may not publish or post other people's private
information without their express authorization and
permission.
PlainSite
@PlainSite
We don't think journalists should be subject to
restraining orders in an effort to shut them up. (We also
think Santa Clara County litigants are entitled to
electronic access to documents all non-sealed court
cases—especially their own!) https://[...]
Note that if you attempt to evade a permanent
suspension by creating new accounts, we will suspend
your new accounts. If you wish to appeal this
suspension, please contact our support team.
Twitter, Inc. 1355 Market Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94103
EXHIBIT H
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CH008067
Excerpt of Petitioner’s December 4, 2018 Filing
PDF Page 64
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
-------
On
I
Original
Message
Thursday, October
------~
18,
hope you are 0k and not
Below
is
201 8 4:07 PM, Amir
Noy
wrote:
upset.
were you submit complaints
to Twitter.
Make you
tell
them
its
a gdpr violation.
https://help.twinet.com/forms/abusiveuser
5)
Here are the documents from pacer
From:
Amir Noy
Compose t0
Add to contacts
Copy address
See contact details
Thursday, August 30, 2018 7:4]
To: 56546
PM 08/30/201 8
To
56546 56546@pro(onmail.com
o
Size: 16.3
Custom
MB
Filter
o
Filter on:
o
Subject
r.
a
Sender
l.
o
Recipient
l.
o
Attachments
(3
months ago)
PDF Page 65
Next
Move
to
Move
to
Create a
new
folder
Label as
Label as
No
labels
Create label
”"
? Create a
new
label
Also Archive
l.
Apply
Reply Reply all Forward M_oie_
Move to inbox Move to trash Mark as unread Mark as spam Report phishing View source code
View rendered HTML View headers Export Print
Show
details
Hide
details
This message contains remote content
Load
This message contains embedded images
Load
Before I sent you the court dockets from his website. However
mother fucker. He has hiding some pages.
----------
From:
Date:
Forwarded message
---------
Amir Noy
Thu, Aug 30, 201 8, 4:37 PM
Subject:
To: Amir
16.27
Noy
MB 4 files attached
l-lS-mc-0007l-CAB
1-18-mc-0007l-CAB
(2).zip 144.81
KB
MB
MB
1-18-mc-00071-CAB (l).zip 2.56 MB
(3).zip 10.69
1-18-mc-0007l-CAB.zip 2.88
this is
from pacer. He
is
a crazy
PDF Page 66
EXHIBIT I
Translated Articles Concerning Petitioner’s History of Criminal Harassment
PDF Page 67
December 9, 1999
Vasic: "The man who left my daughter in a coma is insatiable and very vengeful"
The father of the victim has traveled to Palma with his wife from Peru
J.FRANCISCO MESTRE
PDF Page 68
The father of the Yugoslav woman who is in a coma after being beaten by her ex-boyfriend,
waits uncertainly for the next few hours in the hope that her daughter will recover from this
injury. Dragoslav Vasic is an engineer and lives with his wife in Peru. Last Tuesday he
arrived in Mallorca to be with his daughter Tatiana in these difficult hours. The father is
aware that the state of the woman is increasingly delicate. The doctors have confirmed that
his trachea is broken, and that his brain has been too long without oxygen, so if he leaves the
coma, the sequelae can be important.
Both Tatiana's father and friends describe the man who has caused this tragedy as "intelligent
PDF Page 69
and cultured, but insatiable and vengeful."
The woman is the head of administration of a computer company and is also in charge of
controlling the quality of the products. Tatiana, at 35, is single. According to her friends, who
denied that she was pregnant, she met Diego MH a year ago in her own company. They went
out together for several months but their relationship was broken because the man (who is in
prison) was very jealous and was accusing her. «Tatiana changed the lock four times, but
Diego always managed to enter his house».
According to the relative, Tatiana was being mistreated since May. He tried to convince
Diego to go to a psychologist to receive help. Not only did he not want help but the man
"settled in Tatiana's apartment and she could not get him out of her house". She felt harassed
and very scared. In August he traveled to Peru to visit his parents. "Diego called by phone
every day six or seven times and had conversations of more than 20 minutes. My wife
decided to disconnect the phone, "said Dragoslav Vasic, who indicated that the calls were
made from the telephone in her daughter's apartment. «He left a telephone bill of more than
200 thousand pesetas that he did not want to pay». This harassment continued during the
following months. The woman decided to denounce Diego, presenting up to four complaints.
None of them was effective.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 70
December 12, 1999
The former girlfriend of the man who left her partner in a coma was also beaten
«I need to defend Tatiana Vasic because she can not do it»
RS-EFE
Tatiana Vasic was still admitted to the ICU of Son Dureta yesterday in a state of brain death,
although her lungs worked and her heart was still beating. The woman, assaulted last Sunday
by her former sentimental partner in Son Caliu, entered the state of clinical death at dawn last
Friday.
In relation to this case, a young woman of Swedish nationality who claims to have been the
girlfriend of Diego MH, the accused of assaulting Tatiana, declares to the agency Efe: "I need
to defend this girl because she (Tatiana Vasic) can no longer do it. We both have lived a hell
». This woman, 30, who prefers to remain anonymous, can not avoid seeing herself in the
mirror of the victim, whom she does not know, but with whom she feels solidarity since last
Monday she learned from the press that her former boyfriend He had been arrested for
assaulting her.
"We are two women to whom the madness of the same man turned our lives into an ordeal,"
he said in recounting the painful experience he had with Diego, in which he also suffered
physical and mental aggressions, harassment and persecution once he decided to abandon
him. . The coincidences in the love story of both make her think that she could also have
been the victim of a brutal beating, like Tatiana, and that is why she now believes that she
was saved "by a miracle".
Like Tatiana's workmates, she describes the aggressor as a "cultured, intelligent and kind
person" whose appearance would have made "fall into the trap" of anyone. "I fell in love with
Diego," he recounts, recalling the obsessive jealousy and the abrupt changes in behavior that
appeared at the beginning of their relationship and the vain attempts of his boyfriend to visit
a psychologist.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 71
December 18, 1999
The defendant of the crime of Son Caliu will be judged for homicide and ill-treatment
The lawyer of Diego Mas, who will also face a crime of trespassing, asks that the facts
be reconstructed
J. FRANCISCO MESTRE
Diego Mas maintained yesterday a most strange behavior. Upon his arrival at the
courts, he covered his face so as not to be photographed or filmed by the cameras, but
then changed his attitude and appeared before the judge and the prosecutor with his
face uncovered. Photo: FERRAN CARBONELL.
Diego Mas Howard, the man accused of killing his former partner in a house in the area of
Son Caliu, Calvià, will be charged with three crimes.
The detainee was taken yesterday before the judge Piedad Marín, of the number 4 examining
court of Palma, who announced that he would be tried by a popular jury. In this preliminary
hearing, which is carried out as established in the jury law, were present, in addition to the
accused and the judge, the prosecutor José Zaforteza, the lawyer of the private prosecution,
Eduardo Valdivia, and the defense counsel, Francisco Mas Oller . The public prosecutor
PDF Page 72
announced to the detainee that he was going to impute three crimes: homicide, burglary and
habitual mistreatment. The private accusation, which represents the victim's parents, Tatiana
Vassic, coincided with the prosecutor on the crimes he was going to impute to the detainee.
Diego Mas Howard manifested incoherent phrases when he was in the corridors of the
courthouse and was heading towards the dungeons. He wanted to make it clear that he was
opposed to a mother aborting, without anyone asking her opinion on this issue.
Francisco Mas, the defense lawyer, ruled out that the death of the Yugoslav woman should be
framed in the crime of homicide, but considers that it was an accident. The lawyer, who is
based on the version explained to him by his client, considers that the woman fractured her
trachea by randomly hitting a table or a chair in her apartment. For this reason, the defense
has asked the judge to order a reconstruction in the apartment of Son Caliu, to specify how
the events took place.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 73
'HFHPEHU
The accused of killing Tatiana was arrested another two times for hitting women
The suspect of the last crime of mistreatment in Balears has a conviction of a court
Diego Mas, the accused of killing Tatiana Vasicen the last episode of ill-treatment in the
Balearic Islands, was arrested on at
least two occasions in the US for
beating women. Relatives direct Diego
Mas, who have identified in this
newspaper but ask to remain
anonymous, report that when the
defendant lived in Boston
(Massachusetts), the police arrested
him twice, for hitting two young
people who were his fellow
sentimental. These people claim that,
afterwards, Diego Mas had problems
of the same characteristics in Miami
(Florida), and that he is the father of a
daughter who was born from a
relationship with another woman.
Diego Mas Howard was taken to the Court on
Friday.
father, and was denounced for trespassing.
When asked if he was tried in
Massachusetts for the two aggressions,
the relatives say no. "When he had to
hold the first trial went to Germany,
which is where his father then
resided", they say. The aforementioned
persons add that the aggressions for
which he was arrested in Boston
occurred when Diego was about 24
years old. The man came to Mallorca
from Germany three years ago and
rented a flat in Carrer del Carmen, in
Palma. Later he moved to another
apartment on Botons Street with his
Since he has lived in Mallorca, Diego Mas has been convicted on one occasion for pursuing
another ex-girlfriend and ramming him with his car. The ruling is dated November 30 of last
year and was issued by Judge Antoni Rotger, of the Criminal Court No. 1 of Palma. The
judge finds you guilty of a lack of injuries.
PDF Page 74
The events occurred on October 16, 1997. The ruling states that Diego Mas was driving with
his car when he noticed the presence of his former partner. The woman was driving in a car
driven by another man. Diego Mas started a persecution. Mas rammed the man with his car
and caused erosions and bruises on his right hand and left thigh. The victim in this case
assured that Mas had subjected him to an overwhelming situation after the rupture.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 75
February 12, 2000
A lawyer believes that the judge influenced the jury for the conviction of the crime of Son Caliu
The events occurred on December 5, 1999 and Diego Mas was sentenced to 15 years in
prison
JFMESTRE
The Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands must decide if Diego Mas Howard, who
was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend in Son Caliu, had a fair trial and if the judge
could influence the jury to convict the accused. These were the arguments presented by the
lawyer who has assumed the defense of Diego Mas, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison
for the death of Tatiana Vassic. The lawyer who defended the defendant at the trial resigned
to represent him at the appeal hearing. Diego Mas has changed his lawyer five times.
The new lawyer asked the judges to acquit Diego Mas of the crimes of homicide and
burglary. The appeal is based on the fact that it was an accidental death, and he recalled that
the forensic report is not conclusive about the causes of death. The lawyer raised the novelty
that the body of the victim had a bacterium, which was not analyzed, but that the defense
believes had a great influence on his death. The defense also argued that the sentence handed
down by the judge lacked proof of charge, and considered that his client had suffered
defenselessness. He complained that nobody believed his version, and accused the judge of
predisposing the jury against the defendant. Prosecutor José Zaforteza accused the lawyer of
questioning the impartiality of the judge, and asked the court to reject the arguments and
ratify the ruling. The lawyers of the accusation, Eduardo Valdivia and Francisca Arrom,
maintained the same position. The events occurred on December 5 of last year.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 76
July 20, 2000
Forensics do not clarify if Tatiana died from an accident
The prosecutor says that the defendant, Diego Mas, is a "jealous sick man" who never
accepted that the victim wanted to leave him
J.FRANCISCO MESTRE
Forensic doctors could not clarify yesterday if Tatiana Vassic, the Yugoslav woman who died
after having a dispute with her ex-boyfriend, died when she received a direct blow to the
trachea or died by accident, that is, could slip and hit a piece of furniture . This is the main
question that doctors had to clear in the trial being held (which was yesterday seen for
sentencing) against Diego Mas Howard, who is accused of homicide and two crimes of
breaking and entering.
The forensic explained that in an injury like the one presented by the victim time always runs
against him. Therefore, if you do not attend immediately, the neurological injuries are very
serious. The doctors explained that the most logical thing is that the woman had received a
direct blow, or even been strangled, but neither do they rule out other possibilities. This lack
of definition was used yesterday by defense lawyer Juan José Cano de Alarcón to influence
the jury that Diego Mas can not be sentenced for a crime of homicide because there was no
evidence to that effect.
Prosecutor José Zaforteza announced yesterday that he accused Diego Mas of a homicide and
two trespassing charges (before the trial he only accused him of one) and requested a 17-year
prison sentence. The attorney for Tatiana's family, Eduardo Valdivia, charged the same
crimes as the prosecutor, but asked for a higher sentence of 21 years in prison. Francisca
Arrom, representing the Dones Lobby, joined the prosecutor's proposal.
PDF Page 77
July 22, 2000
Sentenced the man who hit his ex-girlfriend after entering his house
In a decision of eight votes in favor and one against, the jury reached yesterday a
verdict of guilt against Diego Mas Howard for homicide
J. FRANCISCO MESTRE
PDF Page 78
Guilty of homicide and burglary. So strong is the verdict reached yesterday by the popular
jury that has pronounced sentence on the death of the Yugoslavian Tatiana Vasic, the woman
who lost her life after being beaten by her former sentimental partner, the defendant Diego
Mas Howard. This man, born in the United States but with a Spanish passport, listened
yesterday as the spokesman of the popular jury read the document that gathered the verdict
reached. Guarded by two police officers, the defendant barely reacted when the decision that
led him to serve almost five years in prison was known.
Eight of the nine members of this jury have considered proven that on December 5 of last
year Diego Mas Howard went to the home of Tatiana Vassic in the morning. The woman had
bought a house in the area of Son Caliu, in Calvià, and had maintained a sentimental
relationship with Diego Mas, but that had been over for months. The woman felt harassed by
her ex-boyfriend, whom he had denounced for death threats, and had also suffered some
PDF Page 79
aggression committed by the accused. The woman had changed the lock of her house to
prevent Diego from settling back on the floor. However, in September, when Tatiana traveled
to Yugoslavia to visit her family, Diego hired a locksmith and changed the lock on the floor,
replacing the old one.
According to the decision of the jury, which had to resolve more than 30 issues raised by the
lawyers, on the day of the events Diego Mas entered Tatiana's house and did so by breaking
the chain of the door. Therefore, he committed a crime of trespassing. Then he argued with
the victim, who started screaming and asking for help.
A sentence of 21 years in prison. This is the proposal made yesterday by lawyer Eduardo
Valdivia, who has exercised the representation of Tatiana's parents as an accusation in this
trial. The family of the deceased resides in Peru and the lawyers preferred not to mention the
parents to the trial because they are very affected by the loss of their daughter and by the
circumstances of how it has occurred.
Currently there are no comments.
PDF Page 80
EXHIBIT J
E-Mail From Jeffrey Steinport to Marlborough, Massachusetts Police Department
PDF Page 81
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Jeff Steinport jeff@js.gg
Fwd: Diego MasMarques
November 29, 2018 at 9:26 AM
Aaron Greenspan aaron.greenspan@plainsite.org
FYI
-Jeff Steinport
jeff@js.gg
----- Original message ----From: Jeff Steinport
To: "Sgt. Zachary Attaway" , "Sgt. Richard Gaudette"
Subject: Diego MasMarques
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:23:22 -0500
Hello Sergeants Attaway and Gaudette,
Aaron Greenspan asked me to reach out to you because I too have had experiences with Diego MasMarques. He was harassing me
because I used to run a web site that posted federal court docket information online. The site was called www.unitedstatescourts.org.
One of the major reasons I took it down was because of Mr. MasMarques' harassment.
Mr. MasMarques started contacting me around March or April of 2017. He sent me a series of threatening emails and called me a few
times, both my cellphone and my work phone. He even contacted my employer and attempted to interfere with my job. He also
contacted the State Bar of Arizona (I'm an attorney) and he filed multiple frivolous complaints against me that were summarily
dismissed.
At the time I worked with an officer from the Scottsdale, Arizona Police Department, who contacted Mr. MasMarques directly. The
direct contact ended at that time, but then Mr. MasMarques started posting harassing messages all around the Internet on such sites
as ripoffreport.com, making up things about me and accusing me of criminal activities.
Once I took my website down, the harassment stopped, but I kept in touch with Aaron because we were both experiencing similar
harassment from Mr. MasMarques.
I'm not sure if I can be of any help with your case against Mr. MasMarques, but please let me know if there's anything I can provide. I
saved all the emails from him and notes on my experiences.
Thanks,
-Jeff Steinport
jeff@js.gg
Back to 
