COURT TRASCRIPTS
|
#SHELied.
|
|
The following documents are court transcripts from 13 June 2016- 17 June 2016.
Suffice to say, we do not agree with our guilty conviction, and in our only real defense, will provide here detailed evidence that not only proves a wrongful conviction, but in the prosecution's attempt to attain a guilty verdict, ADA Angelica suborned perjury and both Ms. Shields and her husband Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court.
'Long story short, in order to convict and make an innocent man a criminal, the prosecution became the criminals in the process.'
The documents are posted solely to clarify the misuse of the judicial system by an individual who has used the justice system for her own agenda, and an Assistant District Attorney who built a case simply because it had to do with a celebrity which she believed it to be a career building case. In turn, we will not only prove her to be corrupt, but her gross misuse of power is nothing short of criminal.
Brooke Shields is on all accounts a constantly self proclaimed hyper-vigiliant, who on June 13 + 14, 2016 committed perjury as a result of her arrogance. She is believes to be entitled which is evident in her blatant disregard for the judicial system. In the proceeding court transcripts, I will prove without doubt that Ms. Shields and Co. has committed perjury and that ADA Angelica Gregory was complicit.
Brooke Shields employs a private security, Gavin deBecker & Co. Mr. de Becker for court purposes had gone to great lengths to libel me in their recreation of a time-line in a report titled 'Rinaldi Summary/ Confidential.' I know this to be so, based on what was written, and what was actually true. A lot of what was said in court were based on remarks I had made on line and lifted from several of my social media posts- several of which were unfounded and untrue to 'pacify' some on-line haters. Ms. Shields' social media presence was/ is very minimal as her fan base is in their 50's- and not the social media generation... Under oath, Mr. Brian Creter of Gavin deBecker had also revealed that under his/their watchful eye, that there are close to 3,000 individuals who are 'also' 'under suspicion' and are considered 'people of interest.' These 'people of interest' are individuals that Ms. Shields (and Mr. deBecker & Co. apparently) believes to be current threats and throughout the testimonies we will prove without reasonable doubt that the Assistant District Attorney has taken great lengths to create what was nothing more than a 'complaint-' 'spiteful-complaint' at that, and was into a much more news-worthy harassment/stalking case.
My ONLY contact was a 'neighborly act of kindness.'
'The first witness called was Brian Creter of security firm Gavin DeBecker & Associates, who said Shields, in 33 years, has had 2,930 "inappropriate pursuers" that his company is aware of. He said that his firm, which specializes in protecting public figures, aims to identify delusional superfans who purport to be in love with a celebrity.
The first letter to Shields from Rinaldi that his company reviewed said "in his own words that he's obsessed with Ms. Shields," Creter testified.
The court transcripts not only suggest, but state in Ms. Shields' own words that there was never a credible threat, nor was there ever a time when she was in any kind of danger. Nor was there ever an intent to cause harm or induce fear. The transcripts are a read of what was said in court under oath and by law a legal testimony of the truth with of the truth based on the penalty of law will also detail what had transpired, in a matter of speaking based not on fact, but by Ms. Shields' hyper-vigilance.
Throughout the trial itself, Ms. Shields had then gone into detail regarding a series of events that took place and essentially used her very own children as leverage, stating that it was on account of her children and their well-being was the reason for her filing a complaint. (I will also later prove that that wasn't the case at all, and will provide evidence to the contrary. Ms. Shields went to the police after I made a comment on social media telling her gay henchman to NOT touch my car after he had scratched it by acting hostile.). She then goes into detail about how her children were targeted, and how she was in fear. This, of course is absurd.
Ms. Shields would later testify and tell the court, 'once you bring my children into it, then all bets are off.' In this case, all bets are off is equivalent to her then committing perjury in order to create a situation that would not otherwise fall under the guidelines of a crime. And in doing so, Ms. Shields & Co. are the very people to actually commit the crime. She later goes into detail involving alleged toys for her children. This she knew not to be true as well. The 'toys for her children.' were referenced many times throughout the 4day trial as being from Sandy Hook and they were only sent to Ms. Shields temporarily and were to be returned to Newtown. (at least 3 if not 4 witnesses for the prosecution would go on to testify that supports my truth, as the truth. Not Ms. Shields' deliberate lie.)
We are a grass-roots effort trying to #STOPGuSchoolViolence and in doing so had become aligned with Newtown, CT post The Sandy Hook Massacre. From the day of the massacre, 12 December 2012 our every thought has been to prevent mass-shootings, and every action afterwards has been to do just that. We can also prove without doubt that the only reason we even got on Ms. Shields radar was after an attempt to return a gift that originally belonged to Ms. Shields' mother, Teri. The gift was a silver heart framed picture of a 2year old Brooke, that Mrs. Shields had given to me at an event some 30years ago. In my defense, I lost my father on 2 November, 2012 and anything of his became highly sentimental. Upon learning that Mrs. Shields had also passed away, I found it befitting that I return the favor. Again, 30 years ago Mrs. Shields gave me a heartfelt gift to comfort me. I thought returning it to a more rightful owner would also give comfort.
It did not.
In 2014, Ms. Shields' publicity team had created a publicity campaign that consisted of dozens of personal appearances to promote an upcoming book launch. Through social media, Ms. Shields' followers were all notified of her up-coming book launch and given an RSVP invite. In New York City alone, there were 3 or 4 specific events.
The 3 that I recall were to attend were:
If one was a super-fan, I'd assume that there would be an RSVP to all invitations- I RSVP'd to two. The most intimate was the 'Have Lunch With Brooke' event at the publisher's head-quarters which I did not attend. If I was the super-fan/the obsessive, the 'lunch' would be 'the' event to attend- it was a small gathering for maybe 50 people..
The book was the story of Ms. Shields' life which had gone unread for a number of reasons. For one, the world does not need to know of one's sexploits and the other most aspects of people's lives should remain private. Inspiration is one thing, being mass produced for mass consumption is quite another. That said, I'm not one for biographies- unless it's someone like FDR, a Hillary Clinton, or a Mark Rothko. Essentially, people of that caliber are people who inspire. To write a book solely for social consumption, to me seems undignified. And if they choose to do so, they then lose their right to complain when the public takes interest. Should they exaggerate/lie of suspected interest, then they're not only incorrigible, but sociopathic.
For the record, I find fame abohorrent. Not only is it indulgent to write about one's own fame its also reprehensible. I truly believe that 'celebrity' is everything that's wrong with the world. Unless, you're someone like Oprah, Bono, or a Tom Brady- people who's humanity outshines their talents. These types of individuals are not only awe-inspiring but are the truest heroes. To write about losing one's virginity to Superman or eluding to a torrid affair with Liam Neeson? I have to ask, what is the purpose? Is it to sell more books by provocation? If so, then in that aspect one would be nothing more than a joke- a joke with a pay-check. Now, it you're writing about having a mental illness and are doing so to help bring about awareness and therefore create much needed knowledge, then well done! I'm sure juicy/salacious tid-bits are adapted as a solicitation, but don't be surprised when all the world imagines how does one walk then after 'such a week-end? Yes, we are all aware and have heard that Liam has a huge cock, big deal. My point is really??
The point is that people's private lives should remain private. And if you still feel a need to 'over-share' then don't be reactive when people become familiar with you.
A special mention: While preparing for this trial, I did eventually read Brooke's book and it was there that I realized the significance of the gift I returned to Brooke and why it was such an issue for her. It also goes to the misinformation. You cannot state under oath about not knowing something, when you clearly did. Ms. Shields' clearly knew the gift I tried to re-gift had originally belonged not only to her mother, but she stated that she had even created it herself. The silver heart-shaped framed 2year old Brooke was not significant to me, so I thought it would be better off belonging to someone who found it significant.
In all the correspondences/ ALL 2.. we were never perceived as a threat, and had no reason to correspond with Ms. Shields and we hadn't. It was only after running into a neighbor regarding child safety did we even register.
'I've lived in the same cities as Ms. Shields for over 30 years. Ms. Shields' behavior is not only offensive, but in the matter that she behaved is nothing short of criminal. If she believed us to be an illegitimate non-profit, then she should've reported us. And if we acted under a false pre-tense, then the DA's office would've indicted us as a result. So, I guess a thank you is in order.. But, again at what cost??
The only way to #STOPGunSchoolViolence is to work in collaboration- not to criminalize those of us who dedicate lives to service.
Throughout the 4 days of testimony, 2 days of transcripts have finally been made available to us from Legal Aid.
Each transcript page lists what was said in court, and then notes are made in accordance based on fact vs. fiction.
I would NOT ever accept a plea in which it demands are me lying in court. I am not a criminal.
Suffice to say, we do not agree with our guilty conviction, and in our only real defense, will provide here detailed evidence that not only proves a wrongful conviction, but in the prosecution's attempt to attain a guilty verdict, ADA Angelica suborned perjury and both Ms. Shields and her husband Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court.
'Long story short, in order to convict and make an innocent man a criminal, the prosecution became the criminals in the process.'
The documents are posted solely to clarify the misuse of the judicial system by an individual who has used the justice system for her own agenda, and an Assistant District Attorney who built a case simply because it had to do with a celebrity which she believed it to be a career building case. In turn, we will not only prove her to be corrupt, but her gross misuse of power is nothing short of criminal.
Brooke Shields is on all accounts a constantly self proclaimed hyper-vigiliant, who on June 13 + 14, 2016 committed perjury as a result of her arrogance. She is believes to be entitled which is evident in her blatant disregard for the judicial system. In the proceeding court transcripts, I will prove without doubt that Ms. Shields and Co. has committed perjury and that ADA Angelica Gregory was complicit.
Brooke Shields employs a private security, Gavin deBecker & Co. Mr. de Becker for court purposes had gone to great lengths to libel me in their recreation of a time-line in a report titled 'Rinaldi Summary/ Confidential.' I know this to be so, based on what was written, and what was actually true. A lot of what was said in court were based on remarks I had made on line and lifted from several of my social media posts- several of which were unfounded and untrue to 'pacify' some on-line haters. Ms. Shields' social media presence was/ is very minimal as her fan base is in their 50's- and not the social media generation... Under oath, Mr. Brian Creter of Gavin deBecker had also revealed that under his/their watchful eye, that there are close to 3,000 individuals who are 'also' 'under suspicion' and are considered 'people of interest.' These 'people of interest' are individuals that Ms. Shields (and Mr. deBecker & Co. apparently) believes to be current threats and throughout the testimonies we will prove without reasonable doubt that the Assistant District Attorney has taken great lengths to create what was nothing more than a 'complaint-' 'spiteful-complaint' at that, and was into a much more news-worthy harassment/stalking case.
My ONLY contact was a 'neighborly act of kindness.'
'The first witness called was Brian Creter of security firm Gavin DeBecker & Associates, who said Shields, in 33 years, has had 2,930 "inappropriate pursuers" that his company is aware of. He said that his firm, which specializes in protecting public figures, aims to identify delusional superfans who purport to be in love with a celebrity.
The first letter to Shields from Rinaldi that his company reviewed said "in his own words that he's obsessed with Ms. Shields," Creter testified.
- 'maybe when I was 14... I had admitted to 'falling in love on a Blue Lagoon, and playing some 'Risky Business' as well.
- 'the 'first' letter to Brooke was also identified from being from 1981.
The court transcripts not only suggest, but state in Ms. Shields' own words that there was never a credible threat, nor was there ever a time when she was in any kind of danger. Nor was there ever an intent to cause harm or induce fear. The transcripts are a read of what was said in court under oath and by law a legal testimony of the truth with of the truth based on the penalty of law will also detail what had transpired, in a matter of speaking based not on fact, but by Ms. Shields' hyper-vigilance.
Throughout the trial itself, Ms. Shields had then gone into detail regarding a series of events that took place and essentially used her very own children as leverage, stating that it was on account of her children and their well-being was the reason for her filing a complaint. (I will also later prove that that wasn't the case at all, and will provide evidence to the contrary. Ms. Shields went to the police after I made a comment on social media telling her gay henchman to NOT touch my car after he had scratched it by acting hostile.). She then goes into detail about how her children were targeted, and how she was in fear. This, of course is absurd.
Ms. Shields would later testify and tell the court, 'once you bring my children into it, then all bets are off.' In this case, all bets are off is equivalent to her then committing perjury in order to create a situation that would not otherwise fall under the guidelines of a crime. And in doing so, Ms. Shields & Co. are the very people to actually commit the crime. She later goes into detail involving alleged toys for her children. This she knew not to be true as well. The 'toys for her children.' were referenced many times throughout the 4day trial as being from Sandy Hook and they were only sent to Ms. Shields temporarily and were to be returned to Newtown. (at least 3 if not 4 witnesses for the prosecution would go on to testify that supports my truth, as the truth. Not Ms. Shields' deliberate lie.)
We are a grass-roots effort trying to #STOPGuSchoolViolence and in doing so had become aligned with Newtown, CT post The Sandy Hook Massacre. From the day of the massacre, 12 December 2012 our every thought has been to prevent mass-shootings, and every action afterwards has been to do just that. We can also prove without doubt that the only reason we even got on Ms. Shields radar was after an attempt to return a gift that originally belonged to Ms. Shields' mother, Teri. The gift was a silver heart framed picture of a 2year old Brooke, that Mrs. Shields had given to me at an event some 30years ago. In my defense, I lost my father on 2 November, 2012 and anything of his became highly sentimental. Upon learning that Mrs. Shields had also passed away, I found it befitting that I return the favor. Again, 30 years ago Mrs. Shields gave me a heartfelt gift to comfort me. I thought returning it to a more rightful owner would also give comfort.
It did not.
In 2014, Ms. Shields' publicity team had created a publicity campaign that consisted of dozens of personal appearances to promote an upcoming book launch. Through social media, Ms. Shields' followers were all notified of her up-coming book launch and given an RSVP invite. In New York City alone, there were 3 or 4 specific events.
The 3 that I recall were to attend were:
- AOLBuild event.
- Barnes & Noble book signing.
- A lunch at the publisher's corporate head-quarters.
If one was a super-fan, I'd assume that there would be an RSVP to all invitations- I RSVP'd to two. The most intimate was the 'Have Lunch With Brooke' event at the publisher's head-quarters which I did not attend. If I was the super-fan/the obsessive, the 'lunch' would be 'the' event to attend- it was a small gathering for maybe 50 people..
The book was the story of Ms. Shields' life which had gone unread for a number of reasons. For one, the world does not need to know of one's sexploits and the other most aspects of people's lives should remain private. Inspiration is one thing, being mass produced for mass consumption is quite another. That said, I'm not one for biographies- unless it's someone like FDR, a Hillary Clinton, or a Mark Rothko. Essentially, people of that caliber are people who inspire. To write a book solely for social consumption, to me seems undignified. And if they choose to do so, they then lose their right to complain when the public takes interest. Should they exaggerate/lie of suspected interest, then they're not only incorrigible, but sociopathic.
For the record, I find fame abohorrent. Not only is it indulgent to write about one's own fame its also reprehensible. I truly believe that 'celebrity' is everything that's wrong with the world. Unless, you're someone like Oprah, Bono, or a Tom Brady- people who's humanity outshines their talents. These types of individuals are not only awe-inspiring but are the truest heroes. To write about losing one's virginity to Superman or eluding to a torrid affair with Liam Neeson? I have to ask, what is the purpose? Is it to sell more books by provocation? If so, then in that aspect one would be nothing more than a joke- a joke with a pay-check. Now, it you're writing about having a mental illness and are doing so to help bring about awareness and therefore create much needed knowledge, then well done! I'm sure juicy/salacious tid-bits are adapted as a solicitation, but don't be surprised when all the world imagines how does one walk then after 'such a week-end? Yes, we are all aware and have heard that Liam has a huge cock, big deal. My point is really??
The point is that people's private lives should remain private. And if you still feel a need to 'over-share' then don't be reactive when people become familiar with you.
A special mention: While preparing for this trial, I did eventually read Brooke's book and it was there that I realized the significance of the gift I returned to Brooke and why it was such an issue for her. It also goes to the misinformation. You cannot state under oath about not knowing something, when you clearly did. Ms. Shields' clearly knew the gift I tried to re-gift had originally belonged not only to her mother, but she stated that she had even created it herself. The silver heart-shaped framed 2year old Brooke was not significant to me, so I thought it would be better off belonging to someone who found it significant.
- If I was an obsessive, I'd assume something so rare and valuable would not have been given away so freely- just saying...
- One might argue that Mrs. Shields was 'safer' in this facility and that she needed 24/7 care, but so did my father.
In all the correspondences/ ALL 2.. we were never perceived as a threat, and had no reason to correspond with Ms. Shields and we hadn't. It was only after running into a neighbor regarding child safety did we even register.
'I've lived in the same cities as Ms. Shields for over 30 years. Ms. Shields' behavior is not only offensive, but in the matter that she behaved is nothing short of criminal. If she believed us to be an illegitimate non-profit, then she should've reported us. And if we acted under a false pre-tense, then the DA's office would've indicted us as a result. So, I guess a thank you is in order.. But, again at what cost??
The only way to #STOPGunSchoolViolence is to work in collaboration- not to criminalize those of us who dedicate lives to service.
Throughout the 4 days of testimony, 2 days of transcripts have finally been made available to us from Legal Aid.
- For the record, we have requested our file from Legal Aid for almost 2years. NOTHING. N O T H I N G, but 2 days of court transcripts. (which are still incomplete...)
Each transcript page lists what was said in court, and then notes are made in accordance based on fact vs. fiction.
- Please bare in mind that for close to 2years, a plea of a disorderly conduct had been offered and strongly forced upon me. Given the severity of such an event and seeing how terrorizing harassment and stalking are, the mere fact that the prosecution minimized it so much by offering such a measly plea, I find it not only irresponsible of the prosecution, but incredibly offended.
- It too is also criminal to suborn perjury..
I would NOT ever accept a plea in which it demands are me lying in court. I am not a criminal.
False claims of stalking, and delusions of persecution
See also: False accusations and Persecutory delusions. In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims. In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false. [2] The CDC reported that in 2015, there were 7.5 million reports of stalking, of those 7.5 million, the CDC had colcluded that 11.6% cases were unfounded which equates to 663,000 people wrongfully accused.
According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions, stating that "after eight uncertain cases were excluded, the false reporting rate was judged to be 11.5%, with the majority of false victims suffering delusions (70%)." [3] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%. [4]
News reports have described how groups of Internet users have cooperated to exchange detailed conspiracy theories involving coordinated activities by large numbers of people called "gang stalking". [5] The activities involved are described as involving electronic harassment, the use of "psychotronic weapons", and other alleged mind control techniques. These have been reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems, as opposed to reports of objective phenomena.[6] Some psychiatrists and psychologists say "Web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking" are "an extreme community that may encourage delusional thinking" and represent "a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment."[7][8]
A study from Australia and the United Kingdom by Lorraine Sheridan and David James [9] compared 128 self-defined victims of 'gang-stalking' with a randomly selected group of 128 self-declared victims of stalking by an individual. All 128 'victims' of gang-stalking were judged to be delusional, compared with only 3.9% of victims of individual-stalking. There were highly significant differences between the two samples on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational function, with the self-declared victims of gang-stalking more severely affected. The authors concluded that "group-stalking appears to be delusional in basis, but complainants suffer marked psychological and practical sequelae. This is important in the assessment of risk in stalking cases, early referral to psychiatric services and allocation of police resources."
See also: False accusations and Persecutory delusions. In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims. In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false. [2] The CDC reported that in 2015, there were 7.5 million reports of stalking, of those 7.5 million, the CDC had colcluded that 11.6% cases were unfounded which equates to 663,000 people wrongfully accused.
According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions, stating that "after eight uncertain cases were excluded, the false reporting rate was judged to be 11.5%, with the majority of false victims suffering delusions (70%)." [3] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%. [4]
News reports have described how groups of Internet users have cooperated to exchange detailed conspiracy theories involving coordinated activities by large numbers of people called "gang stalking". [5] The activities involved are described as involving electronic harassment, the use of "psychotronic weapons", and other alleged mind control techniques. These have been reported by external observers as being examples of belief systems, as opposed to reports of objective phenomena.[6] Some psychiatrists and psychologists say "Web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking" are "an extreme community that may encourage delusional thinking" and represent "a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment."[7][8]
A study from Australia and the United Kingdom by Lorraine Sheridan and David James [9] compared 128 self-defined victims of 'gang-stalking' with a randomly selected group of 128 self-declared victims of stalking by an individual. All 128 'victims' of gang-stalking were judged to be delusional, compared with only 3.9% of victims of individual-stalking. There were highly significant differences between the two samples on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational function, with the self-declared victims of gang-stalking more severely affected. The authors concluded that "group-stalking appears to be delusional in basis, but complainants suffer marked psychological and practical sequelae. This is important in the assessment of risk in stalking cases, early referral to psychiatric services and allocation of police resources."
|
|
#PEOPLELie4CONTROL+POWER
Narcissistic Personality DisorderSome lies maintain the facade of the False Self: the perfect, superior self the narcissist thinks she is or pretends to be.
On a more conscious level, lies are central to: * Staying in power and keeping things under control * Keeping the flow of narcissistic supply (adulation by others, which are like ambrosia to the NP) * Satisfying the grandiose, entitled self * Avoiding any shame if their status is not as high in reality as they think it should be * Minimizing the onerous possibility of having to concern himself with your needs. |
COURT TRANSCRIPTS DAY 1.
June 13, 2016. JOHN RINALDI vs. BROOKE SHIELDS.
pages 1-96.
Proof of Perjury + Subornation of Perjury.
#SHELied.
pages 1-96.
Proof of Perjury + Subornation of Perjury.
#SHELied.
On 5 May 2015, Ms. Shields goes across the street to report harassment. Earlier in that day I did have a run-in with Ms. Shields and informed her that I had parked in front of her house and revealed that that space in particular was the only space available. Well, I would imagine you're asking why I would bother someone with something so trivial. For one, her husband and I had spoken just a few short months prior, and he had informed me that Ms. Shields was a private person. In my offering up the spot was to one be 'neighborly' and two her assistant had been rather abusive. Those of us in the West Village don't see celebrity, we see neighbors... Looking back, I now see that I was stupid, but honestly I had no way of knowing how unbalanced she was. And that she carried a burden of some 3000 people who apparently had caused her to form a 'watch-list'. Suffice to say, celebrity is an awful burden and it often takes away a person's humanity. Had, I known I'd have for certain avoided her at all costs. All I knew was what her husband had said to me, 'not to worry about her. She was a private person.' But, back in 2003, Mr. Henchy said that I had to meet her after a brief introduction. It was then that she thanked me profusely after a kind gesture and told me she'd cherish a gift that was given to her and that it'd remain on her bedroom bureau... In 2014, after an AOL invite, I was told I was very sweet. Had I known Ms. Shields had held any contempt, you could be assured Id have stayed as far away as possible. No one should ever live in fear and all I knew is I couldn't harm a flea. My intentions were pure, I had wanted to #STOPGunSchoolViolence, and my heart broke fro the 26families in Newtown.
On 5 May 2015, Ms. Shields tells a police officer that she didn't want me arrested, nor that she had wanted any harm to come to me. She had also assured them that there had never been any kind of threat made or any provocation. (She will later re-cant and concoct a very unsettling and disturbing 'turn' of events.). Ms. Shields simply wanted the street to herself and after I was informed of her complaint, I did challenge the merit on social media. For, the record Ms. Shields lied in her initial complaint. She had told the police that I had always parked in front of her house. I maintain, that it happened only once. For the record, it is physically impossible to 'always' park anywhere. In addition, there was a dumpster on the street for a good six months so the only 8 spots of available parking was down to 4.
Stalking is based on intent- and my only intent has been to #STOPGunSchoolViolence and a need to explain myself to the community I had hoped to have made proud, Newtown, CT. For the record, any and all behavior post my police 'talking-to' was protected by law as a civil-right under the first amendment. My only intent was redemption. Which, the witnesses will also attest as you will see by the court transcripts below.
On 5 May 2015, Ms. Shields tells a police officer that she didn't want me arrested, nor that she had wanted any harm to come to me. She had also assured them that there had never been any kind of threat made or any provocation. (She will later re-cant and concoct a very unsettling and disturbing 'turn' of events.). Ms. Shields simply wanted the street to herself and after I was informed of her complaint, I did challenge the merit on social media. For, the record Ms. Shields lied in her initial complaint. She had told the police that I had always parked in front of her house. I maintain, that it happened only once. For the record, it is physically impossible to 'always' park anywhere. In addition, there was a dumpster on the street for a good six months so the only 8 spots of available parking was down to 4.
Stalking is based on intent- and my only intent has been to #STOPGunSchoolViolence and a need to explain myself to the community I had hoped to have made proud, Newtown, CT. For the record, any and all behavior post my police 'talking-to' was protected by law as a civil-right under the first amendment. My only intent was redemption. Which, the witnesses will also attest as you will see by the court transcripts below.
COURT TRANSCRIPTS DAY 2.
June 14, 2016. JOHN RINALDI vs. BROOKE SHIELDS.
Proof of Perjury + Subornation of Perjury.
In the first 14 pages alone, I've listed 15 counts of perjury. But, the best example of perjury is listed on Page 15 that discusses a conversation between myself and Ms. Shields husband, Chris Henchy. (see pdf document below title Rinaldi Confidential.) This document was compiled by Gavin deBecker & Co. (A security firm that is employed by Ms. Shields. In this document it lists behaviors that allegedly took place from 1983 through 2015. In this document are many listings I strongly deny while others clarify and give credence to what I've been saying all along.
For the record, I grew out of Brooke Shields just as I had also out-grown my boys size 12 Levi slims. In college, the only celebrity to adorn my wall was a Madonna's Playboy cover. And after college, I put up a Carol Alt poster. And Shaun Cassidy was prior to high-school.
For the record, I grew out of Brooke Shields just as I had also out-grown my boys size 12 Levi slims. In college, the only celebrity to adorn my wall was Madonna's Playboy cover. And after college, I put up a Carol Alt poster. Shaun Cassidy was prior to high-school.
|
|
|
I strongly contest the following:
***This is a prime example of manufactured, after-the fact evidence. That said, they should've been smarter in the preparation for court. The last entry clearly contradicts reality, hence Ms. Brooke Shields, and Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court, and having full knowledge of this, ADA Angelica Gregory therefore suborned perjury 'for-the-win!'
- I never said that I was going to visit Princeton.
- I never attempted to obtain her phone number, it was however provided when Mrs. Shields had befriended my father.
- I did take my father's car in November 1984, after I was physically abused by my father. I took his car from Massachusetts to upstate New York where my parents had grown up, and where our extended family had lived.
- I was never stopped by any police, or there would have been a police report. The mere mention of a Colt .357 is absurd and unfounded. Here, in my opinion was a fabricated fact for the sole purpose to provoke. I drove directly from my family home in Boxborough, MA to Cortland, NY where I stayed with my Aunt Laurel for 2 weeks after being beaten by my father.
***This is a prime example of manufactured, after-the fact evidence. That said, they should've been smarter in the preparation for court. The last entry clearly contradicts reality, hence Ms. Brooke Shields, and Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court, and having full knowledge of this, ADA Angelica Gregory therefore suborned perjury 'for-the-win!'
COURT TRANSCRIPTS DAY 2. Pages 1-30.
BROOKE SHIELDS vs. JOHN RINALDI
THANKS TO GAVIN DE BECKER FOR PROVING PERJURY IN RELEASING THIS REPORT.
By the way, we are told that there are close to 3000 other 'Summaries' like this/mine. I can now see why someone would be so off-balanced, and be a self-proclaimed hyper vigiliant. I can also see how even the simplest gesture can be taken out of context. With 3000 reports, everything must all blend.
By the way, we are told that there are close to 3000 other 'Summaries' like this/mine. I can now see why someone would be so off-balanced, and be a self-proclaimed hyper vigiliant. I can also see how even the simplest gesture can be taken out of context. With 3000 reports, everything must all blend.
THANKS TO GAVIN DE BECKER FOR PROVING PERJURY IN RELEASING THIS REPORT.
However, I strongly contest the following:
In the 2years it took ADA Angelica Gregory, I would think a good prosecutor would've stuck to the facts or at least what had been written and released in discovery. But, as with ALL LIARS, it's tough to keep the stories straight.
***This is a prime example of manufactured, after-the fact evidence. That said, they should've been smarter in the preparation for court. The last entry clearly contradicts reality, hence Ms. Brooke Shields, and Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court, and having full knowledge of this, ADA Angelica Gregory therefore suborned perjury 'for-the-win!'
- I never said that I was going to visit Princeton.
- I never attempted to obtain her phone number, it was however provided when Mrs. Shields had befriended my father.
- I did steal my father's car in November 1984, after I was physically abused by my father and took it from Massachusetts to upstate New York where my parents had grown up.
- I was never stopped by any police, or there would have been a police report. The mere mention of a Colt .357 is absurd and unfounded. Here, in my opinion was a fabricated fact for the sole purpose to provoke. I drove directly from my family home in Boxborough, MA to Cortland, NY where I stayed with my Aunt Laurel for 2 weeks after being beaten by my father. My father did call and speak with Mrs. Shields, about my running away. But, there was never any fear of any possible threat. My dad was just worried because I wasn't yet licensed. Again, had I been pulled over by any police, and NOT having a license, there would've been a record. If there was a fire-arm, I assume I would also then be taken into custody. Which, of course I wasn't because there was nothing reported.
- If I professed any love or admiration, I was a 14year old boy. Also note, that the 'fan-letter writing' began in 1983 and ended in 1984.
- On 11/18/87, Gavin de Becker lists that I attended an event at Nishi Restaurant whereas I was a guest of the restaurant manager himself. And he's the one who had invited me. In court Brooke had stated that it was for her 18th birthday and that I had 'crashed' her party. Brooke's birthday, by the way is in May.
- On 1/21/89, they say I was 'looking forward to seeing a lot of Ms. Shields. This too is another exaggeration. No one was seeing Brooke anywhere. And to be honest, I was in Los Angeles, and for all I know Brooke was in NY. Which according to her book she was. So, this would be impossible at any stretch.
- in '94, I was living in Boston and had never admitted to being obsessed or relentless. This also contradicts the 'Confidential' Rinaldi Summary,'' in 1991, I had started my advocacy work by joining Young Artists United, an organization for children. It does mention that if correspondence was not appreciated that it would cease. Which by their own account it had.
- Clearly, this was a haphazard attempt to establish a pattern of instability. But, in doing so proves all along that:
- I was a fan from 1981 when I joined a fan club that solicited it's members for an annual fee.
- It established that I was advocating on behalf of children.
- Mr. Henchy, Ms. Shields perjured themselves in court, and ADA Angelica Gregory suborned perjury.
In the 2years it took ADA Angelica Gregory, I would think a good prosecutor would've stuck to the facts or at least what had been written and released in discovery. But, as with ALL LIARS, it's tough to keep the stories straight.
***This is a prime example of manufactured, after-the fact evidence. That said, they should've been smarter in the preparation for court. The last entry clearly contradicts reality, hence Ms. Brooke Shields, and Mr. Chris Henchy perjured themselves in court, and having full knowledge of this, ADA Angelica Gregory therefore suborned perjury 'for-the-win!'
COURT TRANSCRIPTS DAY 2. Pages 31-50.
BROOKE SHIELDS vs. JOHN RINALDI
