Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lih Bin Shih, Petitioner v. Nathan Brooks Parnell

Supreme Court briefNov 10, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Minute Order of the Superior Court of California, August 8, 2018

APPENDIX B

Fourth Appellate District, Division One, California, filed March 25, 2020

APPENDIX C

Fourth Appellate District, Division One, California, denying Petition for

Rehearing, filed May 7, 2020

APPENDIX D

Supreme Court of California denying Petition for Review, filed June 17, 2020

APPENDIX E

California Code of Civil Procedures § 527.6 on Civil Restraining Order

APPENDIX F

California Rules of Court 8.137 & 8.124 on Oral Record in the absence of

a Court Reporter

APPENDIX G

Military Regulations on Military Uniforms

APPENDIX H

Settled Statement on Appeal, Superior Court of California, filed October 18, 2018

APPENDIX I

Marine Corps Letter (Email)

APPENDIX J

HOA Enforcement (Email)

APPENDIX K

Email Count

APPENDIX L

Evidence of Untampered and Tampered Emails

APPENDIX M

Second Amended Minute Order

APPENDIX N

Second Minute Order Court Record

APPENDIX O

Third Minute Order per Rule 8.124

10a

24a

25a

26a

27a

29a

31a

42a

43a

44a

46a

53a

60a

68a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 08/08/2018

TIME: 08:30:00 AM

PRESIDING: Richard S. Whitney

CLERK: Jerry Montano

REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported

BAILIFF/CQURT ATTENDANT: J. Jones

DEPT: C-61

SaII SK 37-201.8-00036217-CU-PT-CTL CASE INITIATE: 07/20/2018

CaII

BCASkI

EVENT TYPE: Hearing on Petition to Stop Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse

APPEARANCES..............

“

—---------- -----Lih-Bin Shih, self represented Petitioner, present

Nathan Brooks Parnell, self represented Respondent, present.

Julie Parnell, self represented Respondent, present

Attorney Christopher Mordy for respondent

Attorney Sammer Zakhour for petitioner

Parties, as noted above, are sworn to testify on their behalf.

Court notes matter is heard along with related case #18-3816.

At the direction of the Court, the matter is trailed for counsel to confer off the record.

Counsel inform the Court that an agreement cannot be reached. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

The Court having fully considered the arguments of all parties both

written and oral, as well as the

evidence presented, now rules as follows:

Restraining order as requested is denied with in its entirety.

Judge Richard S. Whitney

DATE: 08/08/2018

DEPT: C-61

MINUTE ORDER

Page 1

Calendar No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 08/08/2018

TIME: 08:30:00 AM

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard S, Whitney

CLERK: Jerry Montano

REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: J. Jones

DEPT: C-61

CAS| NOy$7-2018-OQ033816-CU-HR-CTL CASE I NIT, DATE: 07/10/2018

CASE CATEGORY6Civf-ttenmited96^

CASE TYPE: Harassment

EVENT TYPE: Hearing on Restraining Order

APPEARANCES

.........

Nathan Brooks Parnell, self represented Petitioner, present.

Lih Bin Shih, self represented Respondent, present

Julie Tucker Parnell, Protected Person is present.

Attorney Christopher Mordy for petitioner.

Attorney Sammar Zakhour for respondent.

Parties, as noted above, are sworn to testify on their behalf.

Court hears this matter with related case #18-36217.

At the direction of the Court, the matter is trailed so counsel can confer off the record.

Counsel inform the Court they cannot reach agreement. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

ISiHon^lliaVint9iUlly confidered f,he arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the

evidence presented, now rules as follows:

The Matter Comes Before the Court for a Hearing on Restraining Order.

Itectronteallyf°rmS thB p9rtieS th3t tWs matter is not bein9 reported b7 a court reporter or recorded

After careful review of the entire record, the Court now rules as follows:

The Court finds that the Petitioner has met the high burden of proof that is required. The Petitioner has

DATE: 08/08/2018

DEPT: C-61

MINUTE ORDER

Page 1

Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Parnell Vs. Shih [Imaged]

CASE NO: 37-201S-0033816-CU-HR-CTL

&idence under CCP Sec 527 6 et se<1 Thcre,ore' "»

The Court's decision is based on the law that governs CCP 527.6 et seq

ssui

^sfirx^Ks^sis^Pe,i,ioner must make

order as requested against Lih Bin Shih is granted with a 5 yards staiy away order to expire

;

The formal order was signed this date.

Judge Richard S. Whitney

DATE: 08/08/2018

DEPT: C-61

MINUTE ORDER

Page 2

Calendar No,

Civil Harassment Restraining

Order After Hearing

CH-130

pe/* stumps data ham when fbrmis ffietf.

E D

FCleik ofI ft# SujKKior

Court

Person in (7) mist complete items(T),(|), a»£? (3) only.

Person

Your Full Name: NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL

AUG (18 2018

By. J. Montano. Deputy

Your Lawyer (ifyou hove one for this cose)

Name: ___

State Bar No.:

Firm Name:

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 different mailing address instead. You do not

have to give telephone, fax. or e-mail)

Address: 11040 CAMINITO VISTA PACIFICA______

City: SAN DIEGO

State: CA

Telephone:_______ _

E-Mail Address:_____

Fax:

Zip: 92131

Fill in court name and street address:

Superior Court of California, County of

SAN DIEGO

330 W BROADWAY

SANDIBGOCA 92101

CENTRAL

Court ids in case number when form is fried

Case Number

37*2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

(jj) Restrained Person

Full Name: LIH-B1N SH1H

Description:

Sex □ M IS F Height: £1

Weight: 200

Date of Birth: UNK

Hair Color: BLK ________ Eye Color. ....

BRN

_______ Age: 70___ Race: ASIAN

Home Address (ifknown): 11042 CAMfNTQ VISTA PACIFICA________

City: SAN DIEGO

State: CA

Zip: 92131

Relationship to Protected Person: NEIGHBOR

(T) 0 Additional Protected Persons

In addition to the person named in (J), the following family or household members of that person are protected by

the orders indicated below:

Full Name

JULIE TUCKER PARNELL

§S£

CASON GEORGE PARNELL

Age

>w ai

m Yes □ No WIFE__________________

lev rel

0 Yes □ No SON___________ _

□ Check here ifthere are additional persons. List them on an attached sheet ofpaper and write "Attachment 3—

Additional Protected Persons” as a title. You may useformMC-025, Attachment

(J) Expiration Date

This Order, exceptfor any award oflawyer’sfees, expires at

Time:

□ a.m. □ p.m. ® midnight on (date): 8/7/2021

If no expiration date is written here, this Order expires three years from the date of issuance.

This is a Court Order.

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

coa^cM

Approved

by DOi

fCLETS-CHO)

{CM! Harassment Prevention)

CH-130, Page 1 of 0

Case Number: I

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

(?) Hearing

a. There was a hearing on (date): Aug 8,2018

(Name ofjudicial officer): R. WHtTMEY

b. These people were at the hearing:

at (time): 08:30am

in Dept: 61

Room:

........................... made the orders at the hearing.

(1) [xj The person in (J). (3) Q The lawyer for the person in (T) (name):

(2) i) I'he person in(2). (4) Q The lawyer for the person in (2) (name):

□ Additional persons present are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment: 5.

c. □ The hearing is continued. The parties must return to court on (date):

l_at (time):

To the Person in [12

The court has granted the orders checked below- If you do not obey these orders, you can be arrested

and charged with a crime. You may be sent to jail for up to one year, pay a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

(?) USD- Personal Conduct Orders

a. You must not do the following things to the person named in (j)

O and to the other protected persons listed in (5):

(1) EO Harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit, abuse,

destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace of the person.

(2) ® 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 interoffice mail, by e-mail, by text message, by fax,

or by other electronic means.

(3) @ Take any action to obtain the person’s address or location. If this item (3) is not checked, the court has

found good cause not to make this order.

(4) O Other (specify}:

Q Other personal conduct orders are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment 6a(4).

b. Peaceful written contact through a lawyer or process server or other person for service oflegal papers related to

a court case is allowed and does not violate this Order.

(7) @ Stay-Away Orders

s* You must stay at least___ 5

yards away from (check all that apply):

(1) 0 The person in (1) .

(7) IS The place of child care of the children of

the person in(T).

(2) (xj: Each person- in (3).

(3) GO The home of the person in (T).

(8) 0 The vehicle of the person in (T).

(4) B The job or workplace of the. person (9) O Other (specify):

in(f).

(5) GO The school of the person in (T).

(6) 0 The school of the children of die

person in^f).

b. 'Phis stay-away order does not prevent you from going to or from your home or place of employment.

This Is a Court Order.

fewtaxi ternary 1,2018

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

CH-130, Page 2 of S

■p

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -eu-hr-ctl

a. You cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get guns,

other firearms, or ammunition,

]

b. Ifyou have not already done so, you must:

. Within 24 hours of being served with this Order, sell to or store with a licensed gun. dealer, or turn in to a

law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms in your immediate possession or control,

* File a receipt with toe court within 48 hours of receiving this Order that proves to at your guns or firearms

have been turned in, sold, or stored. (You may use form CH-800, Proof of Firearms Turned In, Sold, or

Stored, for the receipt.)

c. □ The court has received information tost you own or possess a firearm,

d. D The court has made the necessary findings Mid applies toe firearm relinquishment exemption under Code of

Civil Procedure section 527.9(f). Under California law, toe person in © is not required to relinquish this

firearm (specify make, model, and serial number offirearmfs)):______________

Hie firearm must be in his or her physical possession only during scheduled work hours and during travel to

and from his or her place of employment. Even if exempt under California law, toe person in © may be

subject to federal prosecution for possessing or controlling a firearm.

The person in__ must pay to toe person in ___ toe following amounts for

□ lawyer's fees

O costs:

Amount

Item

item

Amount

O Additional items and amou nts are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment 9,

a. □ The person in ©is given toe sole possession, care, and control of toe animals listed below, which are

owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by him or her, or reside in his or her household.

(Identify animals by, e.g„ type, breed, name, color, sex.)

b. Q The person in© must stay at least

yards away from, and not take, sell, transfer, encumber, conceal,

molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of, toe animals listed above.

□ Additional orders are attached, at toe end of this Order on Attachment .11,

!R«vi*ed.lmuj«y 1,2SI8

This is a Court Order

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

CH-130, Pags 3 of 6

Case Number;'?

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-cil

To the Person in

(12) Mandatory Entry of Order Into CARPOS Through CLETS

This Order must be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS) through the

California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). (Cheek one):

a. □ The clerk will enter this Order and its proof-of-service form into CARPOS.

b. 13 The clerk will transmit this Order and its proof-of-service form to a law enforcement agency to be entered

into CARPOS.

c. □ By the close of business on the date that this Order is made, the person in © or his or her lawyer should

deliver a copy of the Order and its proof-of-service form to the law enforcement agency listed below to

enter into CARPOS:

Name of Law Enforcement Agency

Address (City. State. Zip)

D Additional law enforcement agencies are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment 12.

(t$) Service of Order on Restrained Person

a. 0 The person in© personally attended die hearing. No other proof of service is needed.

b. 0 The person in © did not attend the hearing.

(1) 0 Proof of service of form CH-110, Temporary Restraining Order, was presented to the. court The

judge’s orders in this form are the same as in form CH-110 except for the expiration date. The person in

(2) □ The judge’s orders in this form are different from the temporary restraining otders in form CH-110.

Someone—but not anyone in© or©—must personally serve a copy of this Order on the person

in©

(t2) SO No Fee to Serve (Notify) Restrained Person

The sheriff or marshal will serve this Order without charge because;

a. 0 The Order is based on unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or stalking,

b. 0 The person in © is entitled to a fee waiver.

(l5) Number of pages attached to this Order, if any;

Date: August 8, 2018__________

Judicial Officer

RICHARD S. WfiiTMEf

This is a Court Order

RwijaS|snj»yt,»18

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

CH-130. Page 4 of S

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

Warning and Notice to the Restrained Person in 2JT

You Cannot Have Guns or Firearms

Unless item 8d: is cheeked, you cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to bay, receive or try to receive, or otherwise get

guns, other firearms, or ammunition while this Order is in effect. If you do, you can go to jail and pay a $1,000 fine, You

must sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer, or tom in to a law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms that

you have or control as staled in item (g) above. The court will require you to prove that you did so.

Instructions for Law Enforcemen

Enforcing the Restraining Order

This Order is enforceable by any law enforcement agency that has received the Order, is shown a copy of the Order, or

has verified its existence on the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS), If the law enforcement

agency has not received proof of service on the restrained person, and the restrained person was apt present at the court

hearing, the agency must advise the restrained person of the terms of the Order and then must enforce it Violations of

this Order are subject to criminal penalties.

Start Date and End Date of Orders

This Order starts on the date next to the judge’s signature on page 4 and ends on the expiration date in item(4)on page 1.

Arrest Required If Order Is Violated

If an officer has probable cause to believe that th e restrained person had notice of the order and has disobeyed it, the

officer must arrest the restrained person. (Pen. Code, §§ SBdfoXl), 13701(b).) A violation of the order may be a violation

of Penal Code section 166 or 273.6. Agencies are encouraged to enter violation messages into CARPOS.

Notice/Proof of Service

The law enforcement agency must first determine if the restrained person had notice of the order. Consider the restrained

person “served” (given notice) if (Pen. Code, § 836(c)(2)):

The officer sees a copy of the Proof ofService or confirms that the ProofofService is on file; or

The restrained person was at the restraining order bearing or was informed of the order by an officer.

An officer can obtain information about the contents of the order and proof of service in CARPOS. If proof of service on

the restrained person cannot be verified and the restrained person was not present at the court haring, the agency must

advise the restrained person of the terms of the order and then enforce it,

If the Protected Person Contacts the Restrained Person

Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person, this Order remains in effect and

must be enforced. The protected person cannot be arrested for inviting or consenting to contact with the restrained person.

The orders can be changed only by another court order. (Pen. Code, § 13710(b).)

This is a Court Order.

RtvtMKiJaniMy i. sms'

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

CH-130, Page SofS

case Number^

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

Conflicting Orders—Priorities of 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).) j

1, EPO: If one of the orders is an Emergency Protective Order (form. EPO-OO1) and is more restrictive that other

restraining or protective orders, it has precedence in enforcement over all other orders, J

2, No-Contact Order: If there is no EPO, a no-contact order that Is included in a restraining or protective order has

precedence over any other restraining or protective order.

3 . Criminal Order: If none of th e orders includes a no contact orde r, a domestic violence protective order issued in a

criminal esse takes precedence in enforcement over any conflicting civil court order. Any nonconfliclmg terms of

the civil restraining order remain in effect and enforceable,

4, Family, Juvenile, or Civil Order: If more than one family, juvenile, or other civil restraining or protective order

has been issued, the one that was issued last must .be enforced.

Clerk's Certificate

[seal]

(Clerk willfill out this part.)

—Clerk's Certificate—

I certify that this Civil Harassment Restraining Order Afiler Hearing ha true and

correct copy of the original on file in the court. .

Date; August 8.2018

Clerk, by

, Deputy

This is a Court Order.

Revi*xUanwHy1,20tt

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention}

CM 30, Pag® 6 of 6

Filed 3/25/20

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

pubik^tion^oreorderedUpub}lsdied^except*as spedfied'^mle ^j'll^bl^This'opinlon^as^not been'certified^oi^publiMition

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

___________________________________________

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL,

D074805

Plaintiff and Respondent,

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00033816CU-HR-CTL)

LIH BIN SHIH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S.

Whitney, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.

Law Offices of Rosemary Leonard and Rosemary Meagher-Leonard for Plaintiff

and Respondent.

Taylor Anderson and Christopher R. Mordy for Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff Nathan Parnell petitioned for a restraining order against his neighbor,

defendant Lili Bin Shih. Shih filed a cross-petition for a restraining order against Nathan

10 a

and his wife, Julie Parnell. 1 After a hearing, the court granted a restraining order to the

Parnells against Shih and denied Shih's restraining order against the Parnells. Shih

appeals from the order granted against her.

BACKGROUND

The court held a hearing on the cross-petitions on August 8, 2018. Nathan, Julie

and Shih all testified. The court admitted scores of e-mails from Shih to the Parnells,

Nathan's Marine Corps commanders, the Parnells' landlord, the homeowners' association

(HOA), and open letters to the entire HOA community about the Parnells. Shih's e-mails

to the landlord and the HOA generally copied each other and the Parnells. Shih sent

numerous e-mails directly or indirectly by copy to the Parnells from November 2017

through July 2018.

At the conclusion of the hearing the court granted the Parnells' request for a

permanent restraining order and denied Shih's request for a similar order. Shih was

ordered not to harass or contact the Parnells and to stay five yards away from the Parnells

and their son, and 100 yards away from their dog. The court also ordered Shih not to

contact the Marine Corps, which was Nathan's employer. The order is in effect for three

years.

The oral proceedings were not recorded or transcribed. Shih changed attorneys

after the hearing and her new attorney, who had not been present at the hearing, prepared

Nathan Parnell and Julie Parnell will be identified by their first names where

appropriate. We refer to them collectively as the Parnells.

11a

and submitted a proposed settled statement of facts. The court found the proposed settled

statement generally not accurate. The court issued an order with the following findings:

The court found credible evidence, by a clear and convincing standard, that Shih

"was reaching a level of unhealthy obsession in monitoring almost every movement and

action taken by [the Parnells] and was clearly invading [the Parnells'] privacy through

stalking, harassment and the filing of unwarranted complaints with the HOA and the

Marine Corps." She was interfering in the Parnells' life and with Nathan's work. "The

evidence established, in part, approximately 300 unwanted e-mails from [Shih] on issues

that were mundane and designed to simply inflict distress/harassment upon [the Parnells].

The evidence also showed that [Shih] consistently invaded [the Parnells'] personal space

in common areas of the complex that was unreasonable and unwarranted. [|] The

evidence supported a clear cut case of harassment by [Shih]. The Court concluded

[Shih] ... appeared to show very little .. . ability to correct her harassing actions.

[!]••■ [If] The court was doubtful upon conclusion of the proceedings that [Shih] had the

ability to abide by the court's order."

The court thus issued the order restraining Shih from going near the Parnells, their

child or their dog, and from contacting the Marine Corps.

12a

DISCUSSION

Civil Harassment

A person who has suffered harassment may seek an injunction prohibiting further

harassment. (Code Civ. Proc.,2 § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) As relevant here, "harassment

is ... a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously

alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course

of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial

emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the

petitioner." (Id., subd. (b)(3).) " 'Course of conduct' is a pattern of conduct composed of

a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose"

and includes sending harassing e-mails. (Id., subd. (b)(1); Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248

Cal.App.4th 484, 496 (Harris); R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181, 188 (R.D.).)

The court must issue a restraining order if it "finds by clear and convincing

evidence that unlawful harassment exists." (§ 527.6, subd. (i).) "An injunction

restraining future conduct is only authorized when it appears that harassment is likely to

recur in the future." (Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 496.)

Standard ofReview

"We review the trial court's decision to grant the restraining order for substantial

evidence." (Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 497.) Under the substantial evidence

standard of review, "we resolve all conflicts in evidence in favor of the prevailing party

Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

13a

and indulge all legitimate inferences to uphold the judgment if possible. [Citation.]"

(Ricasa v. Office of Administrative Hearings (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 262, 276 (Ricasa).)

tf I

[Wjhether the facts, when construed most favorably in [the respondent's] favor,

are legally sufficient to constitute civil harassment under section 527.6, and whether the

restraining order passes constitutional muster, are questions of law subject to de novo

review.

f It

(Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 497; R.D., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at

p. 188.)

"[T]he absence of a court reporter at trial court proceedings and the resulting lack

of a verbatim record of such proceedings will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to

have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court.

This is so because it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court

judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to

demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court

committed an error that justifies reversal .... 'In the absence of a contrary showing in the

record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court's action will be made by the appellate

court. "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have

authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were

presented.

11 t

[Citation.]" (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 (Jameson).)

We accept the court's order describing the oral proceedings and the exhibits that

were admitted as the basis for our review. We reject Shih's proposed settled statement.

The trial court stated, "[Shih's proposed] Settled Statement does appear to this court to

contain inaccuracies of what occurred and what was said by this bench officer, but

14a

unfortunately due to the absence of record cannot address with specificity many of these

issues. [|]. .. [*[f] The remainder of the [proposed] Settled Statement is also called into

question due to the above misquotes but unfortunately this court cannot provide further

comment in the absence of a record or distinct recollection of the proceedings." "[W]hen

the litigant fails to convince the trial judge that his proposed [settled] statement

accurately reflects the proceedings in question, the action of the judge who heard and

tried the case must be regarded as final." (Cross v. Tustin (1951) 37 Cal.2d 821, 826;

Burns v. Brown (1946) 27 Cal.2d 631, 634-635 [we do not determine if appellant's

statement of evidence is accurate when trial court found it was not].) We rely on the

court's order and on the exhibits as the basis for our review.

Shih contends that the trial court had no time to review the e-mails, stating that the

court received the exhibits at the beginning of the oral hearing and rendered its decision

at the end of the hearing, which lasted only 45 minutes. We accept the court's statement

that it made its ruling after "careful review of the entire record." We presume that the

court performed its duties and reviewed all the evidence before making its decision.

(Evid. Code, § 664; J.H. McKnight Ranch, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2003) 110

Cal.App.4th 978, 984 (McKnight Ranch),) Even if we accept Shih's timeline as true, the

court had time to peruse the exhibits while listening to the testimony of the parties. The

nature of the e-mails is evident upon a quick review. Insulting and derogatory comments

are frequent and noticeable. Many of the e-mails are two or more pages long, singlespaced and typed in a small font. The language, length and frequency with which Shih

sent these missives to the Parnells, their landlord, the HOA, other tenants and finally to

15a

Nathan's commanders support the presumption that the court performed its duties because

the court's ruling comports with the written evidence. (McKnight Ranch, at p. 984.) Shih

has presented no reliable evidence that rebuts the presumption that the court reviewed

and considered the exhibits. We thus rely on the admitted exhibits as well as on the

court's statement of the oral proceedings in our review.

Factual Sufficiency

Shih raises four questions about the sufficiency of the evidence: 1) the number of

e-mails; 2) the authenticity of the e-mails; 3) the internal consistency of documents

generated by the Parnells; and 4) whether her e-mails were designed to harass or were a

result of her right to report violations of the HOA regulations. We agree with Shih that

there were probably fewer than 300 e-mails, but we find the exact number immaterial.

There were scores of e-mails that were sent to the Parnells either directly or by copy. The

number and length of e-mails that Shih sent over a period of seven months was large and

burdensome, whether that number is 300 or something less. We accept the authenticity

of the e-mails that were admitted. There is no evidence the e-mails were not authentic.

Also, there is no record that Shih contested authenticity at trial. The failure to object

below forfeits the argument on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); Crouch v. Trinity

Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1020.) Regarding

inconsistencies in the e-mails, we accept the court's implicit determinations of credibility

that support its findings. (Ricasa, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 282; Jameson, supra, 5

Cal.5th at pp. 608-609.)

16a

Legal Sufficiency

We conclude as a matter of independent judgment that the oral testimony as

described by the court combined with the barrage of e-mails was sufficient to support the

court's finding of harassment. (See Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 497.) The court

found as matters of fact that Shih had "a level of unhealthy obsession in monitoring

almost every movement and action taken by [the Parnells] and was clearly invading [the

Parnells'] privacy through stalking, harassment and the filing of unwarranted complaints

with the HOA and the Marine Corps.... [Shih] consistently invaded [the Parnells']

personal space in common areas of the complex that was unreasonable and unwarranted."

Such behavior is seriously alarming, annoying, harassing, and served no legitimate

purpose. (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) The e-mails, as well, are seriously alarming, annoying,

harassing, and, for the most part, served no legitimate purpose. {Ibid.)

Ensuring enforcement of the rules and regulations of a community association is a

legitimate purpose, and the order does not prevent Shih from continuing to contact the

HOA. Shih had no legitimate purpose in the manner in which she notified the HOA in

the e-mails that were admitted as exhibits here, however. Her daily, lengthy, derogatory

e-mails to the HOA were seriously harassing and had no legitimate purpose. She had no

legitimate purpose in sending daily abusive e-mails to the Parnells' landlord with copies

to Nathan, and it appeared that she intended to have him evicted. Her 28-page letter to

Nathan's employer was clearly intended to interfere with his employment. The e-mails

support the court's finding that Shih was interfering with the Parnells' life and her actions

were designed to inflict distress and harassment on the Parnells. We accept the court's

17a

implicit finding that Shih's behavior as a whole was motivated by an intent to cause

substantial emotional distress and did actually cause substantial emotional distress to the

Parnells.

We conclude as a matter of law that Shih's complaints to the HOA went beyond a

legitimate scope and her other actions were without legitimate purpose. Her actions as a

whole were legally sufficient to constitute harassment. (.Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th

at p. 497.)

Judicial Bias

Shift contends that the trial court was biased in favor of Nathan because he was a

Marine, and that the court's bias impaired its ability to fairly consider Shih's evidence.

We conclude no evidence supports this claim.

Every litigant has a due process right to an impartial decisionmaker. (.People v.

Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 788; Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County

Office ofEduc. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 197, 212.) Due process requires judicial

disqualification only under the " 'most "extreme facts.

fl I ft

(People v. Cowan (2010) 50

Cal.4th 401, 456-457.) To establish a due process violation, the appellant has the burden

of showing

ft I ft 1

the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge.

I ft ! If

(Id. at p. 456;

Peoples, at p. 787.) "The appellate court's role is not to examine whether the trial judge's

behavior left something to be desired, or whether some comments would have been better

left unsaid, but to determine whether the judge's behavior was so prejudicial it denied the

party a fair ... trial. [Citation.] Mere expressions of opinion, based on observation of

the witnesses and evidence, do not demonstrate judicial bias. [Citation.] Numerous and

18a

continuous rulings against a party are not grounds for a finding of bias. [Citation.] [f] A

constitutional finding of judicial. .. bias is appropriate only when 'extreme facts'

demonstrate a probability of actual bias. [Citation.]" (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020)

44 Cal.App.5th 570, 589.)

There is no reliable evidence that supports Shih's claim that the court was biased.

Shih relies only on her proposed settled statement, but we have rejected that statement as

inaccurate. It is Shih's burden to show that the court was biased, and we cannot assume

that the court was either unfair or appeared unfair without some credible evidence in the

record supporting that charge. Without a record substantiating Shih's claims, we presume

the court was impartial. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609; McKnight Ranch,

supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 984.)

Insufficient Time to Present Case

Shih contends that the court failed to give her enough time to present her case,

claiming the court spent "an inordinate amount of focus, and time, on the fact that

[Nathan] was in the Marine Corps." She also claims that the length of the hearing—45

minutes—was not enough time to try the cross-petitions.

The court granted Shih a continuance of the hearing over the Parnells' objection on

August 2, 2018. Shili states in her proposed settled statement that she requested another

continuance at the beginning of the hearing on August 8, and the court denied it. A trial

court has broad discretion to grant or deny a continuance and its ruling will be reversed

only when an abuse of discretion is clear. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315,

19a

1321.) Shih has not shown an abuse of discretion because she has not provided an offer

of proof as to what she would have submitted if given more time.

Without a record of the proceedings, we find no evidence supporting Shih's claim

that the court spent too much time on Nathan's military career. {Jameson, supra, 5

Cal.5th at p. 608.) There is no evidence that the hearing was too short. We presume no

error occurred. {Id. at pp. 608-609.)

First Amendment

Shih contends that the e-mails she sent were simply a result of her exercise of her

First Amendment rights and her right to address the Parnells' harassment. We review the

record and ruling de novo to determine if the restraining order violated Shih's First

Amendment rights to petition for redress of grievances. {R.D., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at

p. 188.)

Shih first claims that the settlement discussion sought to restrict her right to

redress grievances. She cannot complain about something that was not ordered, however,

as the discussion alone did not restrict her rights. She also contends that the order

prohibiting her from contacting the Marine Corps deprived her of her constitutional right

to petition for redress.

M t

The right to free speech is .. . one of the cornerstones of our society,' and is

protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and under an

'even broader' provision of the California Constitution." {Evans v. Evans (2008) 162

Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166.) "It is speech on' "matters of public concern"' that is 'at the

heart of the First Amendment's protection.' [Citations.]" [Citation.] ... "In contrast,

20a

speech on matters of purely private concern"—while "not totally unprotected"—"is of

less First Amendment concern." [Citation.] When such speech causes damage—as in

defamation or the intentional infliction of emotional distress—civil sanctions may be

imposed because " '[t]here is no threat to the free and robust debate of public issues; there

is no potential interference with a meaningful dialogue of ideas concerning selfgovernment; and there is no threat of liability causing a reaction of self-censorship by the

press....

t n i it

(Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1228 (Parisi).) In

California, "speech that constitutes 'harassment' within the meaning of section 527.6 is

not constitutionally protected, and the victim of the harassment may obtain injunctive

relief." (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.

(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1250; R.D., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 191.) The right

to free speech "does not include the right to repeatedly invade another person's

constitutional rights of pri vacy and the pursuit of happiness through the use of acts and

threats that evidence a pattern of harassment designed to inflict substanti al emotional

distress." (.People v. Borrelli (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 703, 716.) " '[A]n injunctive order

prohibiting the repetition of expression that ha[s] been judicially determined to be

unlawful [does] not constitute a prohibited prior restraint of speech.'" {Parisi, at

p. 1230.)

The court implicitly found, and we affirm, that there was no legitimate purpose for

Shih's communications to the Marine Corps about Nathan and restrained her from all

communications with the Marine Corps. A restraint that implicates the First Amendment

must be narrowly tailored.

ft I It

An order issued in the area of First Amendment rights

21a

must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective

permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order.

ft I ft

(Parisi, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 1231; R.D., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 192.) A

restraining order's infringement of a respondent's speech should be no broader or more

restrictive than is necessary to prevent the respondent's harassment of a petitioner. {DVD

Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 882-883; R.D. at

p. 192.)

The order restraining Shih from contacting the Marine Corps is overly broad in

restricting all communication with the Marine Corps. It should be modified to restrict

only Shih's communications concerning the Parnells. (.Parisi, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at

p. 1228.) The Marine Corps is a large and public entity that engages in many activities

beyond employing Nathan. Shih could be aggrieved by actions other than its

employment of Nathan. The order should be modified so that Shih continues to have the

opportunity to complain to the Marine Corps about any topic other than the Parnells.

22a

DISPOSITION

The case is remanded to the trial court with the direction to modify the order

restraining Shih from communicating with the Marine Corps to restricting her only from

contacting the Marine Corps about the Parnells. The judgment is affirmed in all other

respects. Costs awarded to the Parnells.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KEVIN J. LANE, Clerk of the Court of Appeal, Fourth

Appellate District, State of California, does hereby Certify

that the preceding is a true and correct copy of the Original

of this document/order/opinion filed in this Court, as shown

by the records ofmy office,

WITN ESS, my hand and the Seal of this Court.

03/25/2020

KEVIN J. LANE, CLERK

GUERRERO, J.

Deputy Oerk

23a

Court of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OI

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

05/07/2020

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties fr<

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Kevin J. Lane, Clerk

By: Rita Rodriguez

certified for

for publication

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL,

D074805

Plaintiff and Respondent,

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00033816CU-HR-CTL)

LIH BIN SHIH,

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed on March 25, 2020, is hereby modify as follows:

1. On page 1, the counsel listing is deleted and replaced with the following:

Taylor Anderson and Christopher R. Mordy for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Law Offices of Rosemary Leonard and Rosemary Meagher-Leonard for Defendant and

Appellant.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in judgment.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Copies to: All parties

24a

SUPREME COURT

f '

i: i.P

JUN 1 7 2020

Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One - No. D074805

Jorge Navarrete Clerk

S262093

Deputy

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.

Eh Banc

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL, Plaintiff and Respondent,

LIH BIN SHIH, Defendant and Appellant,

The petition for review is denied,

The request for an order directing publication of the opinion is denied .

CANTJL-SAKAUYE

ChiefJustice

25a

California Code of Civil Procedures § 527.6 on Civil Restraining Order.

(a) (l) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek

a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment as

provided in this section.

(b) (l) “Course of conduct” is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a

period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including

following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an

individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means,

including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail,

facsimile, or email. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the

meaning of “course of conduct. ”

(i)

At the hearing, the judge shall receive any testimony that is relevant, and

may make an independent inquiry. If the judge finds by clear and convincing

evidence that unlawful harassment exists, an order shall issue prohibiting the

harassment.

26a

California Rules of Court 8.137 and 8.124 on oral record and Settled Statement in

the absence of a court reporter.

California Rule of Court 8.137 — Relevant Sections

(a) Description

A settled statement is a summary of the superior court proceedings approved by the

superior court. An appellant may either elect under (b)(l) or move under (b)(2) to

use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings in the superior court,

instead of a reporter's transcript.

(l) An appellant may elect in his or her notice designating the record on appeal

under rule 8.121 to use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings in

the superior court without filing a motion under (2) if:

(A) Within 10 days after the appellant serves either a notice under (l) or a motion

under (2), the respondent may serve and file a notice indicating that he or she is

electing to provide a reporter's transcript in lieu of proceeding with a settled

statement. The respondent must also either'(c) Time to file proposed statement

(l) If the respondent does not file a notice under (b)(4)(A) electing to provide a

reporter's transcript in lieu of proceeding with a settled statement, the appellant

must serve and file a proposed statement in superior court within 30 days after

filing its notice under (b)(l) or within 30 days after the superior court clerk sends, or

a party serves, an order granting a motion under (b)(2).

(e) Respondent's response to proposed statement

Within 20 days after the appellant serves the proposed statement, the respondent

may serve and file either-'

(1) Proposed amendments to the proposed statementi or

(2) A notice indicating that he or she is electing to provide a reporter's transcript in

lieu of proceeding with a settled statement. The respondent must also either:

(f) Review of appellant's proposed statement

(l) No later than 10 days after the respondent files proposed amendments or the

time to do so expires, whichever is earlier, a party may request a hearing to review

and correct the proposed statement No hearing will be held unless ordered by the

trial court judge, and the judge will not ordinarily order a hearing unless there is a

factual dispute about a material aspect of the trial court proceedings.

27a

California Rule of Court 8.124 Appendix - Relevant Sections

(a) Notice of election

(l) Unless the superior court orders otherwise on a motion served and filed within

10 days after the notice of election is served, this rule governs if

(A) The appellant elects to use an appendix under this rule in the notice designating

the record on appeal under rule 8.121; or

(B) The respondent serves and files a notice in the superior court electing to use an

appendix under this rule within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed and no

waiver of the fee for a clerk’s transcript is granted to the appellant.

28a

Department of Defense Instruction 1334.01 (October 26, 2005)

SUBJECT: Wearing of the Uniform

1. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE

This Instruction reissues reference (a) as a DoD Instruction as prescribed by reference (b)

and continues to set limitations on wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed

Forces. It also continues to establish policy on wearing of the uniform by former members of

the Armed Forces.

2. APPLICABILITY

This Instruction applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments,

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the

Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field

Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter

referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).

3. POLICY

It is DoD policy that: 3.1. The wearing of the uniform by members of the Armed Forces

(including retired members and members of Reserve components) is prohibited under any of

the following circumstances: DoD 1334.01, October 26, 2005

3.1.1. At any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by an

organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons that the Attorney

General of the United States has designated, under Executive Order 10450 as amended

(reference (c)), as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a

policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others

their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of

Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

3.1.2. During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or

commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest

may be drawn.

3.1.3. Except when authorized by the approval authorities in subparagraph 4.1.1., when

participating in activities such as unofficial public speeches, interviews, picket lines,

marches, rallies or any public demonstration, which may imply Service sanction of the

cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted.

3.1.4. When wearing of the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces

29a

The US Marine Corps (USMC) MCO P1020.34H, 1003 (id) (May 1, 2018)

1003. RESTRICTIONS ON WEARING UNIFORMS

1. Members of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve, including retired Marines, are

prohibited from wearing the Marine Corps uniform while engaged in any of the following

activities, functions or circumstances unless specifically authorized by the CMC (PA):

a. Soliciting funds for any purpose from the public outside of a military base or

establishment.

b. Participating in any type of show or event which is commercially sponsored for

advertising purposes, where it could be imphed or construed that the Marine Corps

"endorses" the product advertised.

c. "Endorsing" commercial products in such ways as to involve the uniform, title, grade or

rate, or in any way establish or imply their military affiliation with such products.

d. Appearing or participating in any event in public that would compromise the dignity of

the uniform.

30a

Rosemary Meagher-Leonard SBN: 93436

Law Office of Rosemary Meagber-Leonard

4456 Florida Street

San Diego, CA 92116

Telephone: (619) 295-8765

Facsimile: (619) 295-8705

Email: rosemaiyleonard@cox.net

Attorney for LIH-BIN SHIH

- I

oct ii w

By: V. Rodriguer, Deputy

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO-CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO.* 37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL,

SETTLED STATEMENT ON APPEAL

PETITIONER

VS.

LIE BIN SHIH,

RESPONDENT

LIH BIN SHIH,

PETITIONER

<;20

.21

VS.

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL,

RESPONDENT

)

Respondent and Appellant, LIH-BIN SHIH, sets forth her Settled Statement on appeal

as follows:

The initial hearing was set for August 2, 2018 but continued to August 8, 2018.

1-SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIH

31a

On August 8,2018, Judge Richard S, Whitney (“Judge Whitney”) called the case

at io:ooam. Petitioner, Nathan Brooks Parnell (“Petitioner’') appeared with his

attorney, Christopher Mordy. Respondent Lih-Bin Shih (“Respondent”) appeared with

her attorney, Sammer Zakhour. Also, appearing was Julie Parnell, wife of Petitioner and

Co-Respondent in Respondent’s Cross-Petition to Stop Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse,

Respondent’s Petition, while not the subject of the within appeal is part of this settled

statement as the two cases were tried together per Judge Whitney,

After the Petitioner Counsel made his opening statement, Judge Whitney

inquired as to whether the parties were willing to participate in mediation. Counsel for

Petitioner declined to participate. Judge Whitney asked both attorneys to discuss

settlement and the court recessed.

The Court resumed at 11:15am. Judge Whitney spoke with counsel for both

parties. Counsel for both parties advised Judge Whitney that there was an agreement.

However, Respondent advised the Court that she was not in agreement. Judge Whitney

instructed Respondent to talk to Counsel. Respondent told Counsel she did not agree

with the terms. Judge Whitney instructed the parties to continue to discuss settlement

and asked all parties to return to the court, at 1:30pm.

The Court reconvened at 1:30 pm. Judge Whitney asked both attorneys whether

the parties had reached a settlement. Both Petitioner’s Counsel and Respondent’s

Counsel responded by saying yes. Respondent reminded Counsel that she was not in

agreement. Judge Whitney then conferred with both attorneys at a sidebar.

After the sidebar concluded and all were back on the record, Petitioner Counsel

provided Respondent Counsel with a hand-written settlement agreement that listing

2- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHI H

32a

several .conditions in order for Respondent to agree to settle the case. The conditions

required that the Respondent agree to the following: to never contact the Marine Corps,

never contact landlord, never write another open letter and never report to Animal

Control again concerning the Petitioner and his family. After reviewing the document,

Respondent advised her Counsel that she would not agree to any of these terms and that

she would not sign a document like this. Judge Whitney advised all parties that they

need to learn to live with each other. Judge Whitney then said he would start the

hearing. At that time, Petitioner, Respondent, and Petitioner’s wife, the Co-Respondent

in the Stop Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Cross-Petition were sworn in.

Respondent requested a continuance, which was denied. At that time, the

Petitioner provided a three-inch binder of exhibits, one copy for Respondent and one

copy for court for trial. Respondent’s Counsel provided a set of Respondent’s Exhibits

to Petitioner’s Counsel before the hearing. However, for unknown reasons,

Respondent’s Counsel did not question Respondent about any of these exhibit on direct

examination nor did he ask to enter any exhibits into

Petitioner’s exhibits list referenced the following:

Over 3005 unwanted emails from Lih-Bin Shilh

Documents submitted to-various USMC leadership seeking disciplinary

3 “open-letters” distributed throughout the Promontory Community

2 Separate Police Reports

San Diego Humane Society Notice of Complaint by Lih-Bin Shih on

action

7/7/18.

The number of emails contained in the exhibit notebook was closer to 122 than to the 300 that Petitioner

represented to the Court.

3- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIH

33a

Except for item E.. all of these Exhibits were admitted into evidence.

Petitioner’s Counsel began his opening statement by describing how Respondent

began to harass Petitioner in November 2017. Counsel further stated that Respondent

sent 300 emails and other communications in order to harass Petitioner. Respondent’s

Counsel did not make an opening statement.

After Petitioner’s opening statement, Petitioner testified that parties were

friendly in the first few years, but in October 2016, Respondent wanted Petitioners son

to call Respondent “nana”. Petitioner testified that the child already had four

grandmothers and it would be confusing to the child. Petitioner further testified that he

and his wife wanted to keep their distance from Respondent and that angered

Respondent, and that Respondent started harassment in November 2017. Petitioner

then read an email sent from Petitioner on Jan uary 23, 2018 to Homeowners

Association (“HOA”) and copied to Respondent. In the email read by Petitioner,

Petitioner addressed the alleged violations of the HOA’s covenants and conditions.

Petitioner also read an email from Respondent to Petitioner on July 3, 2018 on the flag

and testified that the United States flag angered Respondent Petitioner testified that

Respondent contacted their landlord to try to get him and his wife exacted. Petitioner

testified that Respondent sent complaint letters to the Marine Corps attempting to get

Petitioner disciplined or kicked out of the Marines. Judge Whitney asked to whom these

letters were sent. Petitioner testified to the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar

and the leadership of Marine Corps.

4* SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIM

34a

Judge Whitney asked Petitioner questions about Ms role in the Marine Corps.,

including what division and squadron the Petitioner was in, his rank, his duties, and

type of helicopter Petitioner was part of. Petitioner answered all these questions, which

included the fact that he had the rank of captain. Petitioner testified about Respondent’s

report to the Marine Corps, and tliat the report by Respondent hurt Petitioner’s

reputation and standing in the military. Judge Whitney asked Petitioner how many

meetings he had to attend as a result of the report. Petitioner testified that it was eight.

Judge Whitney asked whether Petitioner was concerned about being kicked out of the

Marines. Plaintiff testified that he was. Petitioner testified that he and his wife were

fearful of Petitioner and that he had not deployed with his squadron recently because he

was worried about wife and child and because of Respondent’s harassment of him and

his family . Petitioner testified that Respondent reporting to Animal Control in April and

again in July 2018 and that Respondent took picture of their child within a foot to the

child’s face.

After the direct examination of Petitioner , Judge Whitney advised Respondent’s

Counsel that he should proceed with his cross-examination. Respondent again asked

Respondent Counsel to submit her exhibits to the court but Respondent’s Counsel

would not do so.

Respondent’s Counsel asked Petitioner about Petitioner’s allegation that

Respondent had sent 300 emails. Respondent’s Counsel asked Petitioner if it was true

.24

that there were only 149 emails, not 300. Petitioner agreed that there were only 149

emails. Respondent’s Counsel asked Petitioner if the majority of the emails were to BOA

and copied to Petitioner and his wife, and if only very few directly to Petitioner and his

5- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SH1H

35a

wife. Petitioner answered yes to each one of these points. Respondent’s Counsel asked

Julie Parnell, the Co-Respondent, in the Stop Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Cross-

Petition, who was it who sent police to do a “welfare check” on Respondent on January

31,2018, Cross Co-Respondent answered, and said, “Police called PERT and PERT sent

police”.

Next, Respondent’s Counsel called Respondent as a witness and asked her about

Petitioner and his wife’s harassment of Respondent. Respondent testified that there

were no harassment in the first four years that they all lived in close proximity' to each

other until Respondent could no longer tolerate Petitioner and his wife’s lifestyle and, as

a result, she reported them to the HOA in November 2017 for the first time for violations

of the rules and regulations of the associations’ covenants, conditions and restrictions

("CC&R”). Respondent then testified that Petitioner called 911 the day after HOA

informed Respondent that a warning letter was sent from HOA to Petitioner.

Respondent testified that in the 911 call, Petitioner claimed that there was a “night

prowler” Respondent testified that she made her first report to the HOA in four years

and that in the 911 call, Petitioner claimed that there was a “night prowler”, causing the

police to knock on Respondent’s door. Respondent testified that Petitioner’s wife again

called 911 again on January 31,2018, this time claiming that a welfare check of

Respondent w as needed. Respondent testified that this second call to 911 came after

Respondent made a second report to HOA for violations of the GC&Rs, Respondent

further testified that the 911 call again resulted in the police knocking on Respondent’s

door at night. Respondent testified that the second time the false pretense was “welfare

check”. Respondent testified there was no night prowler on November 28,2017 and

6- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V, SHIM

36a

that there was no need for a welfare check on January 31,2018. Respondent testified

that she had not been sick or injured. Judge Whitney said anyone can call police.

Respondent testified that she was very fearful of such retaliatory action involving false

police reports and false 911 talk, and did not know what would happen the next time the

police were called.

Respondent testified that she did not report Petitioner to Animal Control in April

as Petitioner testified. Respondent testified that she reported Petitioner’s dog to Animal

Control on July 5, 2018 only after their German shepherd dog was unleashed again on

July 3, 2018, and Petitioner and his wife had been given many warnings about that

Respondent testified that Respondent had not taken any pictures of Petitioner’s child,

let alone one a foot from the child’s face, as Respondent testified. Respondent testified

that Petitioners claim that the American flag angered Respondent was false as no such

emails exist. Respondent testified that America is Respondent’s country too and. the flag

is Respondent’s flag too. Respondent also testified that Petitioner told her to "go home”

and that Petitioner should not have done so. Respondent testified that she had never

initiated any verbal contact or interactions with Petitioner for the past two years and

that all offense and harassment were initiated by Petitioner, and in each case,

Respondent always walked away. Respondent testified that Petitioner's characterization

of the October 2016 issue concerning what name Petitioner’s child should call

Respondent was false and inconsistent with Petitioner’s own exhibit emails. Respondent

further testified that Petitioner did not claim that they were being harassed-until in

November 2017, more than a year after Respondent’s reported Petitioner’s CC&R

violations. Respondent testified that the January 23,2018 email from Petitioner which

?- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SWIH

37a

provided their reasons for violating tire rules and regulations contained many factual

errors. Respondent testified that for example Petitioner did not return from

deployment in September 2016 when his son was nine months old, Petitioner returned

in April 2016 when son was four months old.

Judge Whitney ashed Respondent whether she knew that her complaints may

cause Petitioner to be kicked out of Marine Corps. Respondent testified that was never

her intention. Respondent testified that she just wanted to have Respondent and his

wife to stop retaliating against and intimidating Respondent when Respondent reported

violations to the HOA regarding Petitioner’s repeated aljd various GC&R violations.

Respondent testified that the report to the Marine Corps, was done through the proper

channels available to civilians in such situations. Judge Whitney asked Respondent

whether she knew* she could destroy Petitioner’s 16-year Marine Corps career.

Respondent testified that that was never her purpose in contacting the Marine Corps,

Respondent testified that she contacted the Marine Corps after months of retaliatory

actions and intimidation by Petitioner and his wife, and that Petitioner had failed to

heed the HOA warning and his landlord’s request to cure violations of the rules and

regulations. Respondent testified she was also concerned with her own safety.

Respondent testified that Petitioner did not spend i6 years in Marines Corps, but had

also been in Air Force and in National Guard before joining Marine Corps. Judge

Whitney said it was even better.

Judge Wbitney said Marines Corps had codes of conduct and he could not believe

Petitioner did what Respondent said he did. Respondent answered, yes, there are codes

of conduct and one in fact would immediately conjure up an image of an upstanding and

8- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIH

38a

i !

outstanding solider in uniform, but that we all know how an image is often not the same,

or even contrary to, what is really inside, and sometimes the image can be deceptive or

entirely wrong. Respondent testified that although Petitioner wants the Court to believe

he is a victim, he is in fact the aggressor,

Judge Whitney said these were HOA issues and needed to report to the HOA.

Respondent answered yes, and that was why she reported them to the HOA.

Respondent testified that the problem was Petitioner’s immediate retaliation^ involving

police, hate email, and other means, causing fear in Respondent. Respondent testified

•:

that if there were no HOA violations by Petitioner, theteiwould have been no emails

reporting violations. Respondent also testified that all of th e emails could have stopped

if Petitioner and his wife would just obey the rules and Regulations, Respondent also

testified that CC&R required residents to approach the offender first. Respondent

testified that after the harassment by Petitioner and his wife on March 8,. 2018,

Respondent continued to be nice and asked Petitioner for a way to resolve the hostility,

but Petitioner did nothing. Judge Whitney asked Respondent whether she had reported

other neighbors for violations to the HOA. Respondentisaid yes, the most she could

recall was two in the past 10 years, one involving a cat nbt leaving Respondent’s front

door and one involving water from upstairs balcony. Respondent testified that all

resolved right away and not recurring. Judge Whitney asked Respondent if she thought

the dog was friendly with Respondent. Respondent answered yes, but the German

shepherd is extremely aggressive to strangers and that had been her concern. Judge

Whitney asked Respondent why she knew Petitioner threw trash and why she knew it

9- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIM

39a

was their trash. Respondent answered it was two big wads of dog hair that was carried

by wand to Respondent’s balcony.

Respondent testified that Petitioner andihis wife sent her a vile, hate-filled email

to her and, that although Petitioner claimed the email was from a third party,

Respondent had evidence to show that the email was from Petitioner and his wife.

Respondent testified that Petitioner came next to her bedroom window during the night

to place trash there. Respondent testified that the Petitioner and his wife wmild come

out of their home whenever they would see Respondent leave hers and follow' her closely

behind her down the walkway or towards the parking area. Respondent testified that

she felt scared.

Judge Whitney asked Respondent what she would consider the worst harassment

by Petitioner. In response, Respondent testified that it was Plaintiffs habit of

ambushing, stalking, stomping, and followi ng closely behind her when she left the

residence. Judge Whitney said that that did not constitute harassment

After Respondent finished her testimony about the harassment she experienced,

Judge Whitney made Ms ruling. As to Respondent’s Cross-Petition, Judge Whitney

found that Petitioner’s harassment of Respondent rated a “i”, on a scale of i to 10, and

found that the Respondent had not met her burden of proof and that her request for a

restraining order was denied. As to Petitioner s Petition, Judge Whitney found that

Petitioner had met his burden of proof as to his request for a restraining order and

granted-that request. Judge Whitney ruled that Respondent must stay 5 feet from the

Petitioner and his family and the designated locations. Judge Whitney further ordered

that Respondent never contact MCAS and the landlord and that his order would be in

10- SETTLED STATEMENT* APPEAL PARNELL V. SHTH

40a

effect for 3 years. Respondent asked Judge Whitney why she was restricted from

contacting the landlord, a fellow homeowner. Judge Whitney stated that Respondent

had too many rights, and that he had the right to wave the flag outside of the White

House, but no one would see the Judge doing that. Judge Whitney asked Respondent

whether she owns a gun. Respondent answered that she does not. The issued written

order was for 5 years and no restriction on contacting the Marine Corps. Judge Whitney

amended his order on August 27, 2018.

Dated: Oetober 18, 2018

Q^L¥Y\,.

'Rosemary Meagher-Leonard

1.1- SETTLED STATEMENT- APPEAL PARNELL V. SHIH

41a

Lih-Bin Shih

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Saddler LtCol Michael J cmichael,sadd)er@usmc,rnil>

Thursday, May 31,2018 8:24 AM

Lih-Bin Shih

Walton SgtMaj Michael N

RE: [Non-DoD Source] Continuing Harassment and Terrorizing by Parnell

Dr. Shin,

;

Good morning. The Marine in question belongs to my unit, We have opened an

investigation, and an investigating officer has been assigned. I ask for

your patience in this matter. Military investigations, as with all

investigations, take time and can be a slow process. The Marines Corps

Officer assigned will do a full inquiry into this matter and provide his

report to the command for recommendation and action. Until then, I

re-iterate SgtMaj Walton's comments, this matter ultimately falls into the

civil jurisdiction lane and If you have any safety concerns I recommend you

report this to local law enforcement so they may conduct a parallel

investigation. Have a wonderful day.

Respectfully,

Michael J. "MOTS" Saddler

LtCOl, USMC

MAG-16 Executive Officer

(W) 858-577-164S

(M) 361-549-73.93

(8B) (8$8) 837-0852

NIPR: michael.saddler<S>usmc.mil

SI P R: michael.j.saddlerfSiusmc,smll.mil

—Original Message—

From: Walton SgtMaj Michael N

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 6:14 PM

To: Lih-Bin Shih <lbshih(®san,rr.com>

Subject: RE: (Non-DoD Source) Continuing Harassment and Terrorizing by

Parnetl

Dr. Shih, as I stated in my last e-mail the Marines chain of command has

received all previous correspondence and has for action. While the

individuals leadership looks Into his conduct you still have the ability to

address violations with the landlord and HOA. Being a civil Jurisdiction,

any concerns you have for safety no or in the future should be reported to

local law enforcement. This email will also be sent to the Marines

leadership.

Thank you.

42 a

;

Ibshih

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michael O'Brien <uphillbaker-stuff@yahoo.com>

Thursday, June 21, 2018 12:13 PM

Lih-Bin Shih

Re: Your USLESS "reminders” - useless to these world-record breaker renters

Peri,

Have we sent courtesy letters out to the large-vehicle unit owners we know of advising them that these vehicles are banned from the complex

under the current rules and that the HOA may start enforcing the ban pending the outcome of the parking rules review?

We need to get on with that as best we can -1 recall being able to attribute at least 3 such vehicles. Please let me know the status.

thanks

From: Lih-Bin Shih <lbshih92131@gmail.com>

To: uphillbaker-stuff@yahoo.com; ’craig dodson' <craigsdodson@yahoo.com>

Cc: 'Peri Sword’ <psword@nnj.com>; kristin@rayderlaw.com; lpoole@adamsstirling.com; avillanueva@nnj.com; gwwbasi@msn.com; 'Parnell

Capt Nathan B' <nathan.parnell@usmc.mil>; 'Julie Parnell’ <julie.tucker03@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 21,2018 9:11 AM

Subject: Your USLESS "reminders" - useless to these world-record breaker renters

Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Dodson:

43a

ATTACHMENT A-1

NO 300 EMAILS &

EMAIL CONTENTS NOT HARASSMENT

THE SOURCE OF ALL “HARASSMENT” THEIR VIOLATIONS OF CC&R & LAWS

Our Count-

Counting only from November 24, 2017-July 9, 2018

not separating two Parnells

Total

Direct

Both Parnells

Julie Parnell only

Nathan Parnell only

Both

129

17 (last day 5/1/18)

5 (last day 5/1/18)

7 (last day 5/1/18)

Discrepancy

In the original restraining order, it was “over 300”. In the Response to CrossRestraining order, it was 250 (Page 10 on EA-115 Nathan Parnell), and it was 300

pages and blocking email since January 2018 (Julie Parnell EA-120, Attachment

12, Reasons I Disagree, Page 1 of l).

Julie Parnell claims to have blocked my emails in January 2018, then any alleged

harassment stopped in January 2018. If Julie Parnell wants to “protect her

family”, she should have asked Nathan Parnell to do the same. Further, after

April 28, 2018, it was daily report of daily violations. If no violation, no email.

44a

.EMAIL COUNT

TO (directly .addressed)

OC^findirectly addressed)

Julie;

Julie:

Nathan; 20

Nathan: 1%$

TOTAL

Julie:

149

Nathan:

135

TOTAL;.

284

»,#S^

414

45a

On Wednesday, April 18,2:018 3:1$ PM, ph-BinShth <lbshih92 I3i@gmaii.eam> wrote:

Mr, Dodson:

i went out for an errand and took these pictures, These Images were taken 2:00pm today, I can showyou the

actual jpg files Where t here are a time stamps m "property",,

I hope you do not transmit this email to your renters. It is not that I have anything to hide, but I think If you deal

with this matter in the background, it may not agitate further this very explosive situation, They are vindictive

people - If they can turn on me to the extent, after what 1 did for them, there is nothing they will not do, No

one wants to be associated (or renting to) those "there is nothing they will not do" to get their way. But if you

think it is better you forward them this email to these bullies, it is ok with me. I have nothing to hide.

Wave you been here before? The first photo Is as you drive down the driveway. The complex is always quiet,

peaceful, clean (not Harley, F-1S0 truck and smelly garage type of community). To the right, it is the driveway

turning down to your home and my home. At the end of the street, there are several guest parking (one truck

therenow),

The second image is when I turned right and walked down the driveway. You immediately see the eyesore of

the huge F-150 blocking the lake view. That is the guest parking space shared by 4 homeowners, you intituled.

•

Your home and mine are to the right, and two other homeowners to the left. I took the 3rd. photo by standing

--*•* between my garage and your garage. The third photo has a big car outside of a building 10's owner: i believe

that car (actually a jeep) provides home care service to one of the homeowners. So, it comes and goes. Before

tWs:F-l$0 permanently taking up that shared guest space, that home care service car would park on the .guest

space when they visit, but now no one can use that space except the illegal full-size truck by-this young marine.

All senior citizens and their guests just go to hell

....

Their aggression did not stop there- Last Christmas, the woman's relative drove from Texas with another even

b'gger F-150, For 3 weeks, that visiting P-15G never moved once. And the young wonderful marine took up a

space-in the upperlevel meant to be the apron parking of upstairs neighbor, permanently for 3 weeks. It is the

217

46a

'K«i* ;*«*»*><$ *»• ste

>■ S X OH*

<i#> * vtati

» sis tM&W: - »*>««?< struts'

* 'ss - ■£: X

BKSMi!

*x ass*— ti2“x a ■ r

£.,„,*■ A’>-—

**z.

O’fc-V**** .X^,,,A

. .** .....

X-

ihSm Shfh ^1bsbB«2t.5’#gmsiixofn^

tom W*tX>g tv wiSw li^y

.0 :<v.« avh*6p

* aiW<i to <Jb

&& i«.

t «.»<•,t ovtfef:*f. <nt*r4 #r*S i&

►t»i;*»ii;a5!p»TitsajiV. far s>;£>?s voc t*< t<iuii)t#j

fsftefe* SS*rvtS»*e <1 t'oftmj

«»

! <M ns* to Sfi« 4*tv<x tht?

*>>8 r*s? <i&. *«

»<*»• fjwj fc**f?haf* fe«?8oe? Tk* ivit pi-MS a *1vV* 4^. iaKi'. 5**. sffiv*v/*y, Tfc* c&frpj*.« jSwiys $«>«.

htir'jft^airtir-Xhmlfh. SsosfctK*

sss

? a>S

frty'&kfi

t&*r,(8s>‘«<irf*y. MSlJSfyX »fd4CT*«t (sJrtES^.of CT^r'^iryU to C*f« rigM, *J'VS*»<:Hv*yrey SvWtatf ivysr-. «9 Wf *S*r>* «!** *»&&**, X ?Nt.

tf* fe*&sf'isofcfotiftse 1st* vfcrSv. 7

&%rs«)

. »-J&

y<*^ «v***«. .*3 Wte*«*t>W trxt )h*X B»!*!<-,,}^lfr. to h&-.

t**i»

**S9s*t ***8

fS*3 w**^,

Mil)™** tMKii Z+it*..

*.» rift** w6*i«»ds>

tg§*»tri*tr>isjajtfo'b*^»*j>^tr#*#Vf

Sc ttv«>3 bMm, <ve*i wtJvi 4>iwivs leifesats parkwgaff?Kv:)vtaV£* ij A*ir,. Xsi aie X iXtt oS itceyl AS flw^iefaiayswMt«» 8i*s JsxsSi Jar*c oi!<«r Si^cs/*® %■«! wawsse 5»;s»i4;^o :'

W»% Si-Sf»tt<mt»as*Va*»vti#

!>»•*■■ **u-v«>cfd<fo(^jit(js&. no,t>>#fe<'i|^jVifArtitesi?»<s

injfijfhi **t£iisl^S»?t(j a*f.

nMi’. Y4

r i’^S' ‘ r, >i j \ ’'

vsiXiAS^.

IVw <<«?« (WWS tv> CSW*>

47a

-—“■Original Message—

from; Uh-Bm Shth {maite!ibshlh@s»n.rr,c0m]

Sent: Monday, May 14,2018 7:28 AM

To: avillanUeva@itnJ.com; ‘eraig dodson' <craigsdodson@yahpd.com>

Ce:'heri Sword’<p$word@nnj.eomh;tpo0te@adams$tirling,cam;:uphiilbaker“stuff<s>yahoo.eom;

gvvwbasi@msn.com; Parnell Capt Nathan B <nathan,parnell@usmc.mil>; 'Julie Parnell1

<julte.tucker03(®yahoo,eom>

Subject: [Non-DoD Source) A miracle - Another RISO BUT IN THEGARAGK1H

importance: High

HOA and Mr-Dodson:

Come ope and come all so enjoy the daily violation of eyesore and community nuisance.

IT HAS COME TO THE BOARD'S AND MY ATTENTION THAT THE F-iSGCAN FIT INTO THE SARAGEi:Hl;

...vp"*.

A.oWner.of a F-150 in this complex has alwaysgaraged htstruckin!1! Did Isay these renters are aggressive, .

sdlfish and entitled? For

Insisting on taking up common space that does net belong to them!; Yes, If you can find better words {pot

aggressive, not selfish,

not entitled), please let me know, I Will stand corrected.

The picture on the -right was taken.on 05/06/18,. the male renter was supposedly "cleaning" his eyesore, You

tan see the width fit.

And the garage IS long enough to fit the length. The garage may become '"crowded1" and It will require renters

to do "physical work"

loot watching TV) to remove things (or even throwing out things) to garage the .eyesore, But I DO know that

after mate

renter's unsuccessful fixing the old Harley for 1 year (which was later replaced by an insurance-paid new Harley),

I have never seen

male renters working in the garage. That does not mean they do not dean garages, but i DO KNOW cleaning

garage is not their

favorite work (I can quote words from both shortly after male renter came back from Japan in April 2016}.■

311

48a

^ ^

a «s*rss -

B »«su<a

■&**!*'

/* '

f'j.S tfb iinoUwS}^,;,.^

. .

^;<Sss#tr

•

i^/W*'

MS*?

t & „.. £ *

wivm m tjgmmi * maw* »fsmy

t r 4“;;;. 4

y*« tuvn&sxft&w.

. . 4? .

s U*> Bm SHfo <|i?ibiK^$arvrr.c<?n?

t.l

Aw<*d#

<ar*, er»s

WSXtyew&iZm# *4f»

54* «i?n»^ *>•«:!*'« •*$! fS^i*t?sat*ii».

Wr, C«i3

$ssa» «*w A'lri OJra* *!* J* c/i}8V &>* *i*S5y «&£*»??? c**>»«»?* *?«J stwwuni?y nuiw>«*.

ma i»ytn«et

««-»f*f:-lSO fe» l*-.H scsmpie* Has always £*i*£iri bf*

e;r* jf: wkiifif sip cofW55?> »s«si?5^-*t 2s*ir^t5>*;c»'.t tft^rtt! res., ifvaw <»r- fir-tj

Sitffoif

plaayy te?

^c•*** ■ v^-1 tts *• »

? •cssm****, wslftsh

<**rris £*«, •cjren’^'wM

.fe?

Threis^tt'.w^eftp't w»si*fr*ft-«»>0Sfl56/i3;sh*'»?>*ic f«rs»» »y»»tupj»»eiJ:v "o**ni<*if' bi»ey**®«*,. ¥*»»««*; the wsttiss,

AsSTKeg*??*? J$ ionsisf} thefes^tb. Tb* fara^* msvIwew

aisflHwjiit'M?s;5f*f«>rtte«'tc><Jft 'flhysfCB* wsrtf

it-M ?**tKb;«it IV) it tsmavt thw^s{■»* *:«*?■. *?i;<-«^sbv>

to*j#s:8|t»t3*8«‘w}«ini:.-6rjnJaofc»®isftSwi*ft:»i>|,:nv»fe

fWiW* V*liK***sfitt fssisrt®,!)^'oka HaHry fe» i y»*?|«*i.;eh

fey *W4nty?4'i«-iS<*id *HW* Halevi f *<w* fxVvtft if&b

«•»■?*• fantm

i'i thrp/rp$fi\ 'ft>M. &.■*••! r>?.t *?#**, tfvsydo nnf <.1s»o ^t»*i»sJw«^r^«G4W?f^i4ttfS£»r5£* nwft tfwrf*

*s*v>ntt «**% j; s»f*cv!.vi4 wwriif/twfecs?: tSirt^v'»'fs«r frutSe vrmwsenw b»tk!fwni*i5'»^ m *rs»* 3££&s.

iytefiCT<fc*!?-5.5aayyiatoe<ante*'irt»«Sf.^ir»i^i'^^ati?i(*iair>jy^;;r*y*ef>' 5N«*t aw*y «$««w*<«So'lies<»**&.$&«<**»«*

*:a?We£C&^is<#e8T«i*8.''tti»i?^ti.<*?h*»tp.fc* 4w?!»:r.»f'ht’*'1*’' f «ct »ar* th«s sen tensor B-,isy taring Up *visfc more wsrpad e*ssi»R

'tSiiisft'.Mfif’,

0b$bU«»4h«!SPtf?lb> aMiOiiA'rusfvnarWalrass? bnM!«H8:iV*jv*U^e^-?^.^rAS«;:t&ijff^s<^i»pnf>c^tth(!tfSfi7v»cr"s^'torel1 S?S"fs«Mc;et&vsi..S<snv«pCspif caS ihifi^sJnc-thej

gsrz$i> ni^isrA1* ~1

othe»s w&'s»(if'^sl^i^rny t8f*8c juntf *►«) jjjfyfe wnjpaio? resevetere.

^'SsinlfTOmHiyie tctiiwavKiyWrei^flSrt’Sijje^sstHrtBirae* ■< »w?.fo^8J<K#Retotha5nB>!i«>?‘ts'usa:rS««ww®n^»Cft fof pn^.R, ^ssar^y.

’'fefr^fv^ftre*'Jife» Rfi othty ii>.-*^sf»s^..

Mr.fss^tsri-v^'rrKK^afy^M^ior^i V*-ji>»esfc?ff3lj<j>f'*iCif'#r'--tic^»t w>e*'„'Si'^i5r-4ei;5tyf*s, e!5Si<f Msfc>y8i cewpwsMtwfntfSwri^W*^?'. s shootti considerictjtfy rick*?t««.

SJt^h

49a

cvi?! thftie tvKttai! ht>ads

—-‘Original Message—

From: llfi-Bln Shfh (mai!to:!bshih@san.rr.com]

Sent: Monday, June 4,2018 8:30 AM

To: uphillbaker-stuff@vahoD.com* 'craigdodsori <crajgsdodson @ya hoo.corn>

Cc: 'Peri Sword' «pswofd@n:nj,eom>; krlst1n@rayder^w4»m; Ipooie@ad3msstirImglcom; avil)anueva@nnj,eom;

gwwbasi@msn.com; Pameii Capt Nathan B <n3than.p3rnell@usmc.mii>; 'Julie Parnell'

<julie.tucker03@y3hoo.com>

Subject: [Non-Do O Source] RE: NEIGHBORHOOD TERROR

Importance: High

Mr, O'Brien- and Mr. Dodson;

Yeur-dailyenjoyment of eyesore, and your daily reminder of your incoropeteneefo enforcing the CC&R and

daily failure (as the landlord) to control your-renters.

The world record of community bullies! They are. "good" for something!

Lilt-Bin Sbih, Ph.O.

.....Original Message—~

From: Uh*Bin Shih [mailto:ibshih@s3n.rr.com]

Sent: Tuesday, June S, 2018 6:23 AM

To: uphillbaker-5tuff@yahoo.corn; *craig dodson’ <er0igsdodson@yahoo.eom>

Cc; 'Peri Sword’ <psword@nnj.cem>' kristin@rayderiaw.com; ilpooie@adamsstirling.coim; avilianueva@nnj.com;

gwwbasi@msn.com; Parnell Capt Nathan B <nathan.patne!l@usmc.rnil>; 'Juiie ParrtelT!

<julie.tucker03.@yahoo.com>

Subject: jNon-DoD Source) RE: NEIGHBORHOOD TERROR

importance: High . ■

Mr. O'Brien and Mr, Dodson;

Your daily enjoyment of eyesore, and your daily reminder of your Incompetence ;in enforcing the CC&R and

daily failure fas the landlord) to control your renters.

352

50a

JlilLy ® 4 & *

fit: Iff»S^K!io:MrUJSK.J3 <***««>: jfjrTMS

7 £5 v.. £' X'

..... !; «S?I5W

'-■ X slf* ■

.^,. ^ *«*r9H****i*&„^

^ X,

81 r %.or

f“VbW

. -:r~

.. iim Shih

RltW«{iH60HHOOO'?'ta.»^

.. <**? .

' *.*<*&

Qim>

i*s «•(, metw

ijh^ski^a

R\ *f\, ,i'ARF'Sfin •% «

• -J., S»:i *54:

«4«.

51a

»; *i *■>. .9 4 -I .

m ss-ms

t 82 ~ £ -X

a"1

Knih

-s

*?(<&•«&«*>

.S^iSiO.-** -.-..,„.f

r 4;

.Q.

•*»*

Uh'f3«t* SH h e.v'Hh®$m>r?.z;Qrri>

fiiKHJWHOPHOOO

Cl &*: ■ss&ttirfe&r'-s

*«i <Ai.

r'^fecs

WittftWs mfr

rH1 *A*. rtsww'.Sifefww *.»h tacdreisffnfS^spfS. ■Ww«':’'c

***>«>« in mt *$*•«.•*.•>«

cfe«w w *mp*«*W >■» we^s &**!

i* <%f> <wsstfcv ir.?. i*+i>

S^;

F 'SF-. F ’iF'ii'lI

52a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Central

330 West Broadway

San Diego, CA 92101

SHORT TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih {imaged}

CASE NUMBER:

37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the Amended CH-130 Civil Harassment

Restraining Order After Hearing was mailed following .standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage

fully prepaid, addressed as-indicated below. The mailing and this certification occurred at San Diego. California,

on 08/27/2018.

Clerk of the Court, by:

, Deputy

LIH BIN SHIH

11042 CAMINITO VISTA PACIFICA

SAN DIEGO, CA 92131

NATHAN 8 PARNELL

11040 CAMINITO VISTA PACIFICA

SAN DIEGO, CA 92131

Ji Montane

1 Additional names and address attached.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

53a

Bags:1

k^mAtA

CH-130

Civil Harassment Restraining

Order After Hearing

Clerk stamps date hem when form is filed

Person in (T) must complete items®, @, and (J) only.

Protected Person

C::

■■M

.• ^ t

MM 01 2018

Your Lawyer (ifyou have one for this case)

State Bar No,;

Name:___

Firm Name:

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 different mailing address instead. You do not

have to give telephone, fax, or e~mail.)

Address: 11040 CAM1NTO VISTA PACIFICA______________ _

City: SAN DIEGO

State: CA

Telephone: _____

E-Mail Address:

Fax:

Zip: 92131

Fill in court name and street address:

Superior Court of California, County of

SAN DIEGOS

330 W BROADWAY

SAN DIEGO CA 92101

CENTRAL ;

Court fills in case (lumber when lorn is filed.

Case Number:]

f2% Restrained Person

37-20l8-000$3816 -cu-hr-ctl

Full Name: L1H-BIN SH1H

Description:

Date of Birth: UNK.

Weight: 200

Sex: 0 M □ F Height: 5-11

Age: 70

Race: ASIAN

Eye Color: BRN

Hair Color: BLK

Home Address (ifknown): 11042 CA.MINTQ VISTA. PACIFICA

State: CA

Zip: 9131

City: SAN DIEGO___________ _____

Relationship to Protected Person: NEIGHBOR

©a Additional Protected Persons

In addition to the person named in(T}, the following family or household members of that person are protected by

the orders indicated below.

Sex

AjB

Lives with you? How are they related to von?

Full Name

JULIE TUCKER PARNELL

CASON GEORGE PARNELL

m Yes □ No WIFE

__________ _

0 Yes □ No SON_________

0 Check here if there are additional persons. List them on an attached sheet ofpaper and write "Attachment 3Additkmaf Protected Persons " as a title. You may useform MC-025, Attachment.

Expiration Date

This Order, exceptfor any award of lawyer's fees, expires at

Time:

□ a.m. □ p.m. 0 midnight on (date): 8/07/2021

If no expirat ion date is written here, this Order expires three years from the date of issuance.

This is a Court Order.

judtoa! Council of CaWomia, www. coicls. ea, go y

Revised January f. 2016, Mandatary f orm

Code of Civil ftocadur*. $£5276 and 527.9

Approved by OOJ

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

54a

CH-130, Page 1ofS

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-lrr-cli

($) Hearing

'v“'/ a. There-was a hearing, on (date): Aug 8,2018

Room:

at (lime): 08:30am _|n Dept:61~

made the orders at the hearing.

(Name of judicial officer): R. WHITNEY

b. These people, were at the hearing:

(1) 0 The person in©. (3) □ The lawyer for the person in © '(name): __

(2)0 The person .in(2). (4) □ The.lawyer for the person in© (name):___

□ Additional persons present are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment 5.

The hearing is continued. The parties must return to court on (date).-----------

at (time):

To the Person in

The court has granted the orders checked below. If you do not obey these orders, you can be arrested

and charged with a crime. You may be sent to jail for up to one year, pay a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

a. You must not do the following things to the person named in ©

and to the other protected persons listed in ©:

0 Harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, -stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit. abuse,

(!)

destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace of the pe rson.

(2) 0 Contact the person, either directly or indirectly, in any way, including, but not limited to, m person, by

telephone, in writing, by public or private mail, by interoffice mail, by .-e-mail, by text message, by fax,

or by other electronic means.

Take any action to obtain the person’s address or location. If this item (3) is not: checked, tire court has

(3)

found good cause not: to make thi s order,

(4) D Other (specify):

□ Other personal conduct orders are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment 6a(4),

b. Peaceful written contact through a lawyer or process server or other person tor service of legal papers related to

a court case is allowed and does not violate this Order.

(jj S Stay-Away Orders

a. You must stay at least

(1) 0 Die person in © .

yards away from (check all that-apply):

(7) @0 The place of child care of the children of

the person in© .

(2) 03 Each person in©.

(3) 0 Die home of the person in ©

(4) 0 The job or workplace of the person

in (1).

(5) 0. The school of-the person in ©.

(8) 0' The veh icle of the .person in ©.

(9) [3 Other (specify):

---------------------------------------------------^

—---- —---------------------- —--------------

(6) 0 The school of the children of the

person in©.

—

——

“

b. This stay-away order does not prevent, you from going to or from your home or place of employment.

This is a Court Order

Revised January 1, 201-3

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

55a

CH-130, Page 2 of 6

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

(?) No Guns or Other Firearms and Ammunition

a. You cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get' guns,

other firearms, or ammunition.

b. If you have not already done so, you must;

* Within 24 hours of being served with this Order, sell to or store with a licensed' gun dealer, or turn in to a

law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms in your immediate possession or control.

• File a receipt with the court: within 48 hours of receiving this Order that proves that your guns or firearms

have been turned in, sold, or stored. (You may use form CH-800, Proof of Firearms Turned in, Sold, or

Stored, far the receipt.}

c. O The court has received information that you own or possess a firearm,

d. O The court has made the necessary' findings and applies the fire-arm relinquishment exemption under Code of

Civil Procedure section 527.9(f). Under California law, the person in (2) is not required to relinquish this

firearm (specify make, model, and serial number offlrearm(s))j________________

The firearm must he in his or her physical possession only during scheduled work hours and during travel to

and from his or her place of employment. Even if exempt under California law. the person in (2) may be

subject to federal prosecution for possessing or control ling a firearm.

(jiT) O Lawyer's Fees and Costs

The person in __ must: pay to the person in ___ the following amounts for

□ lawyer’s fees

□ costs:

item

Amount

Item

Affifiuai

□ Additional items and amounts are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment: 9,

@ 0 Possession and Protection of Animals

.a, [3 The person in (T)is given the sole possession, care, and control of the animals listed below, which are

owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by him or her, or reside in his or her household,

(Identify animals by, e.g.. type, breed, name, color, sex.)

b. S Die person in(2_) must stay at least: 100 yards away From, and hot take, sell, transfer, encumber, conceal,

molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or-otherwise dispose of, the animals listed above.

(Tift ® Other Orders (specify):

COURT ORDERS LIH BIN SHIP TO NO CONTACT THE MARINE CORPS

I I Additional orders are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment ] 1.

[This is a Court Order.

Pov&ftf Jreutey 1,2018

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

56a

CH-130, Page 3 of 6

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-lrr-ctl

iTothe Person in

□

(fit) Mandatory Entry of Order Into CARPOS Through CLETS

This Order must be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS) through the

California 'Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). (Check one):

:a, □ The clerk will enter this Order and its prodf-of-service form into CARPOS.

b. ID The clerk will transmit: this Order and its proof-ofoservice form to a law enforcement agency to be entered

into CARPOS.

c. □ By the close of business on the date that litis Order is made, the person in (?) or bis.or her la wyer should

deli ver a copy of the Order and its proof-of-service form-to the law enforcement agency listed below to

enter into CARPOS:

.‘Name.of Law-Enforcement Agency

Address (City. Stale. Zip)

Q Additional law enforcement agencies are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment 12.

(?J) Service of Order on Restrained Person

a. 0 The person in@ personally attended the hearing. No other proof of service is needed.

b. 0 The person in (§) did not: attend the hearing.

(1) □ Proof of service of form CH-110, Temporary Restraining Order, was presented to the court. The

judge's orders in this form are the same as in form CH-110 except for the expiration date. The person in

(D must be served with this Order. Service may be by mail.

(2) 0 The judge's orders in this form are different from the temporary restraining orders in form CH-110.

Someone—but not any one in (?) or (3)—m u'st personally serve a copy of th is Order on the person

in@. *

(g) 0 No Fee to Serve (Notify) Restrained Person

'Hie sheriff or marshal will serve this Order without charge because:

a. 0 The Order is based on unlawful violence, a cred ible threat of violence, or stalking.

b. 0 The person in (?) is entitled to a fee waiver.

Number of pages attacited to th is Order, if any :

t % Jr,

Date: August 8. 2018

Judicial Officer mcmm g

(This is a Court Order.

Revised ianuary 1,2018

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

57a

CH-130, Page 4 of 6

Case Number.

37-203 8-00033816 -cu-hr-etl

Ifaming hnd Notice to the Restrained Person in

You Cannot Have Guns or Firearms

Unless item 8d is checked, you cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise get

guns, other firearms, or ammunition whi le this Order is in effect. If you do, you can go to jail and pay a .$ 1,000 fme°You

must sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer, or turn in to a law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms that

you have or control as stated in item (§) above. The court will require you to prove that you did so.

instructions for Law Enforcemen H

Enforcing the Restraining Order

This Order is enforceable by any law enforcement agency that has received the Order, is shown a copy of the Order, or

has verified its existence on the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS). If the law enforcement

agency has not received proof of service on the restrained person, and the restrained person was not present at the court

hearing, the agency must advise the restrained person of the terms of the Order and then must enforce it. Violations of

this Order are subject to criminal penalties.

Start Date and End Date of Orders

This Order starts on the date next to the judge's signature on page 4 and ends on the expiration date in item® on page I.

Arrest Required If Order Is Violated

If an officer has probable cause to believe that the restrained person had notice of the order and has disobeyed it, the

officer must arrest the restrained person. (Pen, Code, §§ 836(c)(1), 13701(b).) A violation of the order may be a violation

of Penal Code section 166 or 273.6, Agencies are encouraged to enter violation messages into CARPOS.

Notice/Proof of Service

The law enforcement agency must: first determine if the restrained person had notice of the order. Consider the restrained

person “served” (given notice) if (Pen, Code, § 836(c)(2)):

The officer sees a copy of the ProofofService or confirms that the Proof of Service is on file; or

The restrained person was at the restraining order hearing or was informed of the order by an officer.

An officer can obtain information about the contents of the order and proof of service in C A RPOS, If proof of service on

the restrained person cannot be verified and the restrained person was not present at die court hearing, the agency must

advise the restrained person of the terms of the order and then enforce it.

If the Protected Person Contacts the Restrained Person

Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person, this Order remains in effect: and

must be enforced. The protected person cannot be arrested for inviting or consenting to contact with the restrained person.

The orders can be changed only by another court order. (Pen. Code, § 13710(b).)

This is a Court Order.

Revised January l, 2018

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

58a

CH-130, Page 5 of 6

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctj

Conflicting Orders—Priorities of 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), 6465(h).)

1. EPO: if one of the orders is an Emergency Protective Order (fora) EPO-O01) and is more restrictive than .other

restraining or protective orders, it has precedence in enforcement-over all other orders,

2. No-Contact Order: if there is no EPO, a no-coiisact: order that is included in a restraining or protective order has

precedence over any other restraining or protective order.

3. Criminal Order: If none of the orders includes-a no contact order, a domestic violence protective order issued in a

criminal, case takes precedence, in enforcement -over any conflicting civil court order. Any nonconflict ing terms of

the civil restraining order remain in effect and enforceable. .

4. Family, Juvenile, or Civil Order: If mote than one family, juvenile, or .other civil restraining or protective order

has been issued, the one that was issued last must be enforced,

Certificate

(Clerk will Jill out this pari.)

—Clerk’s Certificate—

I certify that this Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing is a true and

correct copy of the original on file in the court..

wi-fMC

f;fi J

Date:

Clerk, by

. Deputy

This is a Court Order,

.Revised. January 1,2518

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

59a

CH-130, Page 6 of 8

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 08/08/2018

TIME: 08:30:00 AM

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard S. Whitney

CLERK: Jerry Montano

REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: J. Jones

DEPT: C-61

CASE NO: 37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 07/10/2018

CASE TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih [Imaged]

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

CASE TYPE: Harassment

EVENT TYPE: Hearing on Restraining Order

APPEARANCES

Nathan Brooks Parnell, self represented Petitioner, present.

Lih Bin Shih, self represented Respondent, present.

Julie Tucker Parnell, Protected Person is present.

Attorney Christopher Mordy for petitioner.

Attorney Sammar Zakhour for respondent.

Parties, as noted above, are sworn to testify on their behalf.

Court hears this matter with related case #18-36217.

At the direction of the Court, the matter is trailed so counsel can confer off the record.

Counsel inform the Court they cannot reach agreement. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

The Court having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the

evidence presented, now rules as follows:

The Matter Comes Before the Court for a Hearing on Restraining Order.

The Court informs the parties that this matter is not beinq reported by a court reporter or recorded

electronically.

After careful review of the entire record, the Court now rules as follows:

The Court finds that the Petitioner has met the high burden of proof that is required. The Petitioner has

DATE: 08/08/2018

DEPT: C-61

MINUTE ORDER

476

60a

Page 1

Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih [Imaged]

CASE NO; 37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

proved the case by a Clear and Convincing Evidence under CCP Sec. 527.6 et seq. Therefore, the

request for injunction is GRANTED.

The Court's decision is based on the law that governs CCP 527.6 et seq.

Petitioner is told that if an extension beyond the expiration date is requested the Petitioner must make

that request at least three months prior to the expiration of the restraining order.

Restraining order as requested against Lih Bin Shih is granted with a 5 yards stay away order to expire

The Court further orders respondent Lih Bin Shih to not contact the Marine Corps.

The formal order was signed this date.

Judge Richard S. Whitney

{

DATE: 08/08/2018

DEPT: C-61

MINUTE ORDER

477

61a

Page 2

Calendar No.

CH-130

Civil Harassment Restraining

Order After Hearing

Clerk stamps date hem when form Is Wed.

F '

Person in (T)must complete items(T),(2), «nrf(§) only.

Protected Person

;

■

Your Lawyer (ifyou hove one for this cose)

Name: ,___

State Bar No.:

Firm Name:

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 different mailing address instead. You do not

have to give telephone, fax, or e-mail.)

Address: 11040 CAMINITO VISTA PACIFICA______________

City: SAN DIEGO

State: CA___Zip: 92131

Telephone:_____

E-Mail Address:

Fax:______________

LED

Clark of the Superior Court

AUG 01 2018

By: J. Montano, Deputy

Fill In court name end street address:

Superior Court of California, County of

SAN DIEGO

330 W BROADWAY

SANDIEGOCA 92101

CENTRAL

Court We In case number when tom Is Wed.

Case Number:

Person

Full Name: LIH-BIN SHIH

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ct!

Description:

Sex: □ M @F Height: 5M

Weight: 200

___ Date of Birth: UNK

Hair Color: BLK_________ Eye Colon BRN

Age: 70___ Race: ASIAN

Home Address (ifknown)- 11042 CAMINTO VISTA PACIFICA________________

City: SAN DIEGO____________________

Zip: 92131

State: CA

Relationship to Protected Person: NEIGHBOR

(J) 13 Additional Protected Persons

In addition to the person named in (l), the following family or household members of that person are protected by

the orders indicated below:

Sex

Age Lives with you? How are they related to you?

Full Name

JULIE TUCKER PARNELL

33 (3 Yes □ No WIFE

___________

CASON GEORGE PARNELL

____

2 0 Yes □ No SON_________________

□ Check here ifthere are additionalpersons. List them on an attached sheet ofpaper and write "Attachments—

Additional Protected Persons" as a title. You may use form MC-025, Attachment

(Q Expiration Date

This Order, exceptfor any award of lawyer’s fees, expires at

Time:

□ am. □ p.m. 0 midnight on (date): 8/7/2021

If no expiration date is Written here, this Order expires three years from the date of issuance.

This is a Court Order.

“JudicjarCtwncBoT'CflGfomia, Mww.courfc.ca.90t'

Revised Januay 1,2013, Mandatory Form

Code of CM! Procedure, §§ 327.3 and 627,9

Approved tyDOJ

CjviFRarassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

478

62a

CH-130, Page 1 of"6

Caao Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-lir-ctl

(5) Hearing

a. There was a hearing on (dale): Aug 8,2018

(Name ofJudicial officer): R. WHITNEY

b. These people were at the hearing:

at (time): 08:30am

in Dept.:(H

Room:_

made the orders at the hearing,

(1) ® The person in (1). (3) Q The lawyer for the person in (?) (name):__

(2) 0 The person in (2). (4) □ The lawyer for the person in (2) (name):__

□ Additional persons present are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment 5.

c. □ The hearing is continued. The parties must return to court on (date):______

at (time):

The court has granted the orders checked below. If you do not obey these orders, you can be arrested

and charged with a crime. You may be sent to jail for up to one year, pay a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

;■

(J) 0 Personal Conduct Orders

a. You must not do the following things to the person named In 0

□ and to the other protected persons listed in 0:

(1) @ Harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit, abuse,

destroy personal property of, or disturb the peace of the person.

(2) 0 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 maU, by interoffice mail, by e-mail, by text message, by fax,

or by other electronic means.

(3) 0 Take any action to obtain the person’s address or location. If this item (3) is not checked, the court has

found good cause not to make this order.

(4) □ Other (specify):

□ Other personal conduct orders are attached at tire end of this Order on Attachment 6a(4).

;

b. Peaceful written contact through a lawyer or process server or other person for service of legal papers related to

a court case is allowed and does not violate this Order.

(7^ 0 Stey-Away Orders

*• You m ust stay at least___ 5

yards away from (check all that apply):

(1) 0 The person iti (1) .

(7) 0 The place of child care of the children of

the person in 0 ,

(2) 0 Each person in (5),

(3) 0 The home of the person in (?) .

(4) 0 The job or workplace of the person

in(f).

(8) 0 The vehicle ofthe person in 0 .

(9) □ Other (specify):

(5) 0 The school of the person in 0.

(6) 0 The school of the children of the

person in 0 .

■

b. This stay-away order does not prevent you from going to or from your home or place of employment.

This is a Court Order.

—Revfced-Januaryl720t8'

‘Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

479

63a

CH-130, Page 2 of 6

CaBe Number.

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

(5) No Guns or Other Firearms and Ammunition

a. You cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get guns,

other firearms, or ammunition,

b. If you have not already done so, you must:

• Within 24 hours of being served with this Order, sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer, or turn in to a

law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms in your immediate possession or control.

■ File a receipt with die court within 48 hours of receiving this Order that proves that your guns or firearms

have been turned in, sold, or stored. (You may useform CH-800, Proof of Firearms Turned In, Sold, or

Stored, for the receipt.)

c. □ The court has received information that you own or possess a firearm.

d. □ The court has made the necessary findings and applies the firearm relinquishment exemption under Code of

Civil Procedure section 527.9(1). Under California law, the person in (2) is not required to relinquish this

firearm (specify make, model, and serial number offlrearm(s)):___________________________

The firearm must be in his or her physical possession only during scheduled woric hours and during travel to

and from his or her place of employment. Even if exempt under California law, the person in (5) may be

subject to federal prosecution for possessing or controlling a firearm.

;

(V) □ Lawyer's Fees and Costs

Tlie person in

must pay to the pereon in

□ lawyer’s fees

Item

□ costs:

the following amounts for

Amount

Item

Amount

□ Additional items and amounts are attached at the end of this Order on Attachment 9.

(lo) □ Possession and Protection of Animals

a, □ The person in (T)is given the sole possession, care, and control of the animals listed below, which are

owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by him or her, or reside in his or her household.

(Identify animals by, e.g., type, breed, name, color, sex.)

b. Q The person in(2) must stay at least

yards away from, and not take, Sell, transfer, encumber, conceal,

molest, attack, strike, threaten, harm, or otherwise dispose of, foe animals listed above,

(ll) □ Other Orders (specify):

□ Additional orders ore attached at the end of this Order on Attachment 11.

'RevEswTJ&rtuary 172016*

This is a Court Order.

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLEtS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

480

64a

CH'130, Pago 3 of 6

Case Number.

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

(12) Mandatory Entry of Order Into CARPOS Through CLETS

This Order must be entered into the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS) through the

California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). (Check one):

a. □ The clerk will enter this Order and its proof-of-service form into CARPOS.

b. (El The clerk will transmit this Order and its proof-of-service form to a law enforcement agency to be entered

into CARPOS.

c. □ By the close of business on the date that this Order is made, the person in (l) or his or her lawyer should

deliver a copy of the Order and its proof-of-service form to the law enforcement agency listed below to

enter into CARPOS:

Name of Law Enforcement Agency

Address (City. State. Zip)

□ Additional law enforcement agencies are listed at the end of this Order on Attachment 12.

(13} Service of Order on Restrained Person

b. □ The person in (2) did not attend the hearing.

(1) □ Proof of service of form CH-110, Temporary Restraining Order, was presented to the court. The

judge’s orders in this form arc the same as in form CH-110 except for the expiration date. The person in

(2) D The judge’s orders in this form are different from the temporary restraining orders in form CH-110.

in®.

(14) (3 No Fee to Serve (Notify) Restrained Person

The sheriff or marshal will serve this Order without charge because:

a. 0 The Order is based on unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or stalking.

{^5} Number of pages attached to this Order, if any:

Date: August 8, 2018

Judicial Officer

fUCHARD S. WffiTNE#

This is a Court Order.

' —Rovte«J"J«niiaryl7201fl'

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

481

65a

CH-130, Page 4 of 6

Case Number:

37-2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

You Cannot Have Guns or Firearms

Unless item 8d is checked, you cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise get

guns, other firearms, or ammunition while this Order is in effect. If you do, you can go to jail and pay a $1,000 fine. You

must sell to or store with a licensed gun dealer, or turn in to a law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms that

you have or control as stated in item (§) above. The court will require you to prove that you did so.

Instructions for Law Enforcemen

Enforcing the Restraining Order

This Order is enforceable by any law enforcement agency that has received the Order, is shown a copy of the Order, or

has verified its existence on the California Restraining and Protective Order System (C ARPOS). If the law enforcement

agency has not received proof of service on the restrained person, and the restrained person was not present at the court

hearing, the agency must advise the restrained person of the terms of the Order and then must enforce it. Violations of

this Order are subject to criminal penalties.

Start Date and End Date of Orders

This Order starts on the date next to the judge’s signature on page 4 and ends on the expiration date in item(4)on page 1.

Arrest Required If Order Is'Violated

If an officer has probable cause to believe that the restrained person had notice of the order and has disobeyed it, the

officer must arrest the restrained person. (Pen. Code, §§ 836(c)(1), 13701(b).) A violation of the order may be a violation

of Penal Code section 166 or 273.6. Agencies are encouraged to enter violation messages into CARPOS.

Notice/Proof of Service

The law enforcement agency must first determine if the restrained person had notice of the order. Consider the restrained

person “served” (given notice) if (Pen. Code, § 836(cX2)):

•

The officer sees a copy of the Proof ofService or confirms that the ProofofService is on file; or

* The restrained person was at the restraining order hearing or was informed of the order by an officer.

An officer can obtain information about the contents of the order and proof of service in CARPOS. If proof of service on

the restrained person cannot be verified and the restrained person was not present at the court hearing, the agency must

advise the restrained person of the terms of the order and then enforce it

If the Protected Person Contacts the Restrained Person

Even if the protected person invites or consents to contact with the restrained person, this Order remains in effect and

must be enforced. The protected person cannot be arrested for inviting or consenting to contact with the restrained person.

The orders can be changed only by another court order. (Pen. Code, § 13710(b).)

This is a Court Order.

Rovisad January t, 2018

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

482

66a

CH-130, Page 5 of 6

Case Number:

37.2018-00033816 -cu-hr-ctl

Conflicting Orders—Priorities of Enforcement

If more than one restraining order has been issued, the orders must be enforced according to

the following priorities: (SeePen. Code, § 136.2; Fam. Code, §§ 6383(h)(2), 6405(b).)

1. EPO: If one of the orders is an Emergency Protective Order (form EPO-OOl) and is more restrictive than other

restraining or protective orders, it has precedence in enforcement over all other orders.

2. No-Contact Order: If there is no EPO, a no-contact order that is included in a restraining or protective order has

precedence over any other restraining or protective order.

3. Criminal Order: If none of the orders includes a no contact order, a domestic violence protective order issued in a

criminal case takes precedence in enforcement over any conflicting civil court order. Any nonconflicting terms of

the civil restraining order remain in effect and enforceable.

4. Family, Juvenile, or Civil Order: If more than one family, juvenile, or other civil restraining or protective order

has been issued, the one that was issued last must be enforced.

;

Clerk’s Certificate

[seed]

(Clerk willfill out this part.)

—Clerk’s Certificate—

I certify that tills Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing is a true and

correct copy of the original on file in the court.

Date: August 8,2018

Clerk, by

.Deputy

■

This is a Court Order.

Revlsod January 1,2016

Civil Harassment Restraining Order After Hearing

(CLETS-CHO)

(Civil Harassment Prevention)

483

67a

CH-130, Page 6 of 6

____ L

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 12/13/2018

TIME: 10:24:00 AM

JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Richard S. Whitney

CLERK: Richard Cersosimo

REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

DEPT: C-68

CASE NO: 37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 07/10/2018

CASE TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih [Imaged]

CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

CASE TYPE: Harassment

APPEARANCES

;

This court trial was conducted on August 2, 2018. There was no official record made of the

proceedings. The court upon conclusion of the evidence granted a permanent injunction to expire on

August 7, 2021. This court has very little recollection of the evidence but does point out at least 2

statements on the Settled Statement of Appeal of Respondent which appear inaccurate. This court no

longer sits in Department 61 and since the above heanng date has been reassigned to an Independent

Calendar assignment in Department 68.

The Settled Statement does appear to this court to contain inaccuracies of what occurred and what was

said by this bench officer, but unfortunately due to the absence of record cannot address with specificity

many of these issues. The language used in this Settled Statement does appear in part to be

inconsistent with the court's minute order. The court ordered as part of the decision that Respondent

NOT contact the Marine Corps as part of this order as reflected in the courts minute order. There is an

inaccuracy in the Settled Statement of Respondent which indicates on the signature page, line 6, "The

issued written order was for 5 years and no restriction on contacting the Marine Corps ..." This is

inaccurate and inconsistent with the court minute order.

The court also questions the accuracy of the comment contained on the signature page, line 2, "Judge

Wlnitney stated that Respondent had too many rights, and that he has the right to wave the flag outside

of the White House, but no one would see the Judge doing that." The court has no recollection of that

exact verbiage and appears to have been misquoted and completely taken out of context.

The remainder of the Settled Statement is also called into question due to the above misquotes but

unfortunately this court cannot provide further comment in the absence of a record or distinct recollection

of the proceedings.

The court found that by a clear and convincing standard credible evidence of harassment by

Respondent towards Petitioner by stalking, making unwarranted phone calls to Marine Command and

repeated attempts to harass the Petitioner and his wife by unfounded complaints to the Home Owners

Association and the U.S. Marine Corps. It appeared to the court that Respondent was reaching a level

of unhealthy obsession in monitoring almost every movement and action taken by Petitioner and his wife

DATE: 12/13/2018

DEPT: C-68

MINUTE ORDER

524

68a

Page 1

Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih [Imaged]

CASE NO: 37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

and was clearly invading his privacy through stalking, harassment and the filing of unwarranted

complaints with the HOA and the Marine Corps. The Respondent was admonished to STOP having any

contact with Petitioners and to leave them alone and not contact Petitioner's Marine Command so as to

stop interfering with Petitioners life and work. The evidence established, in part, approximately 300

unwanted emails from Respondent on issues that were mundane and designed to simply inflict

distress/harassment upon Petitioner and his wife. The evidence also showed that Respondent

consistently invaded Petitioners personal space in common areas of the complex that was unreasonable

and unwarranted.

The evidence supported a clear cut case of harassment by Respondent. The court concluded

Respondent did not understand the nature and consequences of her harassing actions and appeared to

show very little remorse or ability to correct her harassing actions. The court was concerned that

Respondent had made Petitioners the target of some form of harassment obsession and did not appear

willing or able to redirect her actions elsewhere in a more positive manner to allow Petitioners to live in

peace.

The court admonished Respondent on numerous occasions during the hearing to leave Petitioners

alone and stop all communications with them. The court was doubtful upon conclusion of the

proceedings that Respondent had the ability to abide by the court's order.

^^4^—Judge Richard S. Whitney

)

DATE: 12/13/2018

DEPT: C-68

MINUTE ORDER

525

69a

Page 2

Calendar No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Central

1100 Union St, Rm 218

San Diego, CA 92101

SHORT TITLE: Parnell vs. Shih [Imaged]

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:

37-2018-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER:

D074B05

;

I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE

RECORD ON APPEAL was mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully

prepaid, addressed as Indicated below. The certification occurred at San Dieoo. California on 12/26/2018 The

mailing occurred at Gardena. California on 12/27/201 ft

;

Clerk of the Court, by^

ROSEMARY MEAGHER-LEONARD

LAW OFFICE OF ROSEMARY MEAGHER-LEONARD

4456 FLORIDA STREET

SAN DIEGO, CA 92116

O.H«n»n........

, Deputy

CHRISTOPHER R MORDY

TAYLOR ANDERSON

3655 NOBEL DRIVE, SUITE 650

SAN DIEGO, CA 92122

;

•i!

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

•i

Page: 2

526

70a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

FOR COURT USB ONLY

H CENTRAL DIVISION, CENTRAL COURTHOUSE, 1100 UNION ST„ SAN DIEGO, CA 82101

□ CENTRAL DIVISION, JUVENILE COURT, 2851 MEADOW LARK DR„ SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

□ EAST COUNTY DIVISION, 250 E, MAIN ST„ EL CAJON, CA 02020

□ NORTH COUNTY DIVISION, 325 S. MELROSE DR., VISTA, CA 92081

□ SOUTH COUNTY DIVISION, 500 3B0 AVE., CHULA VISTA, CA 81910

RESPONDENT

Fflirt'»l Ihi LluptrfirEcturt D

DEC 2 6-2018

By.' G. Hohman, Deputy

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL

APPELLANT

LIH BIN SHIH

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER

RECEIPT FOR RECORD ON APPEAL

37-201B-00033816-CU-HR-CTL

COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER

0074805

Received from the Clerk of the Superior Court;

Administrative Record(s)

Clerk's Transcrlpt(s)/File

Confidential Envelope(s) (DCA Only)

Number of Volumes

{

Rule 8.124

Deposition Transcript(s)

Marsden

Notice of Intent to File Writ/Petition

Preliminary Hearing Transcript

Reporter's Master Index

Reporter’s Transcrfpt(s)

Reporter's Transcripts on Disk(s)

Sealed Clerk's Transcrlpt(s)/File

Sealed Reporter's Transcripts)

Sealed Reporter's Transcripts on Dlsk(s)

Settled Statement

NOTE: Sign receipt and return to address indicated in header, Attention: Appeals.

Date:

FILE COPY

8DSC APL-023 (Rov. 0/12)

RECEIPT FOR RECORD ON APPEAL

527

71a

CM. Rides o! Coun, nles a 120, &150>

6.33$, &340, & 8.45M.474

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

FOR COURTUSEONLY

APPEALS SECTION

STREET ADDRESS:

1100 Union St, Rm 216

MAILING ADDRESS:

1100 Union St, Rm216

CITY AND ZIP CODE: Sen Diego, CA 92101

BRANCH NAME:

Central

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (619) 844-2348

APPELLANT: Uh Bin Shlh

RESPONDENT: Nathan Brooks Parnell

Short Title: Parnell V6. Shlh [Imaged]

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:

NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL

37-2018-00033816-CU-H R-CTL

COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER:

D074805

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Record on Appeal has been completed and certified to the higher court. An

additional copy of the record will be distributed to the appelfant(s), and respondent(s) if applicable, as required by the

Cal. Rules of Court.

The Record on Appeal Is enclosed.

□

Original/Lodged transcript(s) sent to the Appellate Division/Court of Appeal. The attorney has a copy.

Prepaid copies of the record may be obtained in the Appeals Section of the court indicated above.

Request log number________ ____________________

□

A refund of $ is due from the amount deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court for the estimated costs of

the record on appeal.

□

Enclosed is a Request for Payment of Trust Funds (SDSC Form #CIV-180) for your use in claiming your

refund. Please complete the form and submit the original and one copy to the Accounting Division of the

Superior Court.

CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

...

Date: 12/26/2018

a. Hdtotim ------

, Deputy

‘

(Rbv 01-09)

NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL

528

72a

Pago: 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

FOR COURT USE ONLY

E3 CENTRAL DIVISION, CENTRAL COURTHOUSE, 1100 UNION ST„ SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

□ CENTRAL DIVISION, JUVENILE COURT, 2851 MEADOW LARK DR., SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

□ EAST COUNTY DIVISION, 250 E, MAIN ST., EL CAJON, CA 92020

□ NORTH COUNTY DIVISION. 325 S. MELROSE DR., VISTA, CA 92081

□ SOUTH COUNTY .DIVISION, 500 3BD AVE., CHULA VISTA, CA 01910

RESPONDENT

NATHAN BROOKS PARNELL

APPELLANT

LIH BIN SHIH

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER

RECEIPT FOR RECORD ON APPEAL

37-2018-0003381 e-CU-HR-CTL

COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER

D074805

Received from the Clerk of the Superior Court:

Administrative Record(s)

Clerk's Transcript(s)/File

;

Number of Volumes

;

Rule 8.124

Confidential Envelope(s) (DGAOnly)

Deposition Transcrlpt(s)

Marsden

Notice of Intent to FifeWfitiPAtittmil Fourth Distil

Preliminary Hearing TranslipJ

Reporter's Master Index

JAN o;-> 2019

Reporter's Transcript(s)

.->•>» ■> Una, ciai*

Reporter's Transcripts on Disk^^TY

Sealed Clerk's Transcript(s)/File

Sealed Reporter's TransGript(s)

Sealed Reporter's Transcripts on Disk(s)

Settled Statement

NOTE: Sign receipt and return to.address Indicated in header, Attention; Appeals,

Date:

Cou rt of Appeal

SOSC API.-029 *Rev 9/121

RECEIPT FOR RECORD ON APPEAL

529

73a

Col. Rtrf&s $>f Court. rulo& 0.120, li.150,

3.335, 8,340. ft 8.4004) 474

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.