FROZEN FIEFDOM 

BRAYING, BARKING, WHINING: CANINE CONTROL, Check this 10-50!

Goodness!  All this noise and racket.   It reminds me of being a kid, and my Mom phoning the Dog Catcher when the neighbors' Irish Setter wouldn't shut up. 

Let's have a closer look at what Mr. Grant has submitted to the Court on the scans below dated October 29, 2008.

NOTE:  I have removed the last name of Claire on this document, but I purposely did not on the Affidavit of Elaine Schroeder, which he mentions below.  That is Dr. Elaine Schroeder's sworn statement, and those are her exact words.  Even at the expense of my daughter's privacy, I will not alter an Affidavit.  (See the section "Shrink Wrap This!..." to read her full and complete Affidavit.)

Mr. Grant states "...and posts the details of her counseling session with Dr. Schroeder on the internet for all to see."  

Really?  Where?  Ms. / Dr. Schroeder's statements in her Affidavit are generalized in reference to Claire; she didn't even specify on which dates she saw her professionally.

I have asked, in writing, and mailed a note to Ms. Schroeder on October 28, 2008, asking her to provide me with the notes, etc. of the Q and A sessions she had with my daughter.  (see my October 28, 2008 note to Ms. Schroeder under "Shrink Wrap This!..." section.)

Mr. Grant refers to this note of mine as a "demand letter."  I was very polite in my writing to Ms. Schroeder, and I see a pattern of Mr. Grant and others incorrectly overusing the word "demand" in their statements about my requests to them.   

Elaine Schroeder  has not  responded to this request,  nor has she provided me with a copy of her session notes.  Today is November 10, 2008, and even with the slow mail service, I should have received something from her by now.   How unprofessional of her to not respond to a written request from a parent; when she has attested to seeing their child in a professional capacity.   

Mr. Grant states "...contains the photos of Ms. Rose with sex toys, and in the "Babeland Mobile".  She seems quite proud to post her sexual exploits and preferences on the internet..." 

In my opinion, these are false statements made by him.

"Toys"?  That is the plural form of the word, and I only see one vibe in that photo with the woman who resembles me.  I don't see anyone in the photo of my ride, which Gail Margaret Sanders and I decorated and cruised around Los Angeles in, during August of 2007.

"...her sexual exploits..."?  Whoa now!  Those words are your opinion, Mr. Grant, and say much more about your limited and  narrow minded view of mild teen to adult humor. 

Are you certain that is me in that photo?  And how would you know that to be a fact, when I stated it only resembles me?  Do tell how you would know what my "...preferences..." are.  I am absolutely certain that you never have had the opportunity to explore my more intimate preferences, and never will.  Speculation and personal opinion cannot be passed off by you or others as "facts."  

Let's Review:  In Mr. Grant's September 19, 2008 letter to me he first mentioned my being "photographed with sex toys." 

To date, he has failed to "Man Up",  and has refused to provide me with the name of the photographer. 

Wow!  It's a good thing I already knew who took them, and Gail Margaret Sanders freely admitted that she did.   Gail has not admitted to sending them to Mr. Grant, nor will she answer my question as to who she thinks might have sent them to me via the postal service, or why someone would.   See the email series between Gail and me under "The Infamous..." section.

 On the topic of my publishing some of the Affidavits signed by family members and others:

he states "...anyone who files a truthful affidavit in a lawsuit is anxious for the information to be widely broadcast..."

That is not my exact quote; it's another twist of term by him.  I wrote:  

"If they claim it's "The Truth", or  "Their Truths",  then they should be pleased that I want everyone to  see for themselves what he and others think, and believe, about me."  (from "And Brays, And Brays..." section)

Based on the content of those Affidavits that I have reviewed, which he states above are "truthful", they why would he or they object to having their own sworn and signed words publicly available? 

I have disagreed with much of the content of them, and have provided evidence that some of the statements are false, incorrect, incomplete, or outright lies; so I expect that some might be feeling a tad "anxious" about what their Affidavits contain.  

 Get a load of the line "It is all about Paula Rose, with total disregard for the impact on her friend and relatives, who are merely trying to protect Claire and her privacy."  

Friends?  Please list them by name, Mr. Grant. 

Family and others who have made false statements about me, failed to answer my repeatedly asked questions, referred to events which have not been proven to have occurred, and who have engaged in coercive behaviors to keep me from having access to my daughter, are not acting in my best interests; nor are their acts or words in the best interest of my daughter, Claire. 

Any further bad mouthing of me by anyone will be published on this site.  Materials submitted to me shall be available to anyone who cares to review them.  It's an open invitation to anyone:  Say whatever you like about me!  I'll give you free space right here on this website.   But no sniveling or whining is allowed, when I voice my side of the story.  Facts only, please.  

I disagree with your final statement of this document; that's no surprise to you or anyone else, I'm sure.