As there is no recording/video of the WebEx court hearing, the following statements are my opinion only of today's hearing requested by a local, female (i.e., "victim G") requesting a permanent civil protection order against SD.
1) SD resided at the same 4-plex as victim G until December 2020.
2) At some time during her 2020 tenancy, SD was a party to a domestic violence incident at the complex. It was made clear during the hearing that the DV call did not involve victim G, and that victim G is not on any related civil or criminal witness list.
3) The landlord of the 4-plex testified that he received complaints about SD from the neighbors during her tenancy but it was not until Sept 2021 that he advised SD that she was not welcome at the 4-plex, and she should not be on the property or bother the tenants.
4) In denying victim G's request for a permanent restraining order, the Court stated that it appeared that SD has honored the landlord's request and has not been to the property since Sept 2021. (Victim G failed to prove to the court the requirements met for the civil protection order).
5) IMO, the following incident testified by victim G was the most relevant:
SD texted victim G that she was in possession of her FedEx package. In the same text, SD also offered victim G and her family packages of unopened hotdogs and sausages. It seemed victim G collected her package from SD without incident but when she later checked the tracking of her package, she found SD allegedly had the package for two days before notifying victim G. Given the latest incident at PP involving SD and FedEx package, not alleging SD a porch pirate but makes one wonder about her habit of collecting packages belonging to others!
IMO, SD sounds like a hothead and a bully -- and very well-suited for BM.
