Kelley's Email to Boulder DA Stan Garnett re. Cohen's Unlawfully Registered Domestic Violence Order

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Plagiarism hints for Francisco
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, OIGCOMPL OIGCOMPL <oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org>, MEDIA RELATIONS PIO <pio@lapd.lacity.org>, chaleffg <chaleffg@lapd.lacity.org>, Vivienne Swanigan <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, Glenn Greenwald <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>

Stan,

Let me know how you think I violated a domestic violence order when the Boulder court issued (at my request) a civil harassment order.  LA Superior Court is confused about this issue and doesn't understand why I had to be served or notified.  Their form says that a proof of service must be attached but an appellate court should understand these fundamental concepts.  Leonard Cohen's fraud should not change that.  I think the appellate division covers for the trial court.  They certainly seemed to in Phil Spector's matter.  I think these jury instructions are illegal.  Carolyn Enichen did not issue a domestic violence order and the form itself is quite clear:  only the original court can modify it.  But, Stan, I want you to know that the damage is now inconceivable.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2600/2701.html

Kelley Lynch

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi DOJ,

Serious problems with these jury instructions.  Do let me know if you're unclear.  The Boulder order, that I requested, is a civil harassment order.  How did I violate a fraud domestic violence order?  Right - LA has a scam going on with this fraud.  That's why people, like Coyote Shivers, are going to the Los Angeles Criminal Grand Jury.  The DOJ should also investigate.  LA Superior Court and the Appellate Division like to play games, obviously.  Leonard Cohen's publicly documented history of drug abuse (that was NOT my common plan & scheme but that must be an LA thing) must have caused him to think that exposing one's penis to a female colleague is a "dating relationship."

All the best,
Kelley

2. The court order was a (protective order/stay-away court order/ <insert other description of order from Pen. Code, � 166(c)(3) or � 273.6(c)>), issued [in a criminal case involving domestic violence and] under <insert code section under which order made>;

3. The defendant knew of the court order;

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mr. Riordan,

Fortunately, you're not a trial court or the appellate division.  There seem to be serious problems with this jury instruction.  Since this instruction is so clear, how does the appellate division explain their order re. me?  I see some serious problems here, no?

Love,

Kelley

The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with violating a court order.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. A court [lawfully] issued a written order that the defendant <insert description of content of order>;

2. The court order was a (protective order/stay-away court order/ <insert other description of order from Pen. Code, � 166(c)(3) or � 273.6(c)>), issued [in a criminal case involving domestic violence and] under <insert code section under which order made>;

3. The defendant knew of the court order;

4. The defendant had the ability to follow the court order;

AND

5. The defendant willfully violated the court order.

Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2600/2701.html

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

To the DOJ,

I now plan to file a motion re. the extortionist fees LA Superior Court is demanding from me.  Cohen and I were NOT in a dating relationship and extortion is criminal.  The LA Grand Jury should investigate the abuse of these fraud orders.  Everyone I know is filing a complaint with the Grand Jury.  Let's see if they do their job.  I think it's up to the "DA" who refuses to investigate;prosecute the criminal negligence in Rutger's Whole Foods matter.  I can assure you that this issue makes people livid and ill.  The same is true for my lunatic prosecutor targeting Rutger.  These people will do anything. 

All the best,
Kelley

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

To the DOJ,

I don't think the proof of service not being attached to the fraud TRO is an issue.  I think the appellate division is wasting taxpayer dollars and evading serious legal issues.  That exposes LA County to liability.  In other words, false arrest.  It really does demand an investigation.  LA Superior Court had NO jurisdiction over me re. the Stalinesque Show Trial, Cohen's fraud and retaliatory lawsuit, the companion lawsuit (whatever that is), and many other matters.  It is an outrage.

All the best,
Kelley

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello DOJ,

Evidently the appellate division hasn't gotten the rotten news yet.  But, they are employed by the County and that was very clear in their shameless orders.

All the best,
Kelley

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mr. Riordan,

Even you can read Gorham.  It's very straightforward. 

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2010/d055200/

It seems very simple - I wasn't served and the judgment is void.  The proof of service is evidence of extrinsic fraud.  Rutger and I don't resemble the Jane Doe and people think it's laughable when I explain what Doe looked like.  No one, including the Tibetan lamas who lived with or stayed with us, was advised to evade service and LA Superior Court cannot ever prove otherwise.  I was also home every day so the process server lied about even coming by the house.  Rutger was home as well.  This motion will absolutely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as will my writ.  I do not care how long it takes.  The Supreme Court should weigh in because the issues with lack of personal jurisdiction and citizens not being served is a serious issue that should concern everyone.  Otherwise, I can gutter serve Justice Scalia and steal his home.  So, I think these people should come down off their lofty benches and get real.  This is NOT brain surgery but I do see a pattern with the higher courts.  They do not like to overturn matters.  It is shameless and I personally think it's treasonous.  Also, this fraud judgment is evidence of a crime and altered my federal tax returns. 

Love,
Kelley

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

To the iRS and FBI,

I didn't steal the language.  The court can read Gorham for themselves. At least I didn't aid and abet theft and attempt to sabotage the IRS, destroy a family, etc.  This is a sick situation.  Maybe I keep losing because I refuse to lie and/or perjure myself.  LA Superior Court is into that sort of thing from what I've witnessed - see Ray's custody matter, Cohen's retaliatory lawsuit, my Stalinesque Show Trial, etc.  It is an outrage.  What's unique about Gorham?  The court understood the judgment was void and the court had no jurisdiction.  It's a no brainer and that's why the taxpayers footing the bill for this insanity get it easily.  They also understand that I had to be served the fraud TRO from Cali and find the appellate division disgraceful.  Of course, the City Attorney really takes the cake.  People are revolted that a prosecutor thinks Cohen should be annoyed (NOT an element of the alleged crime) for exposing his penis to me.  For the record,  EVERY SINGLE person I've spoken with thinks this statute is unconstitutionally vague and laughable.  The Supreme Court should address it.  They work for the people and not these corrupt politicians who will set up an innocent woman and target her children.

All the best,
Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Subject: Plagiarism hints for Francisco
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>, blinddistribution@gmail.com

HINT: it's generally not a good idea to steal high quality legal writing when you are well known for your poor writing skills, Francisco.

SECOND HINT: if you are going to lift your entire brief - headings and all - from a published case it's not a good idea to cite that case as authority in your brief. Because as soon as research staff reads that case they will know you stole the language without attribution. (And in this instance from a case limited to its unique facts, without bringing that to the court's attention either.)

This is one of the many reasons losers keep losing. 

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.