Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Leonard Cohen & The City Attorney Of Los Angeles' Absurd Lie About Cohen & My Being In A Dating Relationship - More Perjury

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:31 AM
Subject: Appeal - Oral Arguments
To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <>, Dennis <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

There are a number of issues in the Respondent's Brief that I believe should be addressed in oral arguments.
Dating relationship.  Respondent's Brief states - page 1:
According to Cohen, but disputed by appellant, they also had a brief intimate relationship.  (RT 49,320)
In the sentencing documents, prosecutor Streeter (page 2-3_ writes:  In addition, "victim"would be described pursuant to Family Code 6211(c) as someone "with whom the defendant is having or had had a dating or engagement relationship."  Penal Code 1203.097 is applicable for sentencing purposes. 
Therefore, the City Attorney absolutely took the position that Cohen and I had a dating relationship.  The testimony regarding this  matter is perjured and Cohen acknowledged changing his story while testifying - regardless of his pathetic excuse.  He testified honestly at the March 23rd hearing - we had a purely business relationship although we did have a friendship.  This is a very relevant point as Cohen registered the civil harassment order (Boulder) that I requested as a domestic violence order in California on May 25, 2011.
I'll make other notes and send you one document re. relevant issues later today. 
All the best,