Monday, October 27, 2014

Kelley Lynch's Email To DOJ Re. The Use Of A DMV Statute To Arrest, Prosecute, Convict & Sentence Her Vis A Vis Boulder Court's Confirmation That The Boulder Order Is Not A DMV Order

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re:
To: ASKDOJ <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, MollyHale <>,,, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Jeffrey Korn <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,, Sherab Posel <>


I was sentenced using this statute.  And, fines/fees arose from the domestic violence statutes.  The Boulder Court was clear - this is NOT a domestic violence order.  What will the LA Court say - they're lying?  See the Sentencing Memorandum.  On top of it, WHO paid for the quack domestic violence counselor who wanted me committed and drugged although her office has confirmed for me and Paulette that they don't diagnose anyone without seeing them and she was given five selective emails.  One must have related to "Steve Cooley."  It all looks criminal to me. No wonder the prosecutor retaliated.  I think part of the fraud re. the registration of foreign orders as domestic violence orders relates to, as they say in Tibet, gormo.  $$

The statute requires the minimum payment of $400 (which I was fined) to be disbursed as follows:  2/3 of the moneys deposited in the domestic violence programs special fund created pursuant to Section 18305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to be expended for the purposes of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 19290) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.  SO that's the 2/3  The remainder shall be transferred, once a month, to the Controller for deposit in equal amounts in the DMV Reimbursement Fund and in the DMV Training and Education Fund.  The monies are then distributed as follows each fiscal year.

But, on top of it, there are mandatory battery programs, anger management, and substance abuse.  In my case, the money was extorted from the Sheriff's Department who pays these programs.  It demands a criminal investigation.  I intend to find out when Cohen believes the statutory required "dating relationship" ended.  He testified that it was sometime before we parted ways. Streeter advised the jury that it began in the mid-80s.

The original order was modified.  But, Cohen, Kory, and Rice worked with the domestic violence unit without proving a statutory dating relationship. The Boulder Court has taken the position that their order is not domestic violence.  There are federal issues as well.  And you can trust me on this one - I have no interest in speaking to, seeing, hearing about Leonard Cohen or attending one of his concerts.  I cannot stand his music and neither can Phil Spector.  Also, who would want to see a man who did this to him.  See LAPD report:  the emails were generally requests for tax information.  In other words, this is blatant obstruction of justice related to federal matters using a municipal court order.  

All the best,

Penal Code Section 1203.097

California Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides:
(a) If a person is granted probation for a crime in which the victim is a person defined in Section 6211 of theFamily Code, the terms of probation shall include all of the following:

(1) A minimum period of probation of 36 months, which may include a period of summary probation as appropriate.

(2) A criminal court protective order protecting the victim from further acts of violence, threats, stalking, sexual abuse, and harassment, and, if appropriate, containing residence exclusion or stay-away conditions.

(3) Notice to the victim of the disposition of the case.

(4) Booking the defendant within one week of sentencing if the defendant has not already been booked.

(5) A minimum payment by the defendant of four hundred dollars ($400) to be disbursed as specified in this paragraph. If, after a hearing in court on the record, the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay, the court may reduce or waive this fee.

Two-thirds of the moneys deposited with the county treasurer pursuant to this section shall be retained by counties and deposited in the domestic violence programs special fund created pursuant to Section 18305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to be expended for the purposes of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 18290) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The remainder shall be transferred, once a month, to the Controller for deposit in equal amounts in the Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund and in the Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund, which are hereby created, in an amount equal to one-third of funds collected during the preceding month. Moneys deposited into these funds pursuant to this section shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature and shall be distributed each fiscal year as follows:

(A) Funds from the Domestic Violence Restraining Order Reimbursement Fund shall be distributed to local law enforcement or other criminal justice agencies for state-mandated local costs resulting from the notification requirements set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 6380 of the Family Code, based on the annual notification from the Department of Justice of the number of restraining orders issued and registered in the state domestic violence restraining order registry maintained by the Department of Justice, for the development and maintenance of the domestic violence restraining order databank system.

(B) Funds from the Domestic Violence Training and Education Fund shall support a statewide training and education program to increase public awareness of domestic violence and to improve the scope and quality of services provided to the victims of domestic violence. Grants to support this program shall be awarded on a competitive basis and be administered by the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the statewide domestic violence coalition, which is eligible to receive funding under this section.

(6) Successful completion of a batterer’s program, as defined in subdivision (c), or if none is available, another appropriate counseling program designated by the court, for a period not less than one year with periodic progress reports by the program to the court every three months or less and weekly sessions of a minimum of two hours class time duration. The defendant shall attend consecutive weekly sessions, unless granted an excused absence for good cause by the program for no more than three individual sessions during the entire program, and shall complete the program within 18 months, unless, after a hearing, the court finds good cause to modify the requirements of consecutive attendance or completion within 18 months.

(7) (A) (i) The court shall order the defendant to comply with all probation requirements, including the requirements to attend counseling, keep all program appointments, and pay program fees based upon the ability to pay.

(ii) The terms of probation for offenders shall not be lifted until all reasonable fees due to the counseling program have been paid in full, but in no case shall probation be extended beyond the term provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1203.1. If the court finds that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the fees based on the defendant’s changed circumstances, the court may reduce or waive the fees.

(B) Upon request by the batterer’s program, the court shall provide the defendant’s arrest report, prior incidents of violence, and treatment history to the program.

(8) The court also shall order the defendant to perform a specified amount of appropriate community service, as designated by the court. The defendant shall present the court with proof of completion of community service and the court shall determine if the community service has been satisfactorily completed. If sufficient staff and resources are available, the community service shall be performed under the jurisdiction of the local agency overseeing a community service program.

(9) If the program finds that the defendant is unsuitable, the program shall immediately contact the probation department or the court. The probation department or court shall either recalendar the case for hearing or refer the defendant to an appropriate alternative batterer’s program.

(10) (A) Upon recommendation of the program, a court shall require a defendant to participate in additional sessions throughout the probationary period, unless it finds that it is not in the interests of justice to do so, states its reasons on the record, and enters them into the minutes. In deciding whether the defendant would benefit from more sessions, the court shall consider whether any of the following conditions exists:

(i) The defendant has been violence free for a minimum of six months.

(ii) The defendant has cooperated and participated in the batterer’s program.

(iii) The defendant demonstrates an understanding of and practices positive conflict resolution skills.

(iv) The defendant blames, degrades, or has committed acts that dehumanize the victim or puts at risk the victim’s safety, including, but not limited to, molesting, stalking, striking, attacking, threatening, sexually assaulting, or battering the victim.

(v) The defendant demonstrates an understanding that the use of coercion or violent behavior to maintain dominance is unacceptable in an intimate relationship.

(vi) The defendant has made threats to harm anyone in any manner.

(vii) The defendant has complied with applicable requirements under paragraph (6) of subdivision (c) or subparagraph (C) to receive alcohol counseling, drug counseling, or both.

(viii) The defendant demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for the abusive behavior perpetrated against the victim.

(B) The program shall immediately report any violation of the terms of the protective order, including any new acts of violence or failure to comply with the program requirements, to the court, the prosecutor, and, if formal probation has been ordered, to the probation department. The probationer shall file proof of enrollment in a batterer’s program with the court within 30 days of conviction.

(C) Concurrent with other requirements under this section, in addition to, and not in lieu of, the batterer’s program, and unless prohibited by the referring court, the probation department or the court may make provisions for a defendant to use his or her resources to enroll in a chemical dependency program or to enter voluntarily a licensed chemical dependency recovery hospital or residential treatment program that has a valid license issued by the state to provide alcohol or drug services to receive program participation credit, as determined by the court. The probation department shall document evidence of this hospital or residential treatment participation in the defendant’s program file.

(11) The conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, but not in lieu of the fund payment required under paragraph (5), one or more of the following requirements:

(A) That the defendant make payments to a battered women’s shelter, up to a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(B) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the defendant’s offense.

For any order to pay a fine, to make payments to a battered women’s shelter, or to pay restitution as a condition of probation under this subdivision, the court shall make a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay. Determination of a defendant’s ability to pay may include his or her future earning capacity. A defendant shall bear the burden of demonstrating lack of his or her ability to pay. Express findings by the court as to the factors bearing on the amount of the fine shall not be required. In no event shall any order to make payments to a battered women’s shelter be made if it would impair the ability of the defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim or court-ordered child support. When the injury to a married person is caused, in whole or in part, by the criminal acts of his or her spouse in violation of this section, the community property shall not be used to discharge the liability of the offending spouse for restitution to the injured spouse, as required by Section 1203.04, as operative on or before August 2, 1995, or Section 1202.4, or to a shelter for costs with regard to the injured spouse, until all separate property of the offending spouse is exhausted.

(12) If it appears to the prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation department that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily in the assigned program, is not benefiting from counseling, or has engaged in criminal conduct, upon request of the probation officer, the prosecuting attorney, or on its own motion, the court, as a priority calendar item, shall hold a hearing to determine whether further sentencing should proceed. The court may consider factors, including, but not limited to, any violence by the defendant against the former or a new victim while on probation and noncompliance with any other specific condition of probation. If the court finds that the defendant is not performing satisfactorily in the assigned program, is not benefiting from the program, has not complied with a condition of probation, or has engaged in criminal conduct, the court shall terminate the defendant’s participation in the program and shall proceed with further sentencing.

(b) If a person is granted formal probation for a crime in which the victim is a person defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code, in addition to the terms specified in subdivision (a), all of the following shall apply:

(1) The probation department shall make an investigation and take into consideration the defendant’s age, medical history, employment and service records, educational background, community and family ties, prior incidents of violence, police report, treatment history, if any, demonstrable motivation, and other mitigating factors in determining which batterer’s program would be appropriate for the defendant. This information shall be provided to the batterer’s program if it is requested. The probation department shall also determine which community programs the defendant would benefit from and which of those programs would accept the defendant. The probation department shall report its findings and recommendations to the court.

(2) The court shall advise the defendant that the failure to report to the probation department for the initial investigation, as directed by the court, or the failure to enroll in a specified program, as directed by the court or the probation department, shall result in possible further incarceration. The court, in the interests of justice, may relieve the defendant from the prohibition set forth in this subdivision based upon the defendant’s mistake or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be filed within 20 court days of the missed deadline. This time limitation may not be extended. A copy of any application for relief shall be served on the office of the prosecuting attorney.

(3) After the court orders the defendant to a batterer’s program, the probation department shall conduct an initial assessment of the defendant, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(A) Social, economic, and family background.

(B) Education.

(C) Vocational achievements.

(D) Criminal history.

(E) Medical history.

(F) Substance abuse history.

(G) Consultation with the probation officer.

(H) Verbal consultation with the victim, only if the victim desires to participate.

(I) Assessment of the future probability of the defendant committing murder.

(4) The probation department shall attempt to notify the victim regarding the requirements for the defendant’s participation in the batterer’s program, as well as regarding available victim resources. The victim also shall be informed that attendance in any program does not guarantee that an abuser will not be violent.

(c) The court or the probation department shall refer defendants only to batterer’s programs that follow standards outlined in paragraph (1), which may include, but are not limited to, lectures, classes, group discussions, and counseling. The probation department shall design and implement an approval and renewal process for batterer’s programs and shall solicit input from criminal justice agencies and domestic violence victim advocacy programs.

(1) The goal of a batterer’s program under this section shall be to stop domestic violence. A batterer’s program shall consist of the following components:

(A) Strategies to hold the defendant accountable for the violence in a relationship, including, but not limited to, providing the defendant with a written statement that the defendant shall be held accountable for acts or threats of domestic violence.

(B) A requirement that the defendant participate in ongoing same-gender group sessions.

(C) An initial intake that provides written definitions to the defendant of physical, emotional, sexual, economic, and verbal abuse, and the techniques for stopping these types of abuse.

(D) Procedures to inform the victim regarding the requirements for the defendant’s participation in the intervention program as well as regarding available victim resources. The victim also shall be informed that attendance in any program does not guarantee that an abuser will not be violent.

(E) A requirement that the defendant attend group sessions free of chemical influence.

(F) Educational programming that examines, at a minimum, gender roles, socialization, the nature of violence, the dynamics of power and control, and the effects of abuse on children and others.

(G) A requirement that excludes any couple counseling or family counseling, or both.

(H) Procedures that give the program the right to assess whether or not the defendant would benefit from the program and to refuse to enroll the defendant if it is determined that the defendant would not benefit from the program, so long as the refusal is not because of the defendant’s inability to pay. If possible, the program shall suggest an appropriate alternative program.

(I) Program staff who, to the extent possible, have specific knowledge regarding, but not limited to, spousal abuse, child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, the dynamics of violence and abuse, the law, and procedures of the legal system.

(J) Program staff who are encouraged to utilize the expertise, training, and assistance of local domestic violence centers.

(K) A requirement that the defendant enter into a written agreement with the program, which shall include an outline of the contents of the program, the attendance requirements, the requirement to attend group sessions free of chemical influence, and a statement that the defendant may be removed from the program if it is determined that the defendant is not benefiting from the program or is disruptive to the program.

(L) A requirement that the defendant sign a confidentiality statement prohibiting disclosure of any information obtained through participating in the program or during group sessions regarding other participants in the program.

(M) Program content that provides cultural and ethnic sensitivity.

(N) A requirement of a written referral from the court or probation department prior to permitting the defendant to enroll in the program. The written referral shall state the number of minimum sessions required by the court.

(O) Procedures for submitting to the probation department all of the following uniform written responses:

(i) Proof of enrollment, to be submitted to the court and the probation department and to include the fee determined to be charged to the defendant, based upon the ability to pay, for each session.

(ii) Periodic progress reports that include attendance, fee payment history, and program compliance.

(iii) Final evaluation that includes the program’s evaluation of the defendant’s progress, using the criteria set forth in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) and recommendation for either successful or unsuccessful termination or continuation in the program.

(P) A sliding fee schedule based on the defendant’s ability to pay. The batterer’s program shall develop and utilize a sliding fee scale that recognizes both the defendant’s ability to pay and the necessity of programs to meet overhead expenses. An indigent defendant may negotiate a deferred payment schedule, but shall pay a nominal fee, if the defendant has the ability to pay the nominal fee. Upon a hearing and a finding by the court that the defendant does not have the financial ability to pay the nominal fee, the court shall waive this fee. The payment of the fee shall be made a condition of probation if the court determines the defendant has the present ability to pay the fee. The fee shall be paid during the term of probation unless the program sets other conditions. The acceptance policies shall be in accordance with the scaled fee system.

(2) The court shall refer persons only to batterer’s programs that have been approved by the probation department pursuant to paragraph (5). The probation department shall do both of the following:

(A) Provide for the issuance of a provisional approval, provided that the applicant is in substantial compliance with applicable laws and regulations and an urgent need for approval exists. A provisional approval shall be considered an authorization to provide services and shall not be considered a vested right.

(B) If the probation department determines that a program is not in compliance with standards set by the department, the department shall provide written notice of the noncompliant areas to the program. The program shall submit a written plan of corrections within 14 days from the date of the written notice on noncompliance. A plan of correction shall include, but not be limited to, a description of each corrective action and timeframe for implementation. The department shall review and approve all or any part of the plan of correction and notify the program of approval or disapproval in writing. If the program fails to submit a plan of correction or fails to implement the approved plan of correction, the department shall consider whether to revoke or suspend approval and, upon revoking or suspending approval, shall have the option to cease referrals of defendants under this section.

(3) No program, regardless of its source of funding, shall be approved unless it meets all of the following standards:

(A) The establishment of guidelines and criteria for education services, including standards of services that may include lectures, classes, and group discussions.

(B) Supervision of the defendant for the purpose of evaluating the person’s progress in the program.

(C) Adequate reporting requirements to ensure that all persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program, may be identified for either failure to enroll in, or failure to successfully complete, the program or for the successful completion of the program as ordered. The program shall notify the court and the probation department, in writing, within the period of time and in the manner specified by the court of any person who fails to complete the program. Notification shall be given if the program determines that the defendant is performing unsatisfactorily or if the defendant is not benefiting from the education, treatment, or counseling.

(D) No victim shall be compelled to participate in a program or counseling, and no program may condition a defendant’s enrollment on participation by the victim.

(4) In making referrals of indigent defendants to approved batterer’s programs, the probation department shall apportion these referrals evenly among the approved programs.

(5) The probation department shall have the sole authority to approve a batterer’s program for probation. The program shall be required to obtain only one approval but shall renew that approval annually.

(A) The procedure for the approval of a new or existing program shall include all of the following:
(i) The completion of a written application containing necessary and pertinent information describing the applicant program.

(ii) The demonstration by the program that it possesses adequate administrative and operational capability to operate a batterer’s treatment program. The program shall provide documentation to prove that the program has conducted batterer’s programs for at least one year prior to application. This requirement may be waived under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) if there is no existing batterer’s program in the city, county, or city and county.

(iii) The onsite review of the program, including monitoring of a session to determine that the program adheres to applicable statutes and regulations.

(iv) The payment of the approval fee.

(B) The probation department shall fix a fee for approval not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and for approval renewal not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) every year in an amount sufficient to cover its costs in administering the approval process under this section. No fee shall be charged for the approval of local governmental entities.

(C) The probation department has the sole authority to approve the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of approval and to cease new enrollments or referrals to a batterer’s program under this section. The probation department shall review information relative to a program’s performance or failure to adhere to standards, or both. The probation department may suspend or revoke any approval issued under this subdivision or deny an application to renew an approval or to modify the terms and conditions of approval, based on grounds established by probation, including, but not limited to, either of the following:

(i) Violation of this section by any person holding approval or by a program employee in a program under this section.

(ii) Misrepresentation of any material fact in obtaining the approval.

(6) For defendants who are chronic users or serious abusers of drugs or alcohol, standard components in the program shall include concurrent counseling for substance abuse and violent behavior, and in appropriate cases, detoxification and abstinence from the abused substance.

(7) The program shall conduct an exit conference that assesses the defendant’s progress during his or her participation in the batterer’s program.

(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2010. [Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 132, Sec. 1. Effective August 13, 2010. Note: Operative date in subd. (d) originated in a prior version of this section]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

This is Cohen's personal investigator's bio.  According to his biography, he works with LAPD's TMU.  That unit works with SMART who took me to Killer King.  LAPD's TMU works for the DA and City Attorney.  There are lawsuits in Colorado (related to Greenberg), Los Angeles (related to me), something in the California District Court related to Cohen and Greenberg, Westin settled with Cohen in California.  Westin lives in Kentucky.  There is fraud with the restraining orders - including the use of them to prohibit me from requesting or receiving IRS required forms and information.  Those requirements also relate to corporations.  Furthermore, the order was modified, subjected me to California's domestic violence statutes, and was granted without proof of a statutory required "dating relationship."  The case was immediately given, by the LA Superior Court's Family Division a BQ case number which means downtown Los Angeles Family Court domestic violence restraining order.  I've spoken to the Court about this.  I spoke to the Judicial Council and they advised me that DV-600 means a domestic violence form.  I've spoken to CLETs.  They cannot explain how a foreign non-domestic violence restraining order was transformed into a domestic violence order.  They have no explanation whatsoever.

Apart from the allegations of criminal tax fraud re. Leonard Cohen, there appear to be an outrageous number of federal crimes.  That would include the allegations raised in Neal Greenberg's lawsuit re. witness tampering, witness intimidation, bribery, extortion, etc.

I would like to point out that Leonard Cohen's PI was hanging out in the courtroom, had to be put out because he's an alleged "witness," and my lawyer saw Cohen, PI, and the District Attorney's investigator hanging out and having lunch.  Cooley, Jackson, and Trutanich are all over this matter.  And now so is Mike Feuer and his rotten domestic violence unit and workplace violence retaliation squad.  See Steve Miller, and others, for the pattern and practice.  

But what's going on?  Does anyone behave professionally?  Have you seen Korn respond?  Have you seen Gianelli continue to criminally harass me, my sons, sister, Paulette Brandt, and Clea Surkhang?  He's harassing us together, right?  Well, she lives in Colorado and I live in California.  That is now federal.  And, Michelle Rice communicated, according to Gianelli, with him in May 2009.  That's how long this criminal harassment has been going on.  

How can Judge Enichen's order apply when neither Cohen or I reside there and he had no minimal ties whatsoever?  Also, his testimony may prove perjury re. the Verified Motion because he said he obtained the order due to his concert which was scheduled for nearly a year later.  

I wonder why Judge Vanderet didn't want Agent Tejeda on the witness stand?  Well, DOJ should find out.  The entire 2012 trial was based on federal tax issues and IRS.  The CIty Attorney lied about IRS matters.

All the best,

Basil “Steve” Stephens 

Steve is CEO and Managing Partner for Close Range International, Inc. He has extensive investigative and executive protection experience. Steve has conducted hundreds of investigations with positive results. He has taken numerous DOJ and POST training classes in the police academy and has worked with and for the LAPD, FBI, Secret Service, Military Police and numerous security professionals.

Steve has worked and coordinated security for many high profile events and is a mainstay in Hollywood circles where his professionalism, knowledge and work ethic has never been challenged. Executive Protection is his expertise. 

Steve worked exclusively for the entertainer, Madonna, for over 10 years and captured her high profile stalker Robert Hoskins in 1995. Stephens’ testimony helped convict Hoskins of stalking and ensured his long prison sentence. Hoskins, as of 2014, remains in the California State Mental Health System as an extreme danger to the public. ( We only mention this case because of the worldwide media coverage-Close Range International normally will not disclose client’s identity)

Stephens has also provided personal security /executive protection for many other high profile celebrities and “Rock and Roll Royalty” in town and on the road.

Steve Stephens most recently was Security Director at Warner Bros Records in Burbank (2005-2009), providing armed security for executives and artists and conducting stalking investigations. Prior to that position he was Security Director at Maverick Records (1995-2004), Madonna’s label, where he conducted many investigations and managed numerous threats working closely with the LA County District Attorney’s “STAT” Team ( Stalking and Threat Assessment Team-founded by DDA Rhonda Saunders) and the LAPD’s Threat Management Unit. 

During the period he worked for the record company’s, he still managed Close Range International. He now devotes 100% of his time to Close Range International and serving your needs. 

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Would you please take a look at the original order that Judge Enichen granted.  The Boulder Combined Court sent me an email confirming that the Boulder order is NOT a domestic violence order.  They pointed out that Cohen did not check "domestic abuse" on the original attached Verfied Motion.

First of all, I do not understand Judge Enichen's jurisdiction at all.  Cohen had no ties to Colorado.  He flew into Boulder, in the midst of a European tour, and attended a secret hearing.  A process server ran around Boulder telling people he had a check for my son's fingers so someone gave him that information which is outrageous.  He lied in the proof of service.  I attended the hearing.  The judge asked where Cohen was and his lawyer replied that he was not available.  She said fine and that was the end of it.  The judge did not even ask why.  Cohen, who is wealthy and bankrupted me, sent paid lawyer/witnesses, Kory and Rice, as well as a Colorado order.  Right there serious confrontation clause issues arise.  The judge maybe had the right to enter the temporary but not the permanent order.  Cohen resides in California and has no ties to the state.  I moved soon after the hearing to another State.  While I resided in Berkeley, California (and Cohen testified that he knew my whereabouts from descriptions in my emails and he hired a private investigator - who, I might note, works with LAPD's TMU and the District Attorney according to his biography).  At some point, Kory and Rice go into LAPD.  LAPD notes that I was notified on February 14, 2011 (by Rice) that the order was registered in California.  It was not.  They register the Order on May 25, 2011 when I am no longer a resident of Boulder, Colorado or Los Angeles, California.  

At this point, I cannot understand how either Court has jurisdiction particularly given the fact that this was modified when it was registered as domestic violence, subjected to domestic violence statutes, and a dating relationship was automatically assigned to me without any proof.  Then, Cohen testifies at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing that we were in a purely business relationship and I never stole from him - "just his peace of mind."  He obviously wasn't coached and I suppose it upset the prosecutor who works in "Domestic Violence" and who should be investigated.

The original order was modified and the Full Faith and Credit statute cannot apply.  It should not have been heard in Family Court which it was.  It was assigned Case No. BQ meaning downtown Los Angeles and family court domestic violence restraining order.  

This was not simply placed into the CLETS system.  It was registered as a domestic violence case by the family court.  Then, it was ultimately handled by the Domestic VIolence Unit.  I have Boulder Court's confirmation that it is not domestic violence.  

May have a DOJ opinion.  I particularly want this because Kory and Rice have taken the position that a Boulder Municipal County Court has the authority to subvert IRS reporting and other requirements.  Those would include requirements related to corporations.  And, Korn submitted documents to LA Superior Court arguing that the "domestic violence related" restraining orders (now expired for Kory and Rice) prevent from effecting service on the registered agent of a corporation who has transmitted K-1 partnership documents to IRS and State Kentucky for 2003, 2004, and 2005 indicating that I am a partner on that entity.  This is a Delaware Corporation and the issues are now federal matters.  

I am filing the Motion to Dismiss and asking the Court to disqualify Michelle Rice, the attorney of record.  She knew the original order was not domestic violence but worked with the domestic violence unit?  She testified.  She is now a paid witness/lawyer who has become a partner for her working targeting me for approximately 8 years.  She has communicated with Stephen Gianelli and that demands an investigation. She has also been copied in on emails sent by Cohen fan, Susanne Walsh, criminally harassing me.  

If LA Superior Court simply transforms foreign orders into domestic violence orders then the Court is committing fraud and there probably are federal DMV grants at issue here.  The statute requires a dating relationship so the order is not valid.  But that doesn't end it - Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory worked with the domestic violence unit of the City Attorney's office to prosecute me.  Essentially, I was kidnapped in Berkeley.  Let me quote Berkeley PD (from numerous conversations):  This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars;  what was Cohen's role, if any, in the Phil Spector matter; what has occurred with IRS and Treasury; and, please have the FBI call us about the arrest.  

All the best,

Domestic violence is a term used by members of the criminal justice system to describe and classify several types of conduct which society has made criminal through the enactment of laws. Domestic violence may be referred to as family violence, spousal abuse, relationship abuse, domestic battery, domestic assault, domestic abuse, intimate partner abuse, intimate partner violence, stalking, criminal threats, or harassment. The specific conduct which has been made criminal by California law includes, but is not limited to, causing or an attempt to cause an unwanted touching (battery), assaultrestraint, or fear based on the use of threatening words which the recipient claims were understood to be threatening which are made unlawful by Penal Code Section 422.
California law defines the specific relationships which qualify as being required in order for an incident to be characterized as domestic violence in Penal Code Section 273.5. The definition of qualifying relationships is very broad and includes spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of a child.Penal Code Section 243(e)(1) provides that in addition to the relationships defined by Penal Code Section 273.5, a relationship qualifying for prosecution as a domestic battery includes person with whom the accused currently has, or previously had a dating or engagement relationship. In other words, if there is or was a dating relationship or more serious relationship, then a incident involving violence or the threat of violence, or fear may be characterized as domestic violence in California. The consequences of a criminal conviction for domestic battery (Penal Code Section 243(e)(1)) or domestic violence on a current or former spouse or cohabitant (Penal Code Section 273.5) provide for harsh punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.097.