Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Reply To Leonard Cohen's Shameless & Slanderous Opposition to Her Motion to Vacate the Fraud Domestic Violence Order

            Plaintiffs argue that Kelley Lynch’s Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside the fraudulent registration of the Colorado restraining order as a domestic violence order in California is barred due to the doctrines of collateral estoppels and waiver.  Plaintiffs falsely allege that Lynch’s arguments were 1) rejected by the trial court; 2) not preserved for appeal by Lynch’s public defenders at the trial court level and were therefore waived; or 3) were made in her criminal appeal and denied by the appellate court.  These arguments are blatantly false and deceptive. 
The issues with respect to domestic violence and/or a “dating” or “engagement” relationship were not heard by any trial or appellate court.  At the March 23, 2012 bail hearing, Leonard Cohen was specifically asked: 
Public Defender:  Is it – you told us that she used to be employed by you as a business manager, correct?
Cohen:  Correct.
PD:  Was that the extent of your relationship?
A:  Yes, Sir.

During Lynch’s trial, her public defenders again questioned Cohen about the nature of their relationship.  His testimony confirmed the fact that he had evidently lied under oath.  In fact, Cohen testified honestly at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing and, possibly due to the fact that Lynch allegedly violated a California domestic violence order, had to come up with an excuse for that testimony.  This is the extent of the issues presented at trial and the court made no determination and/or finding with respect to either domestic violence or a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship.  Exhibit A:  Leonard Cohen Trial Testimony (RT 273-277; 321; 322-323), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Public Defender:  Okay.  Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  You wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct?  Streeter:  Objection; relevance.  Court:  Overruled.  Cohen:  I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic.  PD:  But it was a sexual relationship, correct?  Cohen:  It was an intimate relationship, yes.  PD:  Was it a sexual relationship?  Cohen:  It involved a sexual -- yes.  PD:  Now, it was - It was actually spanning years, correct?  Cohen:  I’m sorry?  PD:  It actually spanned years, correct?  Cohen:  I don’t know how long it spanned, Sir.  PD:  Okay.  But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  PD:  Now why did that – that part of the relationship, what you called the intimate part of the relationship, why did that end or when did it end?  Court:  Those are two different questions.  PD:  I’ll go with the latter.  PD:  When did it end?  Cohen:  I don’t remember exactly when it ended.  Like many relationships, it -- it just dissolved.  PD:  But it’s fair to say that it ended before your business relationship ended, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  Okay.  And do you know why it ended?  Cohen:  I would say that part of the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally.  RT 276  PD:  Okay.  Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?  Cohen:  March 23rd, yes.  PD:  Of this year.  You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?  Cohen:  That is correct.  PD:  Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship.  Do you remember that?  Cohen:  I did.  PD:  And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship.  Cohen:  I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it.  So I did not want to insist.  PD:  I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said.  I’m asking about what you said.  You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct?  Cohen:  May I explain.  PD:  I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.  Cohen:  Yes.  PD:  In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  RT 273-277

Prosecutor:  Finally, there was a question about a previous testimony you’ve given, the description of your relationship with Ms. Lynch.  Why at that hearing did you say that you only had a business relationship with Ms. Lynch?  And now just once or twice.  Why did you say that?  Cohen : Because, as it turns out, the friendship that Ms. Lynch displayed was false and deceptive, so it was not really a friendship … The intimate relationship we had, she denies.  So I’m not going to insist.  So, therefore, it was not – from that point of view, there was not an intimate relationship and there was not a friendship; it was all business.  It was all business from the point of view of Ms. Lynch.  Streeter:  And in your mind – PD:  Objection; speculation as to what Ms. Lynch thought.  Streeter:  In your mind, if a woman says that you don’t have an intimate relationship with her but you do, why does that matter?  Cohen:  I’m sorry, Ma’am?  Streeter:  Why does it matter if – if you’ve had an intimate relationship like Ms. Lynch, she said you don’t – didn’t have one, why does it matter?  Why does that impact that answer to the question, that particular question a couple of weeks ago?  PD:  Objection; vague.  Court:  Sustained.  I think we’ve adequately covered this subject.  RT 321

Public Defender:  When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  Okay.  But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct?  Before testifying, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  Okay.  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?  Streeter: Objection; argumentative.  Court:  Sustained.  Kelly:  Nothing further.  RT 321-322

As the domestic violence issue was not discovered until the Spring of 2013, Lynch did not have an opportunity to preserve it for appeal at the trial court level or address it in the appeal itself.  Lynch
was unaware that Leonard Cohen registered the Boulder, Colorado order as a domestic violence order until LA Superior Court brought it to her attention in the Spring of 2013.  By that time, her appeal with respect to Case No. 2CA04539 was nearly over.  When Lynch filed her Writ of Habeas Corpus she was unclear if, due to some type of testimony at the Boulder, Colorado ex parte hearing (which Lynch has no information about), the Boulder Combined Court issued a domestic violence order.  Therefore, the doctrines of res judicata and waiver do not apply to the instant matter.
Additionally, after spending nearly two years diligently attempting to obtain the transcript of the March 23, 2012 bail hearing, Lynch finally located the Court Reporter in June 2014.  On or about August 14, 2014, Lynch received the transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing wherein Cohen testified that he and Lynch were in a purely business relationship.  See Cohen’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside, Exhibit 6, Reporter’s Transcript of Hearing, March 23, 2012 (page 23 – prosecutor confirmed Lynch was arrested and charged for violating the order in domestic violence Case No. BQ37717; page 20 – Cohen confirmed the extent of his and Lynch’s relationship as being a purely business relationship; page 20 – Cohen confirmed that Lynch never “stole” from him and qualified that by testifying “just my peace of mind”).
Lynch then began researching the registration of foreign (out-of-state) restraining orders in California.  Los Angeles Superior Court repeatedly informed Lynch that one could not register an out-of-state non-domestic violence order as a domestic violence order.  She contacted the California Department of Justice, Judicial Council, and ultimately the California Supreme Court for assistance.  Lynch also visited LA Superior Court and spoke to individuals in the family law and restraining order divisions.  All parties confirmed that a foreign non-domestic violence civil harassment order could not be registered as a domestic violence order.
On or about April 14, 2015, Lynch spoke with Gabrielle Selden, an attorney with the Judicial Council.  Ms. Selden confirmed that a foreign non-domestic violence order could not be registered in California using DV-600. 

Plaintiffs are now attempting to argue that they were entitled to register the Colorado order in California as a domestic violence order due to the allegations of stalking:  “Cohen listed ‘stalking’ (18-9-111(4)) to (6) and ‘physical assault, threat or other situation’ as the primary reasons for seeking the order of protection against Lynch.”  Lynch was not charged or prosecuted for “stalking” Leonard Cohen.  At the time Leonard Cohen flew into Boulder, Colorado, he was in the midst of a European tour.  Lynch posed no threat to Leonard Cohen and that would include with respect to her requests for IRS required tax and corporate information; attempts to address numerous litigation and relevant business matters; or demands that the slander and defamation cease and desist.  During Lynch’s 2012 trial, Leonard Cohen testified that one of the primary reasons for obtaining the Colorado order was due to the fact that he fantasized about the possibility, without any evidence to support the allegations, that Lynch might attend his Denver, Colorado concert scheduled for nearly one year after the August 2008 ex parte hearing.  Michelle Rice has advised this Court that Leonard Cohen obtained this order because the California order was scheduled to expire.  Leonard Cohen also expressed concern about Lynch’s online posts and communications with third parties.  He specifically mentioned IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and the news media.  See Exhibit B:  Leonard Cohen Testimony (RT 319), attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Streeter:  From what the People are understanding, you did not live in Colorado; is that correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Streeter:  Okay.  So why did you go get a permanent restraining order in Colorado?  Cohen:  Because Ms. Lynch was living in Colorado and it was for two reasons.  One, to stop the flow of emails and phone calls from Colorado; and, two, I was giving a concert in Colorado.  I was going to be there for several days and we thought it was prudent to defend ourselves against any intrusion.  RT 319

At the Boulder, Colorado hearing, Lynch answered a handful of questions that specifically related
to the definitions of “directly” and “indirectly.”  She then asked the Court if the order would protect her; noted that the proceedings were insane based upon the fact that Cohen and his representatives have destroyed her life; and agreed to the entry of the permanent restraining order.  The Court entered the
order without any findings whatsoever.  That would include, but is not limited to, any findings related to domestic violence or stalking.  Following the September 2, 2008 hearing, Lynch reviewed Cohen’s declaration submitted in support of the ex parte verified motion and addressed the extensive use of fraud and perjury contained therein in her Motion to Quash.  The Court denied that Motion and reminded Lynch that she agreed to the entry of the permanent restraining order.  At no time did Lynch agree to the entry of any order based on the use of fraud and perjury.  From approximately January 2010 until April 2014, Boulder Combined Court continuously and repeatedly advised Lynch and others that her Motion to Dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009 and the Permanent Restraining Order expired on February 15, 2009.  The reasons for this confusion, based on information in their database, were revealed in the information submitted to Lynch by the Boulder Combined Court on April 10, 2014.
CASE NO. 2CA04539

Plaintiffs continue in their attempts to reargue Case No. 2CA04539 while attacking Lynch’s character when arguing that “Defendant Kelley Lynch was Plaintiff’s former personal manager for approximately 17 years before she was terminated for cause as his manager in October 2004 for embezzling over $5 million of Plaintiff’s retirement savings (LASC Civil Case No. BC338322).  Shortly after her termination in October 2004, Ms. Lynch began sending numerous emails and placing numerous telephone calls to Cohen’s residence in Los Angeles.  Many of the calls and emails contained threats to ‘take him down’ and declaring that ‘Cohen should be taken before a firing squad and shot.’”
Leonard Cohen testified at the March 23, 2012 hearing that Lynch never “stole” from him.  This is a highly material and relevant issue that is yet another example of Leonard Cohen’s willingness to

change his testimony or legal arguments from one courtroom to the next.  Leonard Cohen obtained a Default Judgment against Lynch (Case No. BC338322) after failing to serve her the summons and complaint.  Lynch has attempted to address this matter for approximately 10 straight years.  Many federal tax and corporate issues have arisen due to the Default Judgment.  Those issues remain ongoing.  They have not been litigated.
Lynch was not terminated for cause in October 2004.  Leonard Cohen understood that Lynch intended to report his tax fraud to the Internal Revenue Service.  In fact, Lynch had contacted Internal Revenue Service’s Chief Trial Counsel’s Office on July 25, 2004 and Cohen personally informed her that
he was informed of her plans to report his alleged tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service.  In or around September 2004, Lynch hired a new accountant and lawyers.  On or around October 27, 2004, Lynch’s lawyers (who Cohen and his tax/corporate attempted to evade for approximately two weeks) wrote Richard Westin, Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer, and advised him that they understood he was planning to fly into Los Angeles over the weekend of October 30, 2004.  They asked him and Cohen to meet with them to explain Lynch’s role in numerous corporate entities and any liability they may have exposed her to.  See Exhibit C:  Internal Revenue Service’s Chief Trial Counsel’s Office on July 25, 2004.
Lynch refused to meet with Leonard Cohen, and his tax/corporate lawyer Richard Westin, to unravel their handiwork with respect to numerous corporate entities.  Lynch was represented by attorneys and accountants, from September 2004 until the spring of 2005 and, at no time, did Leonard Cohen or his lawyers allege that Lynch was harassing him with email and/or phone calls.  On the other hand, Lynch’s lawyers addressed in writing the fact that Cohen was harassing and threatening and her family members.  Boies Schiller, who reviewed a tremendous amount of evidence in this case, advised Lynch to find a lawyer who would interested in helping her “take down” another Hollywood fraud who owed her millions.  They also advised her to go wired to her meetings with Cohen and Kory because they felt she was being asked to engage in criminal conduct.  LAPD’s report is quite clear that they felt Lynch’s alleged emails were generally requests for tax information and that Lynch had stated that she would take Cohen down “legally.”  LAPD’s report also notes that Lynch’s alleged emails were generally requests for tax information.  See Exhibit D:  LAPD Report.
As for the comment that Leonard Cohen should be taken before a firing squad and shot, Leonard Cohen personally advised Lynch for years that he would like to die by firing squad.  He began advising Lynch of this after he was interviewed by Mikhil Gilmore whose brother was shot by a firing squad assembled by the government.  Lynch does not believe that quoting Cohen back to himself is a credible or viable threat.  Nor does she believe there is any evidence that she actually assembled a firing squad.  She does believe that there is extraordinary evidence that she is frustrated, sick and tired of lies and perjury, and has requested IRS required tax and corporate information for over 10 straight years now. 

The DVPA gives the family law court the authority “to prevent the recurrence of acts of violence . . . and to provide for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence . . . .” (§ 6220.) A court may issue a restraining order under the DVPA “if . . . an affidavit and any additional information provided to the court . . . show[], to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300.)  Lynch claims there is insufficient evidence to show the parties had a dating relationship, there were no findings with respect to the alleged “dating” or “engagement” relationships and/or domestic violence, or the existence of any abuse.
Domestic violence includes “abuse perpetrated against” “[a] person with whom the [defendant] is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.” (§ 6211, subd. (c), italics added.) A “dating relationship” is defined as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.” (§ 6210)  Lynch was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for a period of approximately 17 years.  Their entire relationship was based upon financial considerations and did not involve, at least on Lynch’s part, any “expectation of affection or sexual involvement.”
Although Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 397 predates the enactment of section 6210, it does offer a well considered opinion with respect to the vagueness of the definition of “dating.”
Leonard Cohen has now invoked the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) against defendant.  Given the fact that Cohen and Lynch were never in a statutory required “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship, the family court did not have jurisdiction to issue a domestic violence restraining order when registering the non-domestic violence out-of-state order in California.  Cohen does not belong to one of the categories of protected persons under the Act.
The DVPA authorizes the issuance of protective orders restraining domestic violence on several categories of persons, including present and former spouses or cohabitants and “a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.” (§ 6211, subds. (a), (b) & (c).) The only protected category of persons listed in section 6211 that could possibly trigger the applicability of the DVPA in the present case is a person in a present or former “dating relationship.” Section 6210 defines “dating relationship” as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.”  While Leonard Cohen may have had an “expectation of affection or sexual involvement,” Lynch most certainly did not.  She also does not view sexual harassment or indecent exposure as any type of “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship and takes great offense at the government’s attempts to assign her any such relationship with this individual.
Oriola v. Thaler developed a judicial definition of “dating relationship” before the DVPA defined that phrase in section 6210, enacted in 2001. (Stats. 2001, ch. 110, § 1, pp. 1145–1146.) After reviewing the history of dating and statutory definitions of “dating relationship” from other states (Oriola, supra, at pp. 407–411), the court derived this definition: “For purposes of the Act, a “dating relationshiprefers to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.” (Id. at p. 412.) People v. Rucker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1107 was decided after section 6210 was enacted. The defendant argued that a prior incident of domestic violence was improperly admitted against her, because she was not in a “dating relationship” with her attempted murder victim. (Rucker, supra, at p. 1114; see id. at p. 1110.) The court noted Oriola’s definition was not pertinent since it predated section 6210, whose definition of “dating relationship” appeared in the battery statute at subdivision (f)(10) of Penal Code section 243. (Rucker, supra, at p. 1116.) The Rucker court interpreted the legislative definition of “dating relationship” as not requiring serious courtship, increasingly exclusive interest, shared expectation of growth, or an enduring relationship over a length of time. (Rucker, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116.) “The statutory definition requires “frequent, intimate associations,” a definition that does not preclude a relatively new dating relationship.  Leonard Cohen and Kelley Lynch never had any type of relationship that involved “frequent, intimate associations.”  Financial considerations remove a relationship from the purview of the domestic violence statutes.  Lynch and Cohen’s relationship, which was purely business in nature, was entirely dependent upon financial considerations.  Those financial considerations do not, as LAPD’s report noted, mean that Leonard Cohen’s desires or fantasies with respect to Lynch involved a “sexual relationship.”  It is also entirely possible that Cohen simply believes his “disgruntled ex-lover” who is not in need of IRS required tax and corporate information and may want to attend one of his concerts is more salacious than the reality of what has unfolded between them.
As noted by the Family Law section of the State Bar, the DVPA is used with increasing frequency for purposes other than the prevention of domestic violence: “While clearly these protective orders are necessary in egregious cases of abuse, it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes rather than from the true need to be protected from a genuine abusive batterer.”  Such concerns serve to emphasize the need for due process in actions brought under the provisions of the DVPA, especially where there is significant evidence that the action was brought in retaliation.  Robe, Lynette Berg, Extending the Impact of Domestic Violence Protective Orders, Family Law News, April 2005, at p. 26
            Leonard Cohen was limited to registering the out-of-state order as a harassment injunctions available under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.  There was no “dating relationship” between plaintiff and defendant.  The family court lacked authority to issue a domestic violence restraining order.

            Lynch is not on trial here.  She is attempting to vacate the wrongful registration of the Colorado order as a domestic violence order.  There is no evidence that Lynch has seen or contacted Leonard Cohen because she has not.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Lynch poses a threat to Leonard Cohen.  There is, on the other hand, evidence that Leonard Cohen refuses to provide Lynch with IRS required tax and corporate information and steadfastly refuses to rescind K-1s transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky fraudulently indicating that Lynch is a partner in Cohen’s wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC.
Leonard Cohen’s attempts to assassinate Lynch’s character are ongoing.  Nothing prevented or prevents Leonard Cohen from registering the Colorado order as a civil harassment non-domestic violence order.  Lynch has advised Cohen’s legal representatives that she will be filing a federal RICO suit addressing these issues, including the original Colorado order issued without any findings whatsoever, but she is not attempting to vacate the Colorado order at this time before this Court.  Cohen continuously argues that Lynch’s attempts to seek legitimate legal remedies are “harassment.” 

Leonard Cohen’s long and publicly documented history of psychiatric problems, drug and
alcohol abuse, should be taken into consideration – together with his habit of fabricating and embellishing stories – when considering his statements or those of his lawyers.  There are very serious issues outstanding between Lynch and Cohen and many of those issues relate to federal tax matters and federal tax issues that have been implicated by the various legal issues, decisions, and judgments before LA Superior Court and elsewhere.  Lynch, her sons, family members, and friends, are the individuals who have been relentlessly harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, and slandered over Leonard Cohen and these legal issues.  This conduct is ongoing.   Alternatively, the Court should view Leonard Cohen’s gratuitous, mean-spirited, and self-serving comments about Lynch as going towards bias and motive.

Lynch has a right to address constitutional issues that this case has raised.  That would include, but is not limited to, her Second Amendment Rights.  Protecting her constitutional rights is not evidence of “future violence.”  That statement is evidence of Cohen’s ongoing attempt to assassinate her character.  Furthermore, Cohen is the individual with the history of devotion to armaments – not Lynch.  See Exhibit E:  Article (Cohen’s Devotion to Armaments).

            Plaintiffs also argue that “Lynch did not challenge the criminal protective orders issued at her sentencing or in her appeal and cannot move to vacate criminal protect orders in this civil procedure.”  Lynch filed a Motion to Vacate Cohen’s fraudulent default judgment (Case No. BC338322).  She was not served the summons and complaint in that matter.  In their reply documents, Plaintiffs attached the criminal protective orders issued to Robert Kory and Michelle Rice during Lynch’s sentencing hearing on April 17, 2012.  Until these documents were submitted to LA Superior Court in January 2014, Lynch was unaware that they were “domestic violence related” orders.  It would therefore have been impossible to challenge them prior to the discovery that they were domestic violence related orders.  Lynch has asked the Court to vacate the criminal domestic violence related order granted to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and Bruce Cutler during her sentencing hearing.  She would also like to point out that Bruce Cutler did not request a restraining order and she objected to that specific order as she is convinced that Phil Spector had a right to know that former DA Steve Cooley publicly aligned himself with Leonard Cohen in targeting Lynch during her trial.  This occurred during the DA’s campaign for re-election.  Additionally, Lynch remains convinced that Phil Spector had a right to know that Leonard Cohen was on the stand during her trial testifying about an alleged gun incident that involved Phil Spector.  That testimony is contradicted by the version used by the Spector prosecutors in at least one motion filed in that trial and, if Mick Brown was correct, before the Spector Grand Jury.  This is most certainly not the basis for granting a restraining order to anyone.  See Exhibit F:  Mick Brown emails.
With CLETS (California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System) orders, Domestic Violence Protective Orders are entered into the California law enforcement computer system, which can be accessed from all over the state, and are also entered into the Federal Registry (the “Family Violence Indicator”) where the so-called accused’s identification is put into data banks without a mechanism for removal even if the order is later canceled.  This situation should be resolved by the Court.
            Leonard Cohen has used lawsuits and restraining orders to discredit Lynch.  This matter was addressed in Natural Wealth’s June 2005 lawsuit against Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory.  Six months prior to Cohen’s obtaining the first California restraining order (which is a civil harassment order), Natural Wealth understood that Cohen and Kory planned to use restraining orders to discredit her:
“145. When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation.  Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to "crush her," and planned to use restraining orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.”

The Natural Wealth lawsuit goes onto state that “consistent with that vow and plan, and according to Lynch and other witnesses, and on information and belief, Cohen and Kory's tactics to terrorize, silence, or disparage Lynch have included” contacting City National Bank, where Lynch and her son had personal banking accounts, and convincing City National Bank to put a freeze on all three of their accounts; alleging that Lynch's father and mother were depositing funds for Lynch in secret offshore bank accounts; threatening Lynch that she would go to jail if she did not cooperate, and having her younger son's father, Steve Lindsay, who was also Cohen’s record producer, repeat these threats in the child’s presence; threatening to “go to child services,” encouraging Steve Lindsay to file
legal action to remove Lynch’s younger (and his) son from her custody, and submitting affidavits (from
Kory and Superfon) supporting that effort; in a coordinated fashion with Lindsey’s child custody petition, encouraging or directing Steve Lindsey to call in a warning to the LAPD (not related to Traditional Holdings, but on some other, unknown pretext) that caused a police team to descend, guns drawn, on Lynch's home, resulting in her being handcuffed and taken involuntarily, in her bathing
suit, to a hospital psychiatric ward [King Drew] and medicated without her consent, before being released the next day, during which time Kory attempted to persuade Lynch’s older son, Rutger, to sell Lynch’s house and provide $3 million.  It is important to note that the entire King Drew file is fraudulent and does not relate to Lynch.  According to Cohen’s testimony at Lynch’s 2012 trial, the SWAT/King Drew situation were used to obtain the original 2005 restraining order.  Lynch has asked IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others to investigate this situation.  See Exhibit G:  King Drew Report.
The Natural Wealth lawsuit addressed the fact that Cohen and other co-conspirators (including Robert Kory) participated in a “pattern of racketeering activity” that attempted to commit, conspired to commit, solicited, coerced or intimidated others to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, interference with
commerce by threats, criminal extortion, bribing a witness [Lynch], intimidating a witness [Lynch], and tampering with a witness [Lynch].  See Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. v. Cohen 2008 WL 511761. D. Colorado , February 21, 2008 ( No. 05-cv-01233-LTB ).  These issues have not been litigated.  Leonard Cohen has retaliated against Lynch – including by abusing the restraining order process – for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities on April 15, 2005 and at other times.   In enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, Congress added retaliation for “providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any Federal offense” to the list of statutorily-defined predicate actsSee DeGuelle v. Camilli, No. 10-CV-0103, 2010 WL 1484236 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 12, 2010).
In his December 2005 Order (Natural Wealth case), Judge Lewis Babcock addressed some of the more disturbing aspects of Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory’s actions:  “Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums [including, Lynch assumes, the nearly $6.7 million in loans and/or advances Cohen personally took from Traditional Holdings, LLC] from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs’ reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.”  The purported thuggery was not effective but has destroyed her sons’ lives.  That is one of the reasons Lynch informed Judge Carolyn Enichen that she felt the Boulder, Colorado proceedings were “insane.”  Lynch believes the fraudulent restraining orders have been used as a ruse or diversionary tactic to discredit Lynch.
Any finding – which simply does not exist - that Lynch committed an act prohibited by the DVPA, or was in a “dating” and/or “engagement” relationship with Cohen, is not supported by the evidence, because no court has actually weighed the evidence or addressed the issue. Thus, the domestic violence restraining order was wrongfully imposed and Lynch’s due process rights were violated.
            Lynch respectfully asks the Court to vacate the domestic violence order created when Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the out-of-state order in California using domestic violence former DV-600.  She also asks the Court to vacate any domestic violence related orders provided to Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and/or Bruce Cutler.  As Lynch does not represent Leonard Cohen, it is not her place to ask this Court to properly register the Order or determine what the appropriate Judicial Council form would be when a party seeks to register an out-of-state non-domestic violence order in California.  It is of interest to note that Leonard Cohen is not interested in finding out how to properly “protect” himself.  Finally, Lynch asks this Court to remove her name and information from the Domestic Violence Registry or any local, state, and/or federal registry and/or database that includes information with respect to the newly created California domestic violence order of May 25, 2011.
Dated:  21 August 2015

                                                                        Kelley Lynch, In Propria Persona