Saturday, September 5, 2015

Los Angeles Superior Court's Fraudulent Restraining Order Program

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:56 AM
To: Whistleblower <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Attacheottawa <>,, Michelle Rice <>

Senate Judiciary,

I'm working on my federal lawsuits.  Colorado's statute requires the following type of relationship.  Cohen and I had none of these.  The California order is a new domestic violence order issued without notice, a hearing, or any findings.  Arguing that some Court - based on Cohen's perjured testimony - decided to assign me a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen - four years after the fraudulent registration is unacceptable.

I'm now going to create an entire schedule, based on Cohen's submissions to the "Family Court" in California, of all the fraud and perjury submitted to that Court.  I addressed some of it in my Reply to their preposterous opposition. 

The Court wasn't clear for the reasons that this fraudulent registration was acceptable to him.  He didn't respond when I asked about the "dating relationship" requirement.  He's wrong - my motion was not untimely because I could not address something I was unaware of.  The Show Trial has nothing whatsoever to do with this.  If I sat down IRS/DOJ attorneys, I could prove that every word is a lie in that matter.  

Let's look at the prosecutor's argument to the jurors.  Do you care that Cohen, who has many representatives working for him, put on some dog and pony show about what form he does or doesn't understand?  He testified that he forwarded all alleged emails to his lawyers/business managers so I think this line of questioning was obscene.  According to a government lawyer in LA Confidential, I am required to provide myself with IRS required form 1099 for the year 2004.  Also corporate information not in my possession.  Cohen's representatives handled the corporate matters and he testified to that fact.  He lied when he said I handled IRS filings.  I don't know why they have lied about IRS matters but they have.  This explains why the jurors wanted to hear from IRS.  And, they could have were it not for Robert Vanderet who lied at a sidebar that I was aware of these matters (fraud refunds, use of the Complaint to defend Cohen with IRS against allegations of criminal tax fraud).  Why doesn't LA Superior Court understand impeachment evidence?  They don't care about Brady materials.  They don't verify the nature of sister state orders and transform them into domestic violence orders creating VAWA fraud.

There's a relationship requirement in Colorado.  Cohen failed to check the "domestic abuse" box.  He must have been in a hurry to get back to Europe.


Now, in some of the emails there are mention by Ms. Lynch of failed business agreements and failure by Mr. Cohen to live up to his agreement of what she believed their business relationship was.  And indeed one of the things, the evidence will show, that she talks a lot about is tax fraud and the need to have the tax return.  But the People will submit to you or show to you that this so-called business relationship, or not honoring their business relationship, indeed the most important thing that she mentions every so often the tax statement is merely a ruse.  For example ... the evidence you will see ... that Ms. Lynch specifically asked for her K-1 form ... Let’s talk a little bit about Ms. Lynch’s need for the tax form or tax returns -- the evidence will show that Ms. Lynch was Mr. Cohen’s business manager.  The evidence will show that Mr. [sic] Lynch -- Mr. Cohen has no clue as to what a W-2 form is, a 1099 9 is, a K-1 form.  The evidence will show that Ms. Lynch is the one that had all of that information, knew all that information.  Mr. Cohen did not have it, does not have it and does not understand what it means.  Okay.  (RT 42-43)

To be considered domestic violence as defined under Colorado law, the person who acted abusively toward you must be someone: 
  • Who is or was related to you by blood or marriage;
  • Who lives or has lived with you; or
  • Who you have or had an intimate relationship with.  You do not have to have sex during the relationship for it to count as an "intimate relationship."*