Saturday, May 28, 2016

Leonard Cohen's Never Ending Lies, Fraud, Perjury, Etc. - A True Religious Sage

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:55 PM
To: Whistleblower <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, 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 <>,, alan hootnick <>, bruce <>

Senate Judiciary,

I am reviewing information for the DMV appeal.  The record hasn't been transferred to the Appellate Division so this is not a priority.  Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the Colorado order did not meet VAWA requirements.  Cohen and I were not in a "dating" or "engagement" relationship.  The order was issued without findings.  Cohen confessed to perjuring himself over this issue.  And LA Superior Court has now concluded that one does not need to be served or notified of a new DMV order and it should have been litigated when one was unaware of it which is par for the course.  Cohen's latest addition to his army of professional lawyers will be handling the DMV appeal.  I, on the other hand, will be asking the Senate Finance Committee to investigate this, LA Superior Court's extortion attempt and DMV requirements re. sentencing, and the City Attorney's VAWA funding fraud.

LA Superior Court, as usual, had no jurisdiction to grant the DMV order which I believe was intentional on Cohen's part.

So, the Colorado protection order didn't meet the Cali Court's own requirements which is fascinating.

There's also the fraud re. the form DV-600 Cash for Kids Scam.

I'll attach the Cali Court's requirements re. the DMV orders and VAWA and mention that I wasn't served or notified.  This is of very little interest in Cali who has no jurisdiction over me in numerous matters but aids and abets criminal conduct, theft, tax fraud, extortion, etc.  Fascinating system of justice.


Domestic Violence Restraining Orders: Enforcement Issues Under the federal Violence Against Women Act1 (“VAWA”), states and tribes are required to provide full faith and credit to qualifying protective orders of each other’s courts. This means they must enforce each other’s orders as if they were the order of the enforcing State or tribe. In practice, however, things are not so simple. Jurisdictional issues arising from the status of lands where offenses are committed and the individuals involved can affect both state and tribal court’s jurisdiction to issue a particular order.

Further each law enforcement and judicial system has its own technical and procedural requirements which can affect enforcement of these orders. Full Faith and Credit Under VAWA, a protection order must meet the following conditions to be eligible for full faith and credit:

 • The order was entered pursuant to a complaint, petition, or motion filed by (or on behalf of) a person seeking protection; • The court that issued the order had personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the case; and • The person against whom the order was issued must have had notice and an opportunity to be heard related to the allegations of abuse and the relief sought 2 . VAWA only applies to certain types of relationships between the petitioner and the person against whom the order is sought. These include: • A spouse or former spouse of the respondent or defendant; • A person who lives or who has lived with the respondent or defendant (i.e., who resides or resided together in a sexual or romantic relationship); • A child of the respondent or defendant, a child of the intimate partner, or a child in common of the respondent or defendant and the intimate partner (including where parental rights have been terminated); and • A person with whom the respondent or defendant has or had a child in common (regardless of whether they were married or cohabitated). 

1 See 18 U.S.C. § 2265. 2 18 U.S.C. § 2265(b). 

Such a relationship does not include: • Boyfriends or girlfriends who do not live together or have never lived together; • Elder abuse; • Siblings who abuse siblings, uncles or uncles who abuse nieces and nephews, grandparents who abuse grandchildren, etc.; • Roommates, neighbors, or strangers. Further, due process requires that a person be served with the protective order before it can be enforced against them, so proof of such service is required before law enforcement will take action.