Thursday, October 12, 2017

National Enquirer Writes Stephen Gianelli About Phil Spector's Alleged Fiance & Prison Romance; KL Responds Directly to National Enquirer About Her Stalker

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Phil Spector
To: tips@radaronline.com, TIPS@nationalenquirer.com, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>


National Enquirer,

I am going to post this on my blog.  Stephen Gianelli's communications with National Enquirer about Phil Spector's fiance, his prison romance (that allegedly involved conjugal visits in California),   If you have any questions, give me a call.  I just looked quickly to see what your latest articles on Phil Spector are.  I thought the treatment of Pumpkin Pie was unconscionable.  Her friends were beneath her for the District Attorney's Office?


This article quotes her as confirming that Clarkson was despondent and wanted to blow her brains out.  What right did Alan Jackson, Spector's prosecutor, have to make up stories that she took money from Spector and/or she wanted to write a book?  This is what I have been accused of:  wanting Spector's money.  I never took a dime from Phil Spector apart from work I did or reimbursements.  


I found Paul Huebl's take on the situation with this woman accurate.  What does the National Enquirer think about the fact that Lana Clarkson was served (and ate) her childhood pony on an LSD commune in Napa Valley?  Maybe you should ask Alan Jackson about that issue.


Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:29 AM
Subject: FW: Phil Spector
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [REDACTED<[REDACTED]@nationalenquirer.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:50 PM
Subject: RE: Phil Spector
To: Stephen G <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Actually, I received a tip about woman who was visiting him in prison.
A woman by the name of Julie [REDACTED].
Do you know who she is?
I am told she lives in [REDATATED], CA.

From: Stephen G [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 12:48 PM
To: [REDACTED] <[REDACTED]@nationalenquirer.com>
Subject: Re: Phil Spector

I don't know what I could add to your Spector story. I followed the retrial, but through legal documents. 

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 22:31
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI 
Subject: Phil Spector

Hi Stephen!
My name is [REDACTED] and I am a long-time writer for the National Enquirer.
I wanted to speak with you regarding a Phil Spector story that I am working on.
If you have a moment, please call me at (425) [REDACTED].
Or you can call me at (310) [REDACTED].
P.S.—I had been working with [REDACTED] on a story regarding  [REDACTED], and he said he knew you and were a very honorable guy, a real straight shooter! He said to say hi!

[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]

cid:246B7F63-5112-4F5E-8B46-04E6A5F52012

4 New York Plaza, Level 2, New York, NY 10004

 Office [REDACTED]



Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Email to Radar Online & Daily Mail Re. Phil Spector's Prison Romance & Fiance

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Phil Spector's Prison Romance?
To: tips@radaronline.com, tips@dailymail.com, epl@lozzipr.com
Cc: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>


Radar Online and Daily Mail,

I was reviewing this email from my criminal stalker, Stephen Gianelli, to Ed Lozzi [bcc to me], Clarkson's former publicist.  You can read more on Gianelli here.  This was written by a journalist, former girlfriend of Leonard Cohen's, who has been targeted by Gianelli as well.


I have received information from and about someone who claimed to have had a prison romance with Phil Spector.  In fact, Piper Balle claimed to have been his fiance.  Have you heard anything about that?  Perhaps Ed Lozzi who appears to hunt down everything online about Phil Spector - who he then trashes (often in tandem with Gianelli - has some information.

The City Attorney with LAPD are now targeting me once again over federal tax matters.  They have used fabricated evidence to insert Phil Spector into the case.  I now have an investigator and forensic computer expert investigating these matters.  Why do you think the City Attorney and LAPD are demanding I remain non-compliant with respect to federal tax laws?  Any thoughts about their motive?  I'm pursuing the possibility that Cohen was an "informant' of sorts against Phil Spector.  See two motions I've filed.  I've asked the Court to sever all insanity re. the information inserted into my alleged case through fabricated email evidence I didn't send.  These people are clearly desperate.  



Kelley Lynch



From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Subject: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court
To: epl@lozzipr.com 

Dear Ed, 

You latest blog post about the pending Spector “appeal” being mere grandstanding evinces a lack of understanding of the process that is now playing out in federal court. 

Now that the state court appeals (California Court of appeal, petition for review to the California Supreme Court) have been exhausted, Spector may now ask (and has asked) the federal district court to review the FEDERAL issues implicated by the conviction, of which there are several – including the so called “structural error” consisting of the prosecutor playing a Court TV video tape of the trial judge from a prior hearing held outside the presence of the jury in trial #1 indicating where an evidence technician (whose hands could only be seen by the court at the hearing) was testifying that she observed blood on the victim’s hands. (This was a key issue, because blood on the front of the hand would indicate a defensive position of the hand, blood on the back of the hand would suggest a suicide.) 

This is a meritorious issue, and if Riordan is correct that structural error was committed, it will result in an automatic reversal and retrial with no weighing of prejudice.  

It should also be noted that only one appellate court has looked at the case “on the merits” of the issues: The California Court of appeal. The petitions to the California Supreme Court [FN - below] and to the United States Supreme Court [FN] were discretionary (and decided on considerations OTHER THAN the merits of Spector’s arguments on appealTherefore, the fact that the California and United States Supreme Court denied the respective petitions for review is no reflection at all on the merit of Spector’s issues on appeal, including those now pending in the district court.

This issue is now being evaluated by a federal magistrate on the briefs submitted by each side under federal court case law decided under the United States Constitution.  By September of this year the magistrate judge will submit his report and recommended disposition of Spector’s petition (grant or deny) and then the assigned district court judge will sign off. The losing side in that decision may then appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That forum is where Spector appellate counsel Dennis Riordan is best known and respected by the justices, and has also had his highest rate of success – including Mr. Riordan’s recent successful appeal on behalf of Barry Bonds of his obstruction of justice conviction. (Bonds’ conviction was reversed on technical legal grounds, and he may not be retried.)

To write this process off as mere “grandstanding” or to infer from the prior decisions affirming the conviction during the state court appeal process (or from the US Supreme Court’s refusal to exercise discretionary review, which decision was not “on the merits” and was a one and a million shot to begin with) – that Spector has no chance of succeeding in the district court or in the 9th circuit would be a mistake.

Note also that Barry Bonds initially LOST in the 9th Circuit, but that Dennis Riordan convinced the either 9th Circuit to hear the case “en banc”, and it was during this process that Dennis Riordan won the case for his client. (The oral argument is on line, and you can see from the video the tremendous respect the justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have for Mr. Riordan and you can also see how posed and skilled he is arguing before the court.) http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000006568 This video vividly illustrates that with a lawyer of Dennis Riordan’s caliber representing the defendant,  the case truly “ain’t over till its over”.

I am no apologist for Phil Spector, nor do I have an opinion as to his guilt or innocence.

I simply believe that we cannot decide the case until he has had a fair trial, and that he has not had. The trial should have been about one thing only” Who was holding the gun when Lana Clarkson died. Instead, too much of the trial consisted of airing ancient history, 30, 20, and 10 years before Spector even met Clarkson.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece  

-----
FN- The California Supreme Court’s function is to preside over the orderly and consistent development of California case law. Therefore, the primary ground for granting a petition in a particular case is if review is necessary to secure uniformity of decision among the appellate courts or to settle an important question of law, as stated in California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b) The U.S. Supreme Court gives full consideration to but a small fraction of the cases it has authority to review. With many important categories of cases, the party seeking Supreme Court review does so by "petitioning" the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari." (See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 125412572350.) While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists some of the considerations that may lead the Court to grant certiorari. But the decision to grant or deny cert. is discretionary.


Kelley Lynch's Writ: LA Superior Court & Local Government Actors Have Assigned A Dating Relationship With Celebrity Leonard Cohen Who Sexually Harassed, Sexually Assaulted, Masturbated in Front of Her & Routinely Exposed His Penis to Her

Petition for Writ
APP-151 (Addendum)

The Trial Court Action or Ruling You Are Challenging

3.         The Trial Court action or ruling I am challenging is the ruling on the People’s memorandum setting forth “Statutory Authority for the Filing of the Permanent Protection Order Issued in the State of Colorado in Case Number 2008 C 776 ON 09/02/08.”  On September 1, 2017, the People filed their memorandum, failed to serve me, a self represented individual, copies of two separate motions and/or memoranda.  Deputy City Attorney Ralston Henry handed the documents to me immediately before the hearing scheduled for September 8, 2017.  The trial court concluded that this was acceptable, proceeded to hear the case, read a fabricated prosecution narrative into the record, and determined that both the conflicting Colorado and California restraining orders at issue in the case are valid.  As the nature of the relationship changed from Colorado to California that is clearly an erroneous decision. 

I objected to the ruling, confirmed that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to make any determination whatsoever with respect to the Colorado order, and asked for an opportunity to file an Opposition to the memorandum arguing the validity of the registration of the Colorado order in California.  I was denied that opportunity.   Very serious issues related to the applicability of the federal VAWA statute, Colorado state and federal anti-stalking laws, LA Superior Court’s assignment of a statutory required dating relationship (without any due process whatsoever) and domestic violence designation, and other constitutional issues are relevant and material to the case before the trial court.  I maintain that neither order is valid, lawful, and/or constitutional.   

4.         The trial court took this action or made this ruling on the following date:  September 8, 2017.

5.         If you are filing this petition more than 30 days after the date you listed in 4, explain the extraordinary circumstances that caused the delay in filing this petition:  I am filing this Petition on October 9, 2017 as October 8, 2017 fell on a Sunday.  I have waited until this date for the following reasons:  I required a transcript, it was unavailable on September 25, 2017 when the Court instructed me to pick it up, I was unable to return to Court until the following week, and I was forced to locate and consult an appellate attorney about the writ, related appellate matters, and potential federal proceedings.  The Colorado court has no jurisdiction over the protected or me, no one has resided there since 2008, and there are no injuries – alleged or otherwise – in that jurisdiction. 

Appeals or Other Petitions for Writs in This Case

Note:  While there are no direct appeals and/or writs in this specific case, an appeal before this Court involves the denial of my motion to vacate the California domestic violence order that I was unaware existed throughout trial proceedings in 2012 or during the appellate process.  The appeal of the denial of the motion to vacate the order (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ0333717) is before this Court under Case No. B267409.  Kelley Lynch’s Reply Brief is due October 12, 2017.  Therefore, the case is not fully briefed.

Reasons for this Petition

10 (a).  The trial court has not done or has refused to do something that the law says it must.

1.      Describe what you believe the law says the trial court must do.  The trial court must provide me with an opportunity to file an Opposition to the People’s Memorandum, challenge the validity of the registration of the California order and People’s authority to argue a private civil litigation matter on behalf of a deceased protected party, and provide a fair adversarial hearing and meaningful opportunity to be heard.  I will also be pursuing issues related to the conflicting state orders in federal court at this time. 

2.      Identify the law (the section of the Constitution or statute, published court decisions, or other legal authority) that says the trial court must do this:  The County of Los Angeles Criminal Division Rules set forth in Chapter 8 certain Pro Per Issues.  One such issue is set forth in Rule 9.42 Pro Per Defendants in Criminal Cases.  Under subsection (c) it clearly states that notice of hearing and filing of papers “must be filed with the clerk where the case is then pending, and a copy  must be served on the prosecuting attorney and all other attorneys ore parties in pro per ten days in advance of any proposed hearing date, in accordance with applicable law.  Service by mail is acceptable.”  I was unaware that the City Attorney filed the documents and was not served or provided an opportunity to file an opposition or have a fair hearing on the issues.  Once again, due to the fabricated background narrative, an entirely fraudulent trial record is being created.  Therefore, I am entitled to confront the false accusations and insertion of extraneous matters into this case.  For example, Leonard Cohen’s default judgment.  The renewal of that judgment is also under appeal. 

See copy of the rule attached hereto and made a part hereof.  The United States and California Constitutions contain due process clauses.  Due process requires notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and the proceedings must be fair. 

3.      Identify where in the supporting documents (the record of what was said in the trial court and the documents from the trial court) it shows that the court did not do or refused to do this: 

The issue re. the prosecutor’s failure to serve their response to my Motion for Outrageous Government Conduct is addressed beginning on page 2.  I objected to the hearing on that motion due to the failure to serve me the Opposition or provide an opportunity for me to file a Reply.  On page 3, I did inform the Court that I felt it was inappropriate to hold the hearing when I was not given sufficient time to reply to that motion.  This discussion continued through page 4.  The Court offered to provide me an additional 30 to 45 minutes.  That was unacceptable as I had no opportunity to sufficiently review the Opposition and/or research issues.  The Court decided to proceed to hear that motion.  I objected to the fabricated, slanderous background narrative beginning at page 6. 

The Court raised the validity of the protection orders on page 8.  I objected to the position that the Colorado (non domestic violence) order is valid and/or the registration of that order in California as a domestic violence order is a valid registration.  The trial court, in the motion to vacate the California domestic violence determined that it was a domestic violence order and in 2012 I was sentenced under domestic violence laws.  Leonard Cohen and I were not in a “dating relationship.”  Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and indecent exposure are not dating.  He informed the Colorado court that the basis of the relationship was a business relationship.  Cohen reconfirmed this during the March 23, 2012 preliminary hearing related to the alleged violations at that time.  This has been addressed thoroughly in the related appeal.  The California domestic violence order was not served.  I was not notified of the existence of that order.  And, I have been subjected to more stringent domestic violence laws and acts.  VAWA requires service and a hearing for it to be applicable.  It also has a separate relationship requirement and prior to 2013 there was no intimate relationship category.  There are also serious second amendment issues as the Colorado order excluded the Brady Handgun Act.  The Court addressed the Statutory Authority memorandum beginning at approximately page 10.  On page 11, I asked if I had a legal right to file an opposition and questioned whether the Court was holding a hearing on that memorandum.  Service of process is a serious issue before LA Superior Court.  The same issue has arisen continuously and that includes with respect to the default judgment itself.    The prosecutor, on page 11, began arguing issues related to res judicata.  Those arguments should not have been made without my being served a copy of the memorandum and provided an opportunity to file an opposition.  Res judicata would apply to the nature of the relationship in Colorado.  LA Superior Court has modified the Colorado order, converted the nature of the relationship, and the Colorado court maintained exclusive modification jurisdiction.  On page 11, the Court gave its tentative ruling that the Colorado permanent order is binding and valid.  The Colorado order was issued without my being advised of the allegations, alleged unauthenticated evidence submitted to the court ex parte, Leonard Cohen’s ex parte testimony (that has now been destroyed), did not discover Cohen’s entirely perjured declaration until after the hearing, and only discovered the Verified Motion when the Colorado court wrote to confirm that their order was not a domestic violence order and provided me a copy of the motion.  Leonard Cohen evidently checked a “stalking” box.  I was unaware of that until April 10, 2014.  That does not sufficiently address issues related to stalking and my online posts, re. European concert reviews, refuting Leonard Cohen’s slanderous, false accusations.  I have been advised by journalists that due to the Court’s decisions, they have a right to defame me.  The trial court is not in a position to determine the validity of the Colorado order.  The prosecutors are now arguing a private civil matter on behalf of a deceased protected party.  They have also asked the court to issue domestic violence related orders (PC 136.2) to Cohen’s lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, without notice, service, and/or a hearing.  That issue will be addressed more fully in appeal and elsewhere.  The discussion about failure to serve me and proceed with the hearings continued on page 13.  On page 14, I informed the court that I was not ready to proceed.  The prosecutor than weighed in that my request to file an opposition should be denied.  See page 15.  Again, the prosecutor argued issues related to res judicata.  During the 2012 proceedings, I was unaware (as were the jurors) of the manner in which the Colorado order was registered as a domestic violence order.  The trial court took judicial notice of the order in that case.  That order was the California domestic violence order in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ033717.  The juror verdict forms instructed them that I violated the Colorado order.  The prosecutor did not provide the Court with any documentation or a declaration to support his statements.  On page 17, the trial court provided her ruling that the Colorado permanent order and so-called reciprocal order in California are valid.  I wholeheartedly disagree.

11.       This petition will be granted only if there is no other adequate way to address the trial court’s action or ruling other than by issuing the requested writ.

a.       Explain why there is no way other than through this petition for a writ – through an appeal – for your arguments to be adequately presented to the appellate division.

The trial court has determined that the conflicting Colorado and California orders are valid and I should be prosecuted under domestic violence laws.  I will not be able to address any harm that ensures from these determinations at a later appeal. 

b.      Explain how you will be irreparably harmed if the appellate division does not issue the writ you are requesting.

I will be irreparably harmed because the trial court has made a determination that the Colorado order is valid.  That determination should be made by a Colorado and/or federal court.  I will be further harmed by the determination that the California domestic violence order is valid.  This will subject me to more stringent domestic violence laws and acts.  Furthermore, the entire 2012 trial record is evidence of fraud.  That includes Leonard Cohen’s perjured testimony that, while he testified previously that we were in a purely business relationship, he only denied that we were “lovers” because – according to his hearsay statement – I deny that fact.  I remain unconvinced that any intelligent individual would believe that testimony.  I also deny that I misappropriated anything or violated any order. 

12.       I request that this court

a.       Order the trial court to do the following:  provide me with an opportunity to be properly served, a new hearing date set, and further provide me with the opportunity to follow an Opposition.  That would require research and therefore the fact that trial court was willing to initially stay the proceedings for half an hour was not a remedy for the complete failure to serve me.  Furthermore, the Deputy City Attorney’s arrogance in demanding that I simply show up at trial court to see if filed the documents and obtain a copy is astounding.

b.      Order the trial court not to do the following:  not to proceed to trial until these issues are properly resolved. 

c.       Issue a stay ordering the trial court not to take further action in this case until this court decides whether to grant or deny the petition.

d.      I (2) did not ask the trial court to stay these proceedings for the following reasons:  I was unaware that these issues would arise, did not understand what I had any obligation to request a stay with the trial court, and the next hearing before the trial court is presently scheduled for October 30, 2017.  This creates certain time constraints related to the 30 day filing requirement (set forth on this form) with respect to the filing of the writ.

e.       Grant any additional relief that the appellate division decides is fair and appropriate.

14.       The following documents are attached to the Petition:

            Memorandum setting forth the statutory validity
            Transcript of Hearing on September 8, 2017



Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Severance Motion filed w/ LA Superior Court 09.27.17

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Kelley Lynch has been falsely accused and charged with violating a restraining order issued to deceased singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen and allegedly sending illegitimate communications – with the “intent to annoy” - to Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, CIA, Senate Judiciary, FTB, and others.  The issue with respect to the conflicting Colorado civil harassment order and California domestic violence order remains unresolved. 
            She now moves to sever issues related to so-called uncharged offenses, acts, unrelated issues, all evidence, and hearsay statements the People have introduced into this case involving same.  These uncharged offenses and attendant evidence and/or hearsay statements, addressed more fully herein, unfairly prejudice Lynch’s defense, violate her right to due process, and additional constitutions rights, including a fair trial. 
ARGUMENT

The purpose of this motion is to sever issues.  The uncharged offenses and/or issues, raised through unauthenticated, fabricated electronic communications and/or hearsay with respect to alleged communications between the City Attorney and District Attorney of Los Angeles, have introduced the following irrelevant, immaterial, inflammatory, and prejudicial issues into this case:  former DA Steve Cooley, Phil Spector’s murder trial and conviction, Dr. Dre’s song “Natural Born Killaz,” Oliver Stone, Stephen Gianelli’s libelous statements about Lynch, Phil Spector’s legal team (specifically Dennis Riordan and Bruce Cutler), Sandra Jo Streeter’s request to have Lynch drugged and committed (to a domestic violence facility) over her letters to Bruce Cutler, a Valentine card sent to FBI and DOJ as an example of a false threat scam being run out of Los Angeles and requests for investigations into same, the fact that Streeter broke a podium during the 2012 proceedings and/or Lynch’s alleged personal opinions regarding Streeter’s fashion sense, a hearsay parody email sent to Bruce Cutler that involves Steve Cooley and federal agencies Lynch has communicated with extensively, the official use of perjury to obtain convictions, Lynch’s presidential campaign platform, the appointment of her FBI and/or CIA directors, a possible wedding in the White House Rose Garden, the appointment of her Attorney General and request that he or she pursue charges against former DA Steve Cooley, the ACLU’s position on Steve Cooley’s demands for speedy executions of people using a questionable drug, witnesses who have lied under oath (during Lynch’s 2012 trial, other proceedings, and the Phil Spector murder case), CIA’s threat disposition matrix and drone program (and individuals who are in their matrix database), a federal tax controversy related to allegations that Leonard Cohen committed civil and criminal tax fraud, and so forth. 
Motions to sever ask for separate trials. A motion to “sever” asks the court to order separate trials of issues, causes of action, or parties joined in a single action. The purpose of severence is to avoid prejudice, promote convenience, or permit greater expedience and economy.  California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1048(b).
Severance or a separate trial is a procedural device that allows the court to divide a lawsuit into two or more parts, establish the order in which they will be resolved, and resolve them separately.  Severance can be an important way to improve trial efficiency because it allows the court to avoid adjudicating every issue in a case when deciding a subset of the issues may be dispositive.  This motion seeks to sever matters related to charged and uncharged alleged offenses, the issues raised with respect to them, and related evidentiary matters.  Admission of the so-called uncharged offenses and evidence related to same would unfairly prejudice Kelley Lynch.  Additionally, the Phil Spector case was and remains highly inflammatory and the introduction of his murder trial into the case in chief will confuse jurors and further prejudice her.  Lynch contends that the People have introduced these issues into their case – through fabricated email evidence and hearsay statements - in an attempt to mitigate issues, for purposes of retaliation and to apply the res judicata doctrine to issues that have not been litigated and have nothing whatsoever to do with an alleged restraining order violation and/or the legitimacy of Lynch’s alleged communications.  That would include, but is not limited to, her formal claims against the City and County of Los Angeles.  Lynch notified the City and County of Los Angeles that she intended to pursue a federal lawsuit against them.  She maintains that the City and County of Los Angeles are using this proceeding to mitigate liability. 
Severance would be appropriate to promote efficiency, avoid prejudice, improve the accuracy of the adjudication, and to ensure that all offenses – both charged and uncharged - are properly and fully litigated.  It would also allow the Court to determine how the proceedings should be structured, which claims or issues should be tried first, whether or not there should be a partial stay of discovery, whether or not separate trials should take place before the same or different juries, and what the most appropriate scope of severance (complete severance or separate trials) would be.  The inclusion of the uncharged offenses, prior bad acts, evidence related thereto, and/or the false accusations have now raised multiple issues that would be better resolved in separate trials.  The Court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, offenses, and/or charges.  This would preserve Defendant’s right to a jury trial, due process, litigation on the merit of all issues, and fair adversarial proceedings. 
Defendant Kelley Lynch believes the issues involving the Phil Spector case, former District Attorney Steve Cooley, whether or not Phil Spector was set up, Deputy City Attorney Sandra Jo Streeter’s conduct throughout all proceedings – including her request to have Lynch drugged and committed to a domestic violence facility – and Cohen’s tax fraud, and so forth should be tried first and separately from the charge offenses in the People’s complaints.  This would narrow the courtroom debate and focus on specific issues.  For example, with respect to the charged offenses, the debate could focus on alleged restraining order violations and/or the intent and legitimacy of Lynch’s alleged communications.  With respect to the uncharged offenses and/or evidence, the debate could focus on the Phil Spector murder case, whether or not he is in fact innocent, former DA Steve Cooley and Cohen’s possible informant status, any quid pro quo between Cohen and government actors in the City and/or County of Los Angeles, DCA Sandra Jo Streeter’s conduct, criminal witness tampering and retaliation, Dr. Dre’s “Natural Born Killaz” lyric, Lynch’s presidential campaign platform that set forth her interest in tackling political corruption, the appointment of Lynch’s FBI and CIA directors, California’s perjury statute as it relates to government officials, whether or not the U.S. Attorney General should prosecute Steve Cooley to the fullest extent of the law, CIA’s drone program and threat disposition matrix, CIA’s MK Ultra program and Cohen’s position that he was a participant, the ACLU’s arguments in response to Steve Cooley’s demands for swift executions using a questionable drug, parodies involving government actors, political speech, grievances to the government and retaliation over same, privileged communications with federal government agencies and other authorities, a federal tax controversy related to Leonard Cohen and corporations he controlled, witnesses who have lied under oath, and so forth.  Introducing these extraneous issues into the case in chief would serve to gravely prejudice Lynch and confuse jurors with endless erroneous, complex, and unrelated issues and evidence.  These alleged uncharged offenses, and the attendant evidence (fabricated emails and hearsay) related to same, have no probative value with respect to the charged offenses. 
For all of the reasons detailed herein, Kelley Lynch requests that this motion to sever be granted. 
General Legal Principles
            The trial court has the discretion to sever issues.  The trial court also has the discretion to admit evidence, or in this case evidence related to uncharged offenses such as witness dissuasion with respect to Streeter and/or credible threats with respect to Cooley, ostensibly committed by a defendant other than the one for which she is charged, if such evidence is relevant to prove some fact at issue, and if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.  “When reviewing the admission of evidence of other offenses, a court must consider (1) the materiality of the fact to be proved or disproved, (2) the probative value of the other crime evidence to prove or disprove the fact, and (3) the existence of any rule or policy requiring exclusion even if the evidence if relevant.  This type of evidence can be irreparably damaging and therefore “if the connection between the uncharged offense and the ultimate fact in dispute is not clear, the evidence should be excluded.”  People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 951, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 897 P.2d 574.  It remains unclear what the relationship between the charged and uncharged offenses are and the People should be forced to clarify that issue. 
Sever & Prove Each Element of Each So-called Uncharged Act, Offense and/or False Accusation

The elements the prosecution must prove with respect to the fabricated email evidence and/or hearsay communications related to alleged witness dissuasion (Sandra Jo Streeter) and/or criminal threats (former DA Steve Cooley) should be the subject of an entirely separate proceeding where Lynch is afforded a fair hearing, ability to confront her accusers, discovery related to same, the appropriate standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), separate investigations, and so forth.  Exhibit A:  Elements of Witness Dissuasion and Criminal Threats, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 
            The admission of other crimes evidence is governed by Section 1101.  At this time, Kelley Lynch is asking the Court to sever the uncharged offenses and related evidence from the main case.
Section 1101:  “Subdivision (a) of Section 1101 prohibits admission of evidence of a person’s character, including evidence of character in the form of specific instances of uncharged misconduct, to prove the conduct of that person on a specified occasion.  Subdivision (b) of Section 1101 clarifies, however, that this rule does not prohibit admission of evidence of uncharged misconduct when evidence is relevant to establish some fact other than the person’s character or disposition.”  People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 393, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 646, 867 P.2d 757.  The categories listed in section 1101, subdivision (b), are examples of facts that legitimately may be proved by other-crimes evidence, but the list is not exclusive.”  People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 146, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357. Hence, “although evidence of prior offenses may not be introduced solely to prove criminal disposition or propensity such evidence may properly be admitted whenever it tends logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish any fact material for the People or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense.”  People v. Montalvo (1971) 4 Cal.3d 328, 331–332, 93 Cal.Rptr. 581, 482 P.2d 205.  Lynch maintains that the prosecution is attempting to introduce the uncharged offenses (and attendant issues raised in connection with those offenses) to prove criminal disposition and/or propensity.  The uncharged offenses do not tend to logically, naturally, and/or by reasonable inference establish any fact in this case. 
Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b)
Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), permits “the admission of evidence that a
person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident), or whether a defendant in a prosecution for an unlawful sexual act or attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented) other than his or her disposition to commit such an act.” (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (b).)
While Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), prohibits admission of a person’s character, whether in the form of opinion, reputation evidence, or evidence of specific acts, to prove a person’s conduct on a specified occasion, Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) allows for admission of evidence of a person’s prior acts when offered to prove a fact other than his or her disposition to commit the contested act. Such prior misconduct evidence may be offered to prove such facts as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, the absence of mistake or accident or lack of a reasonable belief that a person consented to engaging in a sexual act.  Lynch has engaged in no prior misconduct and did not transmit the fabricated email evidence at issue in this case.
Similarity Requirements
In People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 401, the California Supreme Court held that evidence of a defendant’s uncharged misconduct is relevant where the uncharged misconduct and the charged offense are sufficiently similar to support the inference that they are manifestations of a common design or plan. The court distinguished between the nature and degree of similarity required in order to establish a common design or plan, as opposed to that required to prove intent or identity.  The court found the least degree of similarity between the uncharged act and charged offense is required to prove intent.  Id. at p. 402.  In order to be admissible to prove intent, the uncharged misconduct must be sufficiently similar to support the inference that the defendant “‘probably harbored the same intent in each instance.’”  Ibid.
A greater degree of similarity is required to prove existence of a common design or plan.  “To establish the existence of a common design or plan, the common features must indicate the existence of a plan rather than a series of similar spontaneous acts, but the plan thus revealed need not be distinctive or unusual.”  Id. at p. 403.  Prior bad acts may be admitted if they demonstrate “circumstantially that the defendant committed the charged offense pursuant to the same design or plan he or she used in committing the uncharged acts.  Unlike evidence of uncharged acts used to prove identity, the plan need not be unusual or distinctive; it need only exist to support the inference that the defendant employed that plan in committing the charged offense.” Ibid.  Finally, the court stated that the greatest degree of similarity is required to prove identity.  For identity to be established, the uncharged conduct and the charged offense must share common features that are sufficiently distinctive so as to support the inference that the same person committed both acts.  Id. at p. 403. “‘The pattern and characteristics of the crimes must be so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.’” (Ibid.)
There is no similarity whatsoever between the charged offenses and alleged uncharged offenses or evidence and issues related thereto. 
Admission of Uncharged Acts Subject to Evidence Code Section 352 Balancing
The California Supreme Court has also held that even evidence that meets the requirements of Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), must still be subjected to a weighing under Evidence Code section 352 prior to being admitted.  Id. at p. 404.  Ewoldt reasoned: Evidence of uncharged offenses “is so prejudicial that its admission requires extremely careful analysis.”  People v. Smallwood (1986) 42 Cal.3d 415, 428, 228 Cal.Rptr. 913, 722 P.2d 197; see also People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 109, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37.  Since “substantial prejudicial effect [is] inherent in [such] evidence,” uncharged offenses are admissible only if they have “substantial probative value.”  People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 318, 165 Cal.Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883.  To be admissible such evidence “must not contravene other policies limiting admission, such as those contained in Evidence Code section 352.”  People v. Thompsonsupra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 109, 246 Cal.Rptr. 245, 753 P.2d 37.  The probative value of the so-called evidence of defendant’s uncharged offenses is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission [would] ... create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.  Evid. Code, § 352. 
Due Process Protects an Accused Against Conviction Except Upon Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt of Every Element of the Crime

            In 1970, the United States Supreme Court held in In re Winship that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.”  In re Winship397 U.S. 358364 (1970). See also Sullivan v. Louisiana508 U.S. 275 (1993) Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury requires a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock “axiomatic and elementary” principle whose “enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”  397 U.S. at 363 (quoting Coffin v. United States156 U.S. 432453 (1895). Justice Harlan's Winship concurrence, id. at 368, proceeded on the basis that inasmuch as there is likelihood of error in any system of reconstructing past events, the error of convicting the innocent should be reduced to the greatest extent possible through the use of the reasonable doubt standard.  In many past cases, this standard was assumed to be the required one, [Miles v. United States103 U.S. 304312 (1881); Davis v. United States160 U.S. 469488(1895); Holt v. United States218 U.S. 245253 (1910); Speiser v. Randall357 U.S. 513525-26 (1958)] but because it was so widely accepted only recently has the Court had the opportunity to pronounce it guaranteed by due process.   In addition to Winshipsee also Estelle v. Williams425 U.S. 501503 (1976); Henderson v. Kibbe431 U.S. 145153 (1977); Ulster County Court v. Allen442 U.S. 140156 (1979); Sandstrom v. Montana442 U.S. 510520-24 (1979) on the interrelated concepts of the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and defendant's entitlement to a presumption of innocence, see Taylor v. Kentucky436 U.S. 478483-86 (1978), and Kentucky v. Whorton441 U.S. 786 (1979).  The presumption of innocence is valuable in assuring defendants a fair trial,  [E.g., Deutch v. United States367 U.S. 456471 (1961). See also Cage v. Louisiana498 U.S. 39(1990). 
In state criminal trials, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.  Inasmuch as due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged,* the Court held in Mullaney v. Wilbur  [421 U.S. 684 (1975). See also Sandstrom v. Montana442 U.S. 510520-24 (1979)] that it was unconstitutional to require a defendant charged with murder to prove that he acted “in the heat of passion on sudden provocation” in order to reduce the homicide to manslaughter. The Court indicated that a balancing of interests test was to be employed to determine when the due process clause required the prosecution to carry the burden and when some part of the burden might be shifted to the defendant, but the decision called into question the practice in many States under which some burdens of persuasion were borne by the defense, and raised the prospect that the prosecution must bear all burdens of persuasion, a significant and weighty task given the large numbers of affirmative defenses.
            While due process requires that each element of a crime be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, uncharged offenses introduced to show the existence of some element of the charged crime need only be proved by a preponderance of substantial evidence. This unduly prejudices Lynch, violates her rights to due process, and undermines her ability to have a fair trial. 
Character Evidence
In general, under Evidence Code Section 1101, so-called “character evidence” is not admissible in a California criminal jury trial to show that a person acted in accordance with his/her character on a particular occasion.  The prosecutor may not introduce evidence of alleged bad acts committed in the past—criminal or otherwise—in order to show that the defendant committed the crime with which he/she has been charged.  Id.  See also People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 400. 
One relevant exception is when the defendant is charged with California domestic violence.  Then the prosecutor may introduce evidence that s/he has committed similar crimes in the past.  In a domestic violence case, the prosecutor may introduce evidence that you committed a similar crime in the past, even though such evidence would normally be inadmissible character evidence.  This exception is set forth in Evidence Code Section 1109.  Lynch has never been charged with domestic violence, there have never been findings related to domestic violence, and the Colorado order was a civil harassment non-domestic violence order granted on the basis of a business relationship.  Permitting the prosecutors to avail themselves of Evidence Code Section 1109 would violate Lynch’s right to due process. 
Kelley Lynch has never been charged with domestic violence, there are no findings related to domestic violence, the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order, and, Cohen and Lynch were not in a statutory required dating relationship.  Therefore, any and all attempts to use Section 1109 does indeed violate Lynch’s right to due process.  The jurors in Lynch’s 2012 trial were advised that Lynch violated the Colorado order.  The Colorado order is not a domestic violence order. 
Kelley Lynch Has No Common Plan or Design

Evidence Code Section 1101(b) permits the use of uncharged crimes to prove common plan or design.  People v. Dancer (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1688. Evidence of a common plan or design is admissible to show that the criminal act alleged (in this case, the homicide of victim Clarkson) in fact occurred.  People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Ca1.4th 380, 393 & 399; People v. Dancer, supra, 45 Ca1.App.4th at 1688.
While the words “common plan” or “common design” may suggest a single, continuing plot to commit a series of connected crimes, the California Supreme Court has speci´Čücally rejected such a restrictive approach.  People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Ca1.4th at pp. 399 & 401; People v. Castillo (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 416, 426). Instead, common plan or design should be seen simply as a similar modus operandi pursuant to which the defendant commits a series of similar, though not necessarily connected, crimes.  People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Ca1.4th at 399 403). Evidence that a defendant committed uncharged crimes similar to the charged offense is relevant if it circumstantially demonstrates that the defendant committed the charged offense pursuant to the same plan or design used to commit the uncharged crimes.  Id. at 402.
In order to show a common plan or design, the uncharged acts must simply share with the
charged offense a concurrence of common features such that the various acts are naturally to be explained as individual manifestations of a general plan. (Id. at 403). The common features must indicate the existence of a plan rather than a series of similar spontaneous acts, but the plan revealed need not be distinctive or unusual. (Ibid). The level of similarity required is greater than that required to show a defendant’s intent, but less than the distinctiveness required to prove identity. (Id. at 402).
REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINDER OF CHARGES

Section 954 of the Penal Code sets forth the requirements for joinder of criminal charges. It provides in pertinent part: "An accusatory pleading may charge two or more different offenses connected together in their commission, or different statements of the same offense or two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes or offenses, under separate counts .... [Provided], that the court in which a case is triable, in the interests of justice and for good cause shown, may in its discretion order that the different offenses or counts set forth in the accusatory pleading be tried separately or divided into two or more groups and each of said groups tried separately."  Kelley Lynch argues that failure to sever the uncharged offenses, whether or not they are in the information complaints, would be an egregious due process violation.  The inclusion of the uncharged offenses and these issues raised therein would unduly prejudice Lynch particularly as the Phil Spector case is highly inflammatory and the former District Attorney’s involvement in Lynch’s 2012 trial was tantamount to criminal witness intimidation and may have involved a quid pro quo with respect to Leonard Cohen’s testimony with respect to Phil Spector.  People v. Poon, supra125 Cal. App. 3d 55; People v. Kemp (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 458, 477 [11 Cal. Rptr. 361, 359 P.2d 913]; People v. Meneley, supra, 29 Cal.App.3d at p. 52.)
Prejudice Requires Severance
If clearly established by defendant, prejudice may require severance, even though joinder is statutorily permissible under section 954. As was noted in Coleman v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 129, 135 [172 Cal. Rptr. 86], certiorari denied 451 U.S. 988 [68 L. Ed. 2d 846, 101 S. Ct. 2325], “the determination that the offenses are ‘joinable’ under section 954 is only the first stage of analysis because section 954 explicitly gives the trial court discretion to sever offenses or counts ‘in the interest of justice and for good cause shown.’ ‘Statutory permission to consolidate does not supply a complete answer, for section 954 gives the trial court discretionary power to order separate trials in the interests of justice. Refusal of severance may be prejudicial error if discretion is abused.’ [Citing People v. Blalock (1965) 238 Cal. App. 2d 209, 222 (47 Cal.Rptr. 604).]”
Relevance & Propensity

As noted in People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 303, 316 [165 Cal. Rptr. 289, 611 P.2d 883], "Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a) expressly prohibits the use of an uncharged offense if the only theory of relevance is that the accused has a propensity (or disposition) to commit the crime charged and that this propensity is circumstantial proof that the accused behaved accordingly on the occasion of the charged offense.  Subdivision (a) does not permit a court to balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect. The inference of a criminal disposition may not be used to establish any link in the chain of logic connecting the uncharged offense with a material fact. If no theory of relevance can be established without this pitfall, the evidence of the uncharged offense is simply inadmissible.”  Lynch does not have a criminal disposition.  Any such disposition has been created by the use of restraining orders as tactics, a fabricated narrative that continues to be expanded upon, and a fictitious course of conduct. 
It Would Be Impossible For Jurors Not to Aggregate All Evidence

A principal concern at issue herein lies in the danger that the jury would aggregate all of the evidence, though presented separately in relation to each charge, and convict on both charges in a joint trial; whereas, at least arguably, in separate trials, there might not be convictions on both charges. Joinder in this case will make it difficult not to view the evidence cumulatively. The result might very well be that the two cases would become, in the jurors' minds, one case which would be considerably stronger than either viewed separately.
            The immateriality and irrelevance of the issues and/or offenses to this case as well as the substantial prejudice to Kelley Lynch warrants severance under Section 954 of the Penal Code.  The alleged offenses are not of the same class and the other offenses alleged to have been committed are not connected together in their commission.  Therefore, these issues and/or offenses are not properly joined under Section 954.  Section 954 gives the court discretion to order separate trials in the interest of justice.  People v. Blalock (1965) 238 Cal. App. 2d 209, 222 [47 Cal. Rptr. 604].  Such a motion is an appeal to the sound discretion of the trial court.  People v. Duane (1942) 21 Cal. 2d 71, 78 [130 P.2d 123]; People v. Isby (1947) 30 Cal. 2d 879, 897 [186 P.2d 405].  “If established, prejudice may require severance, even though joinder of the offenses is permissible under section 954. ... “  People v. Poon (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 55, 69 [178 Cal. Rptr. 375]. 
Prejudice, Inflammatory Arguments & Confused Unrelated Issues
A ruling on a motion to sever is based on a weighing of the probative value as against the prejudicial effect, but in the weighing process the beneficial results from joinder are added to the probative-value side.
A demonstration of substantial prejudice by a defendant may be sufficient to warrant severance of charges which could otherwise properly be joined. When substantial prejudice is clearly shown, a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for severance constitutes an abuse of discretion under Penal Code section 954. Fundamental principles of due process compel such a conclusion.
The pursuit of judicial economy and efficiency may never be used to deny a defendant his right to a fair trial. (In re Anthony T. (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 92, 102 [169 Cal. Rptr. 120].)
The refusal to sever these issues and/or offenses would deny Kelley Lynch the fundamental right to due process and a fair trial. 
CONCLUSION

            The Court should grant this severance motion and order separate trials on the charged and uncharged offenses.  The alleged uncharged offenses are being used to bolster the charges brought and insert extraneous issues into this case.  Joining the charged and uncharged offenses violates Kelley Lynch’s right to a fair trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  An accused retains federal due process rights even after the passage of Penal Code Section 954. 
Dated:  25 September 2017                                         Respectfully submitted,



                                                                                    _________________________________
                                                                                    Kelley Lynch


DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH


I, KELLEY LYNCH, declare:

1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         I am submitting this declaration in support of my motion to sever certain uncharged offenses, acts, evidence, false accusations, and extraneous issues from the charged offenses.  The fabricated email evidence related to Sandra Jo Streeter, and the hearsay with respect to an alleged email sent Bruce Cutler (evidently about Steve Cooley), discussions about these matters between the City Attorney and District Attorney, have introduced the following issues into this case:  CIA, Streeter’s conduct and wardrobe during the 2012 proceedings, Streeter gushing into a cell phone about Leonard Cohen and breaking the podium during the prior trial, witnesses who lie under oath, Steve Cooley and potential prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal criminal tax controversy related to Leonard Cohen and corporations he controlled, Phil Spector’s murder conviction and his innocence, Dr. Dre’s song “Natural Born Killaz,” Oliver Stone, endless criminal harassment and slander related to Stephen Gianelli, the use of the english language words “liars” and “thugs,” Phil Spector’s legal team (specifically Bruce Cutler and Dennis Riordan), a Valentine card sent FBI and DOJ as an example of a false threat scam being run out of Los Angeles and request for investigations into same, my 2012 trial being a mini-Phil Spector murder trial, the prosecution’s attempt to sabotage IRS and a federal tax controversy involving Leonard Cohen, Streeter’s conclusion that I should be drugged and committed to a “domestic violence” facility with respect to letters I sent Bruce Cutler, my mother’s views on that issue, my privileged communications with IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other authorities, attempts to limit those communications, misleading and lying to jurors, retaliation over probation that involved Stephen Gianelli’s harassing communications to the City Attorney and District Attorney, false imprisonments, my claims against the City and County of Los Angeles, the first amendment and retaliation over grievances to government authorities, outrageous government conduct as it relates to interference with an IRS matters, non-compliance with federal tax laws, and the Phil Spector case, and so forth.  These issues generally have nothing whatsoever to do with charges related to violations of a restraining order, fraudulent or otherwise, and/or the legitimacy of alleged communications to Kory, Rice, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, CIA, U.S. Senate Judiciary, FTB, and others.  The issues raised in the uncharged offenses, and with respect to communications between the City Attorney and District Attorney about me and the Phil Spector case, as well as all evidence related thereto should be severed from the charged offenses and heard separately. 
3.         I view these proceedings as blatant retaliation and further attempts to destroy me.  These proceedings are nothing other than thinly disguised criminal witness tampering, criminal witness intimidation, and endless attempts to sabotage IRS, insert Phil Spector into these proceedings, and an opportunity to argue erroneous matters using a domestic violence order and paid victim witnesses who are eternally conflicted as Leonard Cohen’s general counsel, litigation counsel, corporate counsel, and co-conspirators.
4.         I believe I am being retaliated against due to the fact that I reported allegations related to Leonard Cohen’s civil and criminal tax fraud to IRS and other authorities and have been vocal about Phil Spector’s innocence.  I am convinced that former DA Steve Cooley had investigators in the courtroom during my 2012 trial in an attempt to intimidate me.  I also believe Leonard Cohen may have been an “informant” of sorts against Phil Spector that resulted in his testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during my 2012 trial.  The prosecutor during my 2012 trial elicited testimony about Phil Spector, Cohen’s statements and/or testimony being transmitted to Spector’s Grand Jury and/or used in Spector’s proceedings, and used an email I sent Dennis Riordan to elicit that testimony from Leonard Cohen regarding those issues.  Cohen testified that he was a recipient of the email sent to Dennis Riordan, he was not, and on cross acknowledged that he was not.  I believe I am legally entitled to advise Dennis Riordan that Cohen advised me for twenty years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him, his gun stories about Phil Spector were nothing other than “good rock ‘n roll stories,” and Cohen refused to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information.  I was therefore targeted by the prosecution for transmitting witness information to Dennis Riordan.  Similarly, I was targeted by the prosecution with respect to allegations that Leonard Cohen committed civil and criminal tax fraud, my communications with IRS and other authorities, and for transmitting information to DOJ and FBI about meth labs, meth distribution, a murder, and the Aryan Nation.  I was privy to that information due to the fact that Leonard Cohen bankrupted me and forced me into homelessness.  These are just three examples of information I transmitted to Phil Spector’s legal team and/or the federal government for which I was retaliated against by the prosecution throughout the 2012 proceedings.
5.         I have information about witnesses who have lied either on the stand in the Phil Spector case or whose statements were used in the Spector case with respect to prior bad acts.  Two of those individuals are Leonard Cohen and Stephanie Jennings.  It is my understanding, based upon a review of the Grand Jury transcripts by journalist Mick Brown (UK Telegraph) that Leonard Cohen’s statements and/or testimony were transmitted to Phil Spector’s Grand Jury.  Mr. Brown brought this to my attention.  I was prosecuted in 2012 over that issue.  I am aware of the fact that the Spector prosecution used a version of Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story about Phil Spector in at least one motion filed in that case.  That motion is readily available on LA Superior Court’s website and can be viewed at this link.
In this particular version, the Spector prosecution set forth a version of this alleged incident that was contradicted by Cohen’s own testimony during my 2012 trial.  In this version, Phil Spector allegedly pointed a semi-automatic at Cohen’s chest.  During my trial, Cohen testified that Phil Spector allegedly pointed an automatic at his head.  At the outset of the 2012 trial, Cohen wrote Sandra Jo Streeter that Spector pointed the gun at his neck.  There are now three contradictory versions of this incident before LA Superior Court.  They involve the following components:  a gun to the head, neck, or chest; an automatic or semi-automatic; a bottle of wine in one version; and, according to the DA, the incident took place in the recording studio.  Leonard Cohen has personally provided interviews confirming that the alleged incident took place at his home at 3 AM.  There are also interviews where Cohen alleged that Phil Spector actually held a crossbow on him.  I cannot imagine why I was prosecuted over this issue and view it as blatantly criminal witness tampering and threats. 
1.      As for the incident at the Carlyle Hotel, I was present and witnessed what I believe has
become a fictitious account.  I was in town at that time, staying at a hotel nearby, heard Phil Spector was in town, and called him.  He invited me over to the Carlyle to visit.  When I arrived, I was advised to go upstairs to his room.  I entered the room, and distinctly recall this incident because I initially found his conduct was absurd, and saw Mr. Spector sitting on a chair, nearly in front of the bathroom door, with arms crossed across his chest.  I had walked over to the window to look out, turned around, and started laughing.  I asked him what he was doing.  I believe he mumbled something under his breath and nodded towards the bathroom.  I walked over to the bathroom and peaked in.  An individual who I would later understand was Stephanie Jennings was hiding in the bathtub and/or shower.  I asked Phillip what was going on.  He explained that she had somehow gained access to his room while he was not there and may have been going through his belongings.  I suggested that we go downstairs and file a complaint with the management.  I believe we did, although the details of that particular aspect of the incident are murky, and I also believe a mutual friend of ours was present for some of what unfolded.  That individual frequently served as Mr. Spector’s companion on trips, witness, and unofficial bodyguard.  I have arranged security for Mr. Spector over the years and am familiar with many members of his security detail.  I have also been out with Phil Spector when members of his security detail or staff were present.  I also understand why security for Mr. Spector was necessary.  This is not the only incident with an obsessive woman involving Phil Spector that I have witnessed.  I witnessed a similar incident at the Beverly Hills Hotel that may have involved Diane Ogden.  There was no gun incident at the Carlyle Hotel and I did not see a gun in Mr. Spector’s room or hear of one.  I am also aware that Stephanie Jennings phoned Paulette Brandt about this incident and informed her that she and Phil Spector argued.  At no time, and I have discussed this with Paulette Brandt countless times, did Stephanie Jennings advise Ms. Brandt that Phil Spector had and/or held a gun on her.  Furthermore, I am in receipt of an email from New York Police Department confirming that if an individual had held a gun on someone in a New York hotel, they would have been arrested for the gun and menacing.  Alternatively, Ms. Jennings was escorted from the hotel and viewed as a possible prostitute.  I believe that this and other information I have knowledge of is the reason I have been targeted by former DA Steve Cooley, intimidated by his investigator during the 2012 proceedings, and also targeted by former City Attorney Carmen Trutanich who is being investigated by the State Bar for misconduct in another case.  I also believe the 2012 trial was designed in response to my letter to former DDA Alan Jackson and scheduled during the DA election campaign.  However, as one very well known celebrity news outlet advised me, no one is all that interested in writing stories about Leonard Cohen, they already covered the Spector trial, and the only real news here relates to Leonard Cohen’s contradictory gun stories about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court.  Therefore, Cohen’s testimony about Phil Spector was not of particular interest to the news media.  The fact that Cohen and his attorneys testified that I was in receipt of the tax documents (specifically 1099 and K-1s) was of interest to the news media.  The more salacious, fictitious tale of a disgruntled ex-lover, not genuinely in need of tax information, who successfully got away with embezzlement – although it is my understanding Cohen and his legal team approached the District Attorney about that so-called issue , but was alternatively convicted of annoying Leonard Cohen over his misappropriation of corporate assets and withholding of tax information, and a woman who may have wanted to attend his concert was more suited to groupie journalists and news outlets.  This fabricated narrative is obscene.  It has been concocted by misogynists, sycophants, individuals with motive, and people who appear to spend 24/7 concocting one lie after another.  That includes, but is not limited to, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice who have financially benefitted from their conduct.  I have no idea what the City Attorney believes he is doing at this time but I have asked IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other authorities to investigate these and other proceedings and prosecute everyone involved who is not immune.  This fraudulent domestic violence case is nothing other than a federal tax controversy, further opportunity to sabotage IRS, and another excuse to destroy me and terrorize my family and friends while inserting Phil Spector’s murder trial into the proceedings yet again. 
8.         At this time, Stephen Gianelli, an operative and/or proxy of Leonard Cohen’s, continues to relentlessly harass and publicly attack me.  He has threatened me over my mother’s death, lied to LAPD’s Threat Management Unit, and targeted my friend Dan Meade following his recent death.  Dan Meade submitted a letter to this Court, together with his declaration, addressing Stephen Gianelli’s psychotic criminal conduct.  Paulette Brandt and Rutger Penick are both witnesses in this case and have informed the Court of same.  They have been relentlessly harassed by Stephen Gianelli over this case and their declarations.  These proceedings have exposed us to endless criminal conduct.  Investigator William Frayeh, District Attorney’s Office, concluded that Stephen Gianelli may have found a “sympathetic ear” about me with Spector’s prosecutor Alan Jackson and informed me that he would investigate that situation.  The results of that investigation are relevant and material to the alleged uncharged offenses.
9.         I have advised this Court that I intend to consult a computer forensic expert to review the fabricated email evidence introduced in this case.  I did not create, fabricate and/or transmit that fabricated email evidence to Robert Kory and/or Sandra Jo Streeter.  I have previously addressed the fact that someone lifted an email from my blog that was sent to IRS Commissioner’s Staff regarding Robert Kory’s declaration that is nothing other than a perjured document, a narrative related to his conduct and others, and evidence that Kory is concerned about his potential role in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income.  The declaration implicates serious federal tax matters, theft of millions of dollars of corporate assets, and Kory’s probable role as a co-conspirator.  Robert Kory and Michelle Rice have served as legal counsel to Leonard Cohen, paid witnesses who have now converted themselves into self-serving victims, and benefit from their conduct.  They are most certainly not witnesses and should be viewed as co-conspirators who have aided and abetted tax fraud, tax evasion, other criminal activity, and the targeting of witnesses.  While the issues related to who transmitted these emails to Robert Kory and Sandra Jo Streeter have not been litigated, the prosecution has attempted to use the fabricated evidence to insert extraneous information, evidence, and uncharged offenses into this case.  Therefore, I am asking the Court to sever issues and/or offenses and/or evidence related to any credible threat involving Steve Cooley, discussions about that matter between the City Attorney and District Attorney, and any witness dissuasion involving Sandra Jo Streeter.  The prosecution should not be permitted to circumvent my rights to due process, a fair proceeding, and/or the appropriate standard related to prosecutions involving credible threats and/or witness dissuasion.  The prosecution should be forced to prove every element of these alleged offenses, provide me the opportunity to confront my accusers, and address each and every issue they have attempted to insert into these proceedings through the content of the fabricated email evidence and/or hearsay related to Steve Cooley and Sandra Jo Streeter. 
10.       Due to the fact that the prosecution failed to serve me certain documents, including their Statutory Authority for the Filing of the Permanent Production Order in the State of Colorado Case (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ033717), once I am in receipt of the transcript of the September 8, 2017 proceedings, I will file a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeals.  There are two conflicting restraining orders at issue in this case and one of them is indeed a California domestic violence order issued without minimal due process.  I object to all false statements raised in the background section of the prosecution’s memorandum and reserve the right to confront the ever expanding fabricated narrative and fictitious course of conduct.  That includes, but is not limited to, the allegations related to misappropriation.  The fact that Leonard Cohen obtained a fraudulent default judgment, and wrongfully converted corporate property and my property to himself, does not prove that I misappropriated anything whatsoever.  During the March 23, 2012 preliminary hearing, Leonard Cohen personally testified that we were in a purely business relationship and I never stole from him – just his “peace of mind.”  DCA Sandra Jo Streeter was present for that testimony.  Cohen falsely testified that I failed to file my 2004 and 2005 tax returns when in fact Cohen, and the corporations he controlled, willfully and knowingly failed to provide me with IRS required tax forms (1099 and K-1s), corporate balance sheets, corporate accountings, and corporate tax returns related to the following corporations I had an ownership interest in for the years 2004 and 2005:  Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC.  Therefore, Leonard Cohen and his representatives are the individuals who have obstructed justice with respect to my inability to file my returns. 
11.       It is my understanding that the fabricated email evidence, that were allegedly transmitted to Robert Kory and Sandra Jo Streeter, have been submitted to this Court.  At this time, I am not in possession of a transcript of the September 8, 2017 hearing but the relevant portions (based upon my shorthand notes) are as follows:

REDACTED.  WILL HAVE ACTUAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT SHORTLY.

12.       I have threatened and/or attempted to dissuade no one regardless of the Deputy City Attorney’s false assertions regarding that fact. 
13.       As investigations into issues raised in this case remain ongoing, I am not in a position to file certain motions and/or documents at this time.  That would include, but is not limited to, a motion in limine and request for judicial notice.  I hope to have those filed in the near future but the investigations are beyond my personal control. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
This declaration is executed on this 25th day of September 2017 in Los Angeles, California.



                                                            ____________________________________
                                                            KELLEY LYNCH



DECLARATIONS AND OTHER EXHIBITS REMOVED.