Wednesday, October 11, 2017

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