I didn’t have a dating or intimate relationship with Cohen. Streeter had to rehabilitate him. She works in their insane Domestic Violence Unit where sexual harassment - and other outrageous conduct - is viewed as annoying to the perpetrator. For instance, looking at people defecating on one another on the internet in front of your female personal manager. Cohen literally confessed to committing perjury. The judge simply did not want reality addressed in his courtroom.
THE DATING RELATIONSHIP
Public Defender: Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct?
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: You wouldn’t say that that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct?
Cohen: I don’t think it goes to the description of romantic.
PD: But it was a sexual relationship, correct?
Cohen: It was an intimate relationship, yes.
PD: Was it a sexual relationship?
Cohen: It involved a sexual -- yes.
PD: It was actually spanning years, correc?
Cohen: I’m sorry?
PD: It actually spanned years, correct?
Cohen: I don’t know how long it spanned, sir.
PD: But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time?
Cohen: Yes, sir. RT 275
PD: When did it end?
Cohen: I don’t remember exactly when it ended. Like many relationships, it -- it just dissolved. RT 276
PD: And do you know why it ended?
Cohen: I would say that part of the relationship exhausted itself and dissolved naturally. RT 276
PD: Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?
Cohen: March 23rd, yes.
PD: Of this year. You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?
Cohen: That is correct.
PD: Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship. Do you remember that?
Cohen: I did.
PD: And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship. RT 276
Cohen: I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it. So I did not want to insist.
PD: I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said. I’m asking about what you said. You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct?
Cohen: May I explain.
Cohen: May I explain.
PD: I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.
Cohen: Yes.
PD: In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it, correct?
Cohen: Correct. RT 277
Cohen: Correct. RT 277
PD: When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch.
Cohen: That’s correct.
PD: When you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raised your right hand, correct?
PD: You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth.
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And then the same oath that you just took right now, correct? Before testifying correct?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And yet you gave two different answers, yes or no?
Cohen: Correct.
PD: And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?
PD: And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?
Streeter: Objection; argumentative.
Court:L Sustained. RT 321/322
In Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397, a First District Court of Appeal decision written by P.J. Anthony Kline, the court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a petition for a restraining order because the trial court did not believe that the parties involved had been in a
dating relationship. The appellate court sought to define
"dating relationship" for purposes of the DVPA, and, based
on an examination of various definitions from other states
and sociological writings, crafted a definition in Oriola .
dating relationship. The appellate court sought to define
"dating relationship" for purposes of the DVPA, and, based
on an examination of various definitions from other states
and sociological writings, crafted a definition in Oriola .
"[A dating relationship] is a serious courtship. It
is a social relationship between two individuals who have
or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly
exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation
of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured
for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent
interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to
have been casual.”
is a social relationship between two individuals who have
or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly
exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation
of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured
for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent
interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to
have been casual.”
We also heard testimony about Mr. Cohen’s relationship with Ms. Lynch. At a prior hearing in this matter, he testified that their relationship was purely a business relationship. But then, when he testified on the stand in front of you, the jurors, he said under oath that they had a short, brief intimate relationship, a sexual relationship. And when he was asked, well, why the two stories? Why when you were under oath at the prior hearing did you say it was only a business relationship and now, under oath again, you’re saying, well, kit was also a little bit more, it was a sexual relationship also. Mr. Cohen’s response was, well, Ms. Lynch denies it an, you know, in my mind if she denies it then it didn’t really happen. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you’re ever in your entire life going to tell the truth, wouldn’t you do it under oath, under penalty of perjury and in a court of law? Mr. Cohen had two stories. What does that say about his credibility? RT 584
