From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hi,
Their logic exhausts one. I didn't know about the California order. The document itself - which was unlawfully filed as a domestic violence order when I requested a civil harassment order - requires a proof of service. No one notified me. Rice LIED in her February 14, 2011 email and I called LA Superior Court and there was no order. Why? Because she LIED. I was told By Boulder Municipal Court Clerk's office that the order expired. That's factual. Whoever is writing this document is simply lying. They get the karma for their lies. Good. Maybe a superior authority will hold them accountable for their actions. It's not my problem. I know what I am looking at - LIARS. That's all I have to say. They must really be impressed with Leonard Cohen. The National Enquirer wasn't.
All the best,
Kelley
Appellant claims she was never served with the restraining order registered in California and therefore any action based upon it is null and void. AOB 13. As she cites no authority in support of this contention, her claim fails. Violation of Section 273.6a simply requires a defendant know of the court order. The prosecution need not have proved service of the lifetime protective order registered in California.
Controlling authority makes it clear service and notice are alternate requirements. The California Supreme Court has long recognized persons with “actual notice” of an injunction are bound by the injunction, even if not served. Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. V. Superior Court [Golden Gate] 1883 65 Cal 187 190. The United States Supreme Court similarly held: to render a person amenable to an injunction is neither necessary … he should have been a party in the suit in which the injunction was issued, nor … actually served with a copy … so long as he appears to have had actual notice. Citations.
In re. Lennon 1897 166, U.S. 548, 554, emphasis added; see also People ex. Rel. Gallo v. Acuna 1997 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1124.
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hi,
Their logic exhausts one. I didn't know about the California order. The document itself - which was unlawfully filed as a domestic violence order when I requested a civil harassment order - requires a proof of service. No one notified me. Rice LIED in her February 14, 2011 email and I called LA Superior Court and there was no order. Why? Because she LIED. I was told By Boulder Municipal Court Clerk's office that the order expired. That's factual. Whoever is writing this document is simply lying. They get the karma for their lies. Good. Maybe a superior authority will hold them accountable for their actions. It's not my problem. I know what I am looking at - LIARS. That's all I have to say. They must really be impressed with Leonard Cohen. The National Enquirer wasn't.
All the best,
Kelley
Appellant claims she was never served with the restraining order registered in California and therefore any action based upon it is null and void. AOB 13. As she cites no authority in support of this contention, her claim fails. Violation of Section 273.6a simply requires a defendant know of the court order. The prosecution need not have proved service of the lifetime protective order registered in California.
Controlling authority makes it clear service and notice are alternate requirements. The California Supreme Court has long recognized persons with “actual notice” of an injunction are bound by the injunction, even if not served. Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. V. Superior Court [Golden Gate] 1883 65 Cal 187 190. The United States Supreme Court similarly held: to render a person amenable to an injunction is neither necessary … he should have been a party in the suit in which the injunction was issued, nor … actually served with a copy … so long as he appears to have had actual notice. Citations.
In re. Lennon 1897 166, U.S. 548, 554, emphasis added; see also People ex. Rel. Gallo v. Acuna 1997 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1124.
--
The
Judge admonished the witness, “Do you understand that you have sworn to
tell the truth?” “I do.” “Do you understand what will happen if you are
not truthful?” “Sure,” said the witness. “My side will win.”
