From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Lack of a "dating relationship" not relevant to ability to register CO order
To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Date: Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: Lack of a "dating relationship" not relevant to ability to register CO order
To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Francisco,
I didn't have a dating or intimate relationship with Leonard Cohen. The only thing that was proven over this issue is the fact that he perjured himself. This man Gianelli is psychotic. I just phoned Carmen Trutanich to advise him to have Streeter to take some measure to ensure that I do not receive emails with her copied in on them - from a man criminally harassing me and contacting my sister after her lawyer advised him to cease and desist. Leonard Cohen's fan is copied in on this email with the prosecutor. I did ask Viramontes/LAPD if he thinks Streeter has psychiatric problems. A dating relationship is relevant - relevant enough for Cohen to perjure himself.
If you have any questions re. the concealed corporate books and records proving Cohen stole millions from me, the documents in the IRS binder, etc. let's go over it in detail before oral arguments.
All the best,
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Lack of a "dating relationship" not relevant to ability to register CO order
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Lack of a "dating relationship" not relevant to ability to register CO order
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.
Ms. Lynch:
Sections 6401 and following of the Family Code make explicit that there are TWO kinds of out of state orders that may be registered in California:
1. Domestic violence restraining orders;
2.OR Orders issued under the anti-stalking laws of the foreign jurisdiction designed to prevent harassment or personal contact.
Therefore, for the purpose of analyizing whether the 2009 Colorado Protective Order was properly registered in California, as long as the order qualified inder r #2 (the "OR" provision), it just does not matter whether or not you and Leonard Cohen ever "dated".
And since #2 applies - because the CO Protective Order was issued under the anti-stalking law of that state to prevent you from contacting Leonard Cohen - the order as regestered in CA was and is enforcible.
I have carefully explained this three times now.
The statutory language is very clear and unambigious. You are not a stupid woman and I know you understand this. You simply refuse to address it.
Furthermore, if the CA registration was unauthorized and the CO order uninforcible here, your appellate attorney would have raised that argument in your Opening Brief on Appeal but did not.
Any credibility conflict between you and Cohen on the issue of the nature of your relationship is presumed to have been resolved in favor of the judgment of conviction and in any event is simply not relevant to the validity of the California registration.
Sections 6401 and following of the Family Code make explicit that there are TWO kinds of out of state orders that may be registered in California:
1. Domestic violence restraining orders;
2.OR Orders issued under the anti-stalking laws of the foreign jurisdiction designed to prevent harassment or personal contact.
Therefore, for the purpose of analyizing whether the 2009 Colorado Protective Order was properly registered in California, as long as the order qualified inder r #2 (the "OR" provision), it just does not matter whether or not you and Leonard Cohen ever "dated".
And since #2 applies - because the CO Protective Order was issued under the anti-stalking law of that state to prevent you from contacting Leonard Cohen - the order as regestered in CA was and is enforcible.
I have carefully explained this three times now.
The statutory language is very clear and unambigious. You are not a stupid woman and I know you understand this. You simply refuse to address it.
Furthermore, if the CA registration was unauthorized and the CO order uninforcible here, your appellate attorney would have raised that argument in your Opening Brief on Appeal but did not.
Any credibility conflict between you and Cohen on the issue of the nature of your relationship is presumed to have been resolved in favor of the judgment of conviction and in any event is simply not relevant to the validity of the California registration.
