From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Subject: The Relevance of Alan Jackson and Steve Cooley
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>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>
Side bar.
Public Defender Kelly: I know I've made
objections, but a lot of these I don't think go to the relevance of he
knows about Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson that don't reference Mr.
Cohen.
The Court: Well, they -- you know, I don't want to get into detail here, but they go to an element in 653m so. In fact, several of them. We don't need to -- we can debate that some other time. RT 209 I'd like to see both of you about 15 minutes early so we can map out where we're going from here.
Kelly: And what time would that be?
The Court: 9.45. RT 210
The next morning's discussion is about uncharged evidence and jury instructions which I will not get into detail about here. But, the defense requested 375. Evidence of uncharged offense. They might reserve 333. Opinion testimony of lay witness. The court thinks they're fine although the insanity with the uncharged offenses is out of this world. I had a right to confront Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson re. Crawford. Kelly then mentions 319 9which is prior statement as evidence. 303 which is joining. Limited purpose evidence in general. Kelly requests 224 and 255. Circumstantial evidence. The judge never gives them separately. He thinks they are repetitive. Well, I think CALCRIM is garbage and I don't see any discussion about that. Actually, this is incredible - Kelly says that e thinks we need to maybe specify specific intent or mental state rather than just intent. Streeter actually has a thought on this - she was thinking specific intent for the phone call? Kelly says yes. The Court says - Specific intend is and Streeter cuts in - is the intent to annoy. The court says YEAH. 653m is a specific intent crime. Streeter says ok. The judge is acting as the prosecutor in thus matter. That is extremely evident from this transcript. Kelly says he's requesting intentional as opposed to willful. The court says - violation of protective order. The court thinks the wording as written by the committee is pro9per wording. Defendant willfully/íntentionally. Never mind - he sees. For violation of 273.6(c). This isn't a 6(c) case. Streeter says - no it isn't.
This is very very important. Kelly refers to instruction
number one - or element number one. The court says he doesn't think
there is an issue. He doesn't see any evidence that was raised as to
the lawfulness. Kelly says Ramnaney raised it during his cross of Rice,
discussing the proceeding in that Colorado hearing and whether it was a
lawful order. The court - sees no evidence that would raise a lawful
issue. Ramnaney says Rice said I waived my right to an evidentiary
hearing. That's a BALD FACED LIE. Ramnaney believes the transcript -
on its face - gets into issues on that, as well oas Ms. Rice's testimony
that I was agitated. He believes any waiver was not knowingly made.
The court doesn't think there's sufficient evidence to raise the issue
as to lawlessness.
It goes on. Something's seriously wrong here but I have to focus on the IRS binder and Agent Tejeda/IRS since the judge has weighed in on federal IRS tax matters and seemed intent on preventing me from presenting a defense or calling compulsory witnesses to the stand.
The evidence re. Phil Spector was admitted because of the Grand Jury testimony/statements issue. That relates to my communications with Mick Brown. The evidence is very very clear about that fact. I have a question - does the judge understand what a proof of service is and why one wasn't attached to the Colorado order or is he incompetent?
Okay, it's time for Agent Tejeda/IRS to make an appearance at
the sidebar and I have to type that carefully. The IRS binder is raised
with the judge. I'm not mentioned and I don't think I ever am. I
think Vanderet made that up and I know he has lied about me. Can a
judge LIE about me? I know every lawyer I've spoken with has said the
prosecutor can't. And yet she did - excessively. I agree with the
investigator who is going to the LA Grand Jury about the Coyoyte
Shivers/Pauley Perrette psychotic celebrity justice matter. People need
to be held accountable - whether they are judges, the City Attorney,
prosecutor, law enforcement, the celebrity, or their rotten lying
lawyers. See Robert Kory and Michelle Rice. Their perjury is
outrageous. The IRS really should be able to nail them, Cohen, and the
prosecutor. The same is true for me and Phillip. We know one thing
for sure - Leonard Cohen lies about Phil Spector and the prosecutor
continues to conceal evidence re. that fact.
Love,
Kelley
Date: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM
Subject: The Relevance of Alan Jackson and Steve Cooley
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>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>
Hello Mr. Riordan,
Here's
an interesting sidebar. Page 209. The judge is out of his mind. He
had copies of the alleged emails and there are references to Mick Brown,
Cohen's testimony or statements before the Grand Jury (which are online
- prosecution motions in the Phil Spector matter at LA Superior Court).The Court: Well, they -- you know, I don't want to get into detail here, but they go to an element in 653m so. In fact, several of them. We don't need to -- we can debate that some other time. RT 209 I'd like to see both of you about 15 minutes early so we can map out where we're going from here.
The Court: 9.45. RT 210
The next morning's discussion is about uncharged evidence and jury instructions which I will not get into detail about here. But, the defense requested 375. Evidence of uncharged offense. They might reserve 333. Opinion testimony of lay witness. The court thinks they're fine although the insanity with the uncharged offenses is out of this world. I had a right to confront Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson re. Crawford. Kelly then mentions 319 9which is prior statement as evidence. 303 which is joining. Limited purpose evidence in general. Kelly requests 224 and 255. Circumstantial evidence. The judge never gives them separately. He thinks they are repetitive. Well, I think CALCRIM is garbage and I don't see any discussion about that. Actually, this is incredible - Kelly says that e thinks we need to maybe specify specific intent or mental state rather than just intent. Streeter actually has a thought on this - she was thinking specific intent for the phone call? Kelly says yes. The Court says - Specific intend is and Streeter cuts in - is the intent to annoy. The court says YEAH. 653m is a specific intent crime. Streeter says ok. The judge is acting as the prosecutor in thus matter. That is extremely evident from this transcript. Kelly says he's requesting intentional as opposed to willful. The court says - violation of protective order. The court thinks the wording as written by the committee is pro9per wording. Defendant willfully/íntentionally. Never mind - he sees. For violation of 273.6(c). This isn't a 6(c) case. Streeter says - no it isn't.
It goes on. Something's seriously wrong here but I have to focus on the IRS binder and Agent Tejeda/IRS since the judge has weighed in on federal IRS tax matters and seemed intent on preventing me from presenting a defense or calling compulsory witnesses to the stand.
The evidence re. Phil Spector was admitted because of the Grand Jury testimony/statements issue. That relates to my communications with Mick Brown. The evidence is very very clear about that fact. I have a question - does the judge understand what a proof of service is and why one wasn't attached to the Colorado order or is he incompetent?
Love,
Kelley
