What's The Los Angeles City Attorney's Point? That They Will Waste Taxpayer Dollars Arguing The Wrong Subdivision? Whose Problem Is That - My Appellate Attorney's? NO.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Subject: California 653m
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.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>

Hi Mr. Riordan,

I suppose the City Attorney is arguing that Streeter doesn't know what she's talking about.  I want to sue the City Attorney of Los Angeles for an accounting over this insanity.

Love,
Kelley

The prosecution’s theory of the legal issues in the case, stated during trial proceedings and announced in opening and closing statements, was straightforward:  “One, whether or not there was a valid and lawfully issued restraining order and whether over approximately a 14-month period on several occasions Ms. Lynch violated that validly and lawful issued restraining order.  Two, whether or not over a one-year period Ms. Lynch either via email or phone calls made annoying and harassing phone calls that included obscene language or threats for no good reason, not in good faith.”  (RT 562)

Respondent’s Brief:  To the extent appellant is attacking the statute on its face, her argument must also be rejected.  Citing authorities interpreting “the statute prohibiting obscene electronic communications made with the intent to annoy, appellant seems to claim 653m(b) requires certain words be used to prove a violation.  Specifically, appellant defines “obscene,” then states:  “In the instant case, Ms. Lynch did not use any such words that would violate the statute.”  (AOB)  However, appellant’s claim is without merit; no particular words are required to support a conviction under 653m(b), nor is there any requirement that the communications be obscene.  Appellant may be referring to Penal Code 653m(a) which prohibits obscene telephonic or electronic communication made with intent to annoy.  

California Penal Code Section 653m

653m.  (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.

(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes
repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an
electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or
contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues
from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic
communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this
subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts
made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of
business.