Kelley Lynch
29
July 2014
Thonas
Wong Jessica
Rivas
Chief
Investigator Associate
County Counsel
City of
Los Angeles General
Litigation Division
City Hall
East 648
Kenneth Hahn Hall
200 N.
Main Street 500
W. Temple Street
Room 800 Los
Angeles, California 90012
Los
Angeles, CA 90012
Executive
Offices of the Board of Supervisors
Room
383 Hall of Administration
500
West Temple Street
Los
Angeles, California 90012
Re: City of Los Angeles Claim No. C15-0063
County of Los Angeles Claim No.
14-1115711*001
Dear
Thomas Wong, Jessica Rivas, and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
Thank you
for your letters dated July 8, 2014, July 21, 2014, and July 25, 2014. There seems
to be some confusion with respect to the various dates and time frames
addressed in my original claims. I would
like to reiterate the following: These claims arise from a prolonged and
sustained course of conduct that involves both the City and County of Los
Angeles City. The prolonged and
sustained course of conduct began in the winter of 2005 when Investigator Brian
Bennett arrived at my house unannounced to question me about my friendship with
Phil Spector. This unannounced visit evidently
arose after the District Attorney’s office received an “anonymous tip” about my
friendship with Phil Spector. The course
of conduct also relates to my parting ways with singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen
and reporting allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal
Revenue Service and other tax authorities.
This information is being supplied for informational and background
purposes.
.
This
course of conduct culminated in my
false arrest and imprisonment (Case No. 2CA0459) on January 22, 2014. The course
of conduct also culminated in LA Superior Court’s January 17, 2014 refusal to vacate a fraudulently obtained judgment
(Case No. BC338322). That judgment is
evidence of theft. It also essentially
altered previously filed federal and state tax returns. Financial interest continues to accrue. LA Superior Court willfully disregarded
corporate books, records, ownership interests and based its order on a
fraudulent financial expense ledger that is meaningless. Furthermore, I was not served the summons and
complaint in that matter and LA Superior Court failed to obtain jurisdiction
over me. I have asked the Internal
Revenue Service to investigate the legality of this default judgment.
Due to
the terms of the default judgment, on June
17, 2014, I was forced to amend my federal tax return. I simultaneously filed an Identity Theft
Affidavit with respect to Leonard Cohen’s illegal use of my social security
number on the IRS and FTB tax refunds, K-1s transmitted to IRS with respect to
phantom income distributed to me by Traditional Holdings, LLC, and illegal K-1S
transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky by LC Investments, LLC for the years
2003, 2004, and 2005, indicating that I am a partner on that entity. I am not.
I will also be forced to amend previously filed federal and state tax
returns due to the default judgment.
The course
of conduct also relates to the registration of a foreign restraining order (Case
No. BC033717). A Boulder, Colorado
foreign order was fraudulently registered with LA Superior Court by Leonard
Cohen on May 25, 2011. This registration
occurred after Leonard Cohen personally met with members of LAPD’s TMU. The LAPD report is replete with fraudulent misrepresentations.
I was not served a copy of the restraining order and LA Superior Court failed
to obtain jurisdiction over me. On April 10, 2014, after diligently
pursuing this matter, Boulder County Combined Court finally provided me with
written confirmation that the Boulder order was NOT a domestic violence order.
And yet, I was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for violating a
domestic violence order by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Domestic Violence
Unit and, specifically, DCA Sandra Jo Streeter who engaged in egregious
misconduct throughout my trial. I have
reported the abuse of this fraudulent domestic violence order to the Department
of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation and requested an
investigation. Judge Robert Vanderet,
without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, granted Leonard Cohen’s paid
witness lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, domestic violence related
restraining orders. Bruce Cutler, who
did not request any such order, was granted a domestic violence related restraining
order. These orders are clearly at issue
and there is indeed evidence that Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory planned to use
restraining orders to prevent me from serving as a credible witness.
At the
time of my March 1, 2012 arrest (in connection with the Los Angeles Superior
Court “domestic violence order”), I was not a resident of Los Angeles,
California. Other issues I raised in my
original claims relate to the City Attorney’s attempts to use a domestic
violence counselor to have me drugged and committed (based on five emails); the
conviction and sentence that was based on a domestic violence order; and, LA
Superior Court’s attempts to collect fines/fees from me for domestic violence
and effective assistance of counsel.
There was and remains no “domestic violence.” I was clearly not effectively represented by
my court appointed lawyers.
On June 17, 2014, after diligently
pursuing the matter for nearly two years, I finally located the Court Reporter
from the March 23, 2012 bail hearing (Case No. 2CA0459). I and others have repeatedly been advised,
for a variety of reasons, that this transcript was unavailable. The Court Reporter is currently on vacation
and will provide me with a transcript of that hearing when she returns. That transcript should successfully prove
that Leonard Cohen testified (accurately, I might note) that we were in a purely
business relationship and I never stole from him. His perjury with respect to the “dating
relationship” was addressed during my 2012.
When confronted, Leonard Cohen admitted changing his testimony from one
hearing to the next. He was not
prosecuted for perjury and DCA Streeter’s attempt to rehabilitate him was
farcical.
The governments
of the City and County of Los Angeles is not in a legal position to merely
assign me a “brief intimate dating relationship” with Leonard Cohen that
evidently occurred at some point in the mid-80s and was not “romantic” in
nature. Sexual harassment and indecent
exposure do not normally lead reasonable individuals to conclude that the
parties were in a statutory required dating relationship. But, it could conceivably mean that Leonard
Cohen and his paid witness lawyers conjured up a defense to allegations of
sexual harassment and the Domestic Violence Unit had to protect its alleged
jurisdiction over me. In any event,
LAPD’s TMU, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and LA Superior Court,
all failed to verify the underlying nature of the fraudulently registered May
25, 2011 domestic violence order.
I have
also advised the City and County that the Boulder Combined Court confirmed, on
April 10, 2014, that the reason I was repeatedly told this order expired on
February 15, 2009 is due to the fact that the temporary order expired on that
date and apparently their employees were unclear about this – repeatedly - when
reviewing their data base. Paulette
Brandt testified that she was also advised that the original Boulder order
expired on February 15, 2009. Please
refer to the transcript of the January 22, 2014 hearing (Case No.
2CA0459). Therefore, I could not
willfully or knowingly violate an order that I was repeatedly advised expired. My court appointed lawyers failed to address
this issue during my 2012 trial. They
also appear to have lifted information from LAPD TMU’s report. For instance, the allegations that Leonard
Cohen and I were in a “sexual relationship.”
Once again, I have no idea what that means. I was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and
never served as his prostitute.
My
January 22, 2014 unlawful arrest and imprisonment arose, in part, from what I
view as retaliation and entrapment on the part of the City Attorney of Los
Angeles. Please see all emails between
DCA Vivienne Swanigan and Stephen Gianelli.
Swanigan literally instructed an individual engaged in criminal conduct
to further harass and email me. She also
asked Gianelli to communicate an official message from the City Attorney’s
office to me: that Sandra Jo Streeter
was not engaged in a legal conspiracy with Gianelli. I disagree.
That matter is obviously at issue.
I am challenging the constitutionality of the “intent to annoy” (PC
Section 653m) statute and particularly as it applies to one’s “government.” The January 22, 2014 hearing arose from
charges that I intended to annoy DCA Sandra Jo Streeter for no legitimate
reason, without good faith, and my actions were simply meant to harass
her. That is a bald-faced lie. Another serious legal issue relates to the
fact that I was not provided legal counsel with respect to the bail violation
matter.
It is my
position that my prosecution may have been politically motivated given the fact
that individuals in both the District Attorney and City Attorney’s office were
running for the position of Los Angeles District Attorney. That might explain why Leonard Cohen
testified extensively about Phil Spector, former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan
Jackson, and Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan. Streeter repeatedly elicited testimony about
these individuals.
I believe
my original communications were quite clear.
These claims were presented within six months as stipulated by
government codes. Both the City of Los Angeles
and County of Los Angeles have advised me that I may request each government
entity to reconsider my so-called “late claims.” I would like to know precisely what basis the
government uses to determine whether or not a claim is timely and to reconsider
a claim. I would like the City and
County of Los Angeles to advise me what date was used to draw the conclusion
that my claims were not filed in a timely manner. I would appreciate the courtesy of a response
from both the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to these questions.
The California
Tort Claims Act mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public
entity must be presented in writing to the entity prior to filing suit. My claims were presented in writing; were
timely; and, I cannot even imagine how the City or County of Los Angeles
investigated anything related to my claims.
Both the City and County of Los Angeles have acknowledged receipt of my
tort claims. Federal civil rights
violation claims are not subject to California’s tort claim requirements
because such would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Williams
v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 842 (1976).
My claim also addresses the serious issue that arose when the default
judgment wrongfully conveyed my rightful property to Leonard Cohen.
Pursuant
to government codes and regulations, the claims must be in writing and signed
by the claimant. The claim must
contain: information to be a sufficient
claim; claimant’s name and mailing address; date, place, and circumstances of
the claim; description of the injury, damage, or loss for which recover is
sought; name of any public employees causing the loss if known and an
indicating as to whether the claim would be made in limited jurisdiction court
or not. My original claims satisfied
these elements. The descriptions need
not provide evidentiary detail and I have outlined the prolonged and sustained
course of conduct in relatively great detail.
My original claims were detailed enough to allow the City and County of
Los Angeles to investigate and consider them.
Furthermore, I am available to answer any questions with respect to
complexities that may appear “vague.” I
would like to notify the City and County of Los Angeles that I personally, as
of this moment in time, am representing myself and therefore you should feel
free to view me as opposing counsel and to contact me by U.S. mail or email at
Kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com, if necessary.
It is my personal opinion that neither the City or County of Los Angeles
have provided me with an adequate explanation for the denial or insufficiency
of my claims. I have received vaguely
worded letters that reek of legalese and government-speak and seem to have as
their sole goal the denial of my claims for legal reasons. I would also like to point out that I have
documented a great deal of information with respect to my claims for employees
of the City and County of Los Angeles.
That would include, but is not limited to, my letter of September 2009 to DDA Alan
Jackson. I still await a response to
that letter and the issues raised therein.
I have been stonewalled, stymied, and obstructed in all of my attempts
to discover many facts.
I would
like to ask all parties to preserve the evidence with respect to the issues I
have raised. That would include, but is
not limited to, all requested evidence in the Brady Motion submitted in
connection with Case No. 2CA0459. Judge
Barela simply refused to hear that motion so that is also at issue.
My claims
were submitted in a timely manner.
I look
forward to your response.
Very
truly yours,
Kelley
Lynch
cc: IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Dennis
Riordan, Esquire