From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 1:23 PM
Subject:
To: ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao@nsa.gov, fsb@fsb.ru, "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>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>
Hi DOJ,
Would you please take a look at the original order that Judge Enichen granted. The Boulder Combined Court sent me an email confirming that the Boulder order is NOT a domestic violence order. They pointed out that Cohen did not check "domestic abuse" on the original attached Verfied Motion.
First of all, I do not understand Judge Enichen's jurisdiction at all. Cohen had no ties to Colorado. He flew into Boulder, in the midst of a European tour, and attended a secret hearing. A process server ran around Boulder telling people he had a check for my son's fingers so someone gave him that information which is outrageous. He lied in the proof of service. I attended the hearing. The judge asked where Cohen was and his lawyer replied that he was not available. She said fine and that was the end of it. The judge did not even ask why. Cohen, who is wealthy and bankrupted me, sent paid lawyer/witnesses, Kory and Rice, as well as a Colorado order. Right there serious confrontation clause issues arise. The judge maybe had the right to enter the temporary but not the permanent order. Cohen resides in California and has no ties to the state. I moved soon after the hearing to another State. While I resided in Berkeley, California (and Cohen testified that he knew my whereabouts from descriptions in my emails and he hired a private investigator - who, I might note, works with LAPD's TMU and the District Attorney according to his biography). At some point, Kory and Rice go into LAPD. LAPD notes that I was notified on February 14, 2011 (by Rice) that the order was registered in California. It was not. They register the Order on May 25, 2011 when I am no longer a resident of Boulder, Colorado or Los Angeles, California.
At this point, I cannot understand how either Court has jurisdiction particularly given the fact that this was modified when it was registered as domestic violence, subjected to domestic violence statutes, and a dating relationship was automatically assigned to me without any proof. Then, Cohen testifies at the March 23, 2012 bail hearing that we were in a purely business relationship and I never stole from him - "just his peace of mind." He obviously wasn't coached and I suppose it upset the prosecutor who works in "Domestic Violence" and who should be investigated.
The original order was modified and the Full Faith and Credit statute cannot apply. It should not have been heard in Family Court which it was. It was assigned Case No. BQ meaning downtown Los Angeles and family court domestic violence restraining order.
This was not simply placed into the CLETS system. It was registered as a domestic violence case by the family court. Then, it was ultimately handled by the Domestic VIolence Unit. I have Boulder Court's confirmation that it is not domestic violence.
May have a DOJ opinion. I particularly want this because Kory and Rice have taken the position that a Boulder Municipal County Court has the authority to subvert IRS reporting and other requirements. Those would include requirements related to corporations. And, Korn submitted documents to LA Superior Court arguing that the "domestic violence related" restraining orders (now expired for Kory and Rice) prevent from effecting service on the registered agent of a corporation who has transmitted K-1 partnership documents to IRS and State Kentucky for 2003, 2004, and 2005 indicating that I am a partner on that entity. This is a Delaware Corporation and the issues are now federal matters.
I am filing the Motion to Dismiss and asking the Court to disqualify Michelle Rice, the attorney of record. She knew the original order was not domestic violence but worked with the domestic violence unit? She testified. She is now a paid witness/lawyer who has become a partner for her working targeting me for approximately 8 years. She has communicated with Stephen Gianelli and that demands an investigation. She has also been copied in on emails sent by Cohen fan, Susanne Walsh, criminally harassing me.
If LA Superior Court simply transforms foreign orders into domestic violence orders then the Court is committing fraud and there probably are federal DMV grants at issue here. The statute requires a dating relationship so the order is not valid. But that doesn't end it - Leonard Cohen, Michelle Rice, and Robert Kory worked with the domestic violence unit of the City Attorney's office to prosecute me. Essentially, I was kidnapped in Berkeley. Let me quote Berkeley PD (from numerous conversations): This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars; what was Cohen's role, if any, in the Phil Spector matter; what has occurred with IRS and Treasury; and, please have the FBI call us about the arrest.
All the best,
Kelley
Domestic violence is a term used by members of the criminal justice system to describe and classify several types of conduct which society has made criminal through the enactment of laws. Domestic violence may be referred to as family violence, spousal abuse, relationship abuse, domestic battery, domestic assault, domestic abuse, intimate partner abuse, intimate partner violence, stalking, criminal threats, or harassment. The specific conduct which has been made criminal by California law includes, but is not limited to, causing or an attempt to cause an unwanted touching (battery), assault, restraint, or fear based on the use of threatening words which the recipient claims were understood to be threatening which are made unlawful by Penal Code Section 422.
California law defines the specific relationships which qualify as being required in order for an incident to be characterized as domestic violence in Penal Code Section 273.5. The definition of qualifying relationships is very broad and includes spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of a child.Penal Code Section 243(e)(1) provides that in addition to the relationships defined by Penal Code Section 273.5, a relationship qualifying for prosecution as a domestic battery includes person with whom the accused currently has, or previously had a dating or engagement relationship. In other words, if there is or was a dating relationship or more serious relationship, then a incident involving violence or the threat of violence, or fear may be characterized as domestic violence in California. The consequences of a criminal conviction for domestic battery (Penal Code Section 243(e)(1)) or domestic violence on a current or former spouse or cohabitant (Penal Code Section 273.5) provide for harsh punishment pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.097.
