Kelley Lynch
31
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
Thomas
Wong, Jessica Rivas, and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,
Thank you
for your letters dated July 8, 2014 (LA County), July 21, 2014 (LA County), and
July 25, 2014 (City of Los Angeles).
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
course of conduct culminated with my
false arrest and imprisonment on January
22, 2014 (Case No. 2CA0459) and LA Superior Court’s refusal to vacate a
fraudulently obtained default judgment on January
17, 2014 (Case No. BC338322).
This course
of conduct also relates to the fraudulent registration of a foreign restraining
order with Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC033717). The City and County of Los Angeles failed to
verify the nature of the foreign order.
It is not a domestic violence order and I received written confirmation
of this fact from the Boulder Combined Court on April 10, 2014.
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 trial in connection with the
violation of the domestic violence order.
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 have simply assigned me a “brief intimate
dating relationship” with Leonard Cohen.
The fraudulently registered foreign order remains in full force and
effect. That order prevents me from
requesting information I require to file and/or amend federal and state tax
returns and payment for work I’ve done and assets I own. Additional problems have arisen due to the
fact that Internal Revenue Service views me as a partner on entities LA
Superior Court has concluded is the sole property of Leonard Cohen.
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 and were
filed in a timely manner. 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).
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 recovery is
sought; name of any public employees causing the loss if known and an
indication 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.” It
is my personal opinion that neither the City nor County of Los Angeles have provided
an adequate explanation for the denial or insufficiency of my claims. The City and County of Los Angeles have also
not explained precisely what dates they believe do not fall within the legal
claim periods.
I look
forward to your response.
Very
truly yours,
Kelley
Lynch
cc: IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Dennis
Riordan, Esquire