From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM
Subject: Domestic Violence Evidence - Sandra Jo Baca - Medical Malpractice
To: mike.feuer@lacity.org, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>
Mike,
I've just sent this information to the Department of Justice privately, with some comments, and asked them to review the Sentencing Memorandum as it relates to "domestic violence" and (Family/Marital Counselor) Sandra Baca. I would like to ask you to maintain all information regarding the cases this individual has been used (by your office) to prosecute people. At the time of this opinion, Baca most certainly does not appear to have the appropriate qualifications. Furthermore, she benefits from her testimony which is a very serious issue. In fact, it reminds me of the "Kids For Cash" program in Pennsylvania.
One of the main issues, Mike, is the fact that there is (or was) NO domestic violence order. The earlier fraudulent order Cohen obtained (in a hearing I did not attend; and which I have no idea about - at all - apart from his "perjured testimony") in 2005 was a civil harassment order. The Boulder Court wrote me that their order was NOT a domestic violence order and pointed out the form Cohen himself signed. He was concerned about my online posts, communications with journalists, and Ann Diamond (the journalist who wrote "Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch") was threatened by his lawyer the day before the Boulder ex parte hearing. Streeter raised my communications with journalists and online posts with the judge in one of the first hearings. I know the lengths everyone has gone to try to silence me and that includes in the probation retaliation matter that I've also asked DOJ to investigate. The probation matter involves an intent to extort money from me for domestic violence, etc.
I would like all information regarding Baca maintained. This woman did not meet with me; 5 emails were allegedly presented to her; those alleged emails were not authenticated (even by LA Superior Court's shabby standards that involve someone who hasn't seen me in 7 years testifying about an email account I allegedly had); and, her office advised me and Paulette Brandt that she doesn't "diagnose" people without meeting them. Strange. There is no "domestic violence" and Family Court is now going to explain 1) how this Boulder order transformed illegally into a "domestic violence order;" and, 2) how a local State order subverts IRS reporting and filing requirements. Keep in mind that a tremendous amount of evidence was concealed during the trial.
Fortunately, IRS would have been copied in on all emails I actually sent. As I confirmed for Jackson in September 2009: I've been documenting everything for IRS, etc. since reporting the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to them on April 15, 2005. I can assure you that there is no IRS ruse here, MIke. I am also curious why LAPD's TMU would forward a complaint to your office after noting that the emails were generally requests for tax information. Neither the City Attorney nor LAPD would be in a position to determine what Cohen has or has not provided me and/or IRS. To accuse me of lying about IRS matters is very very serious. Your office's reaction is evidence of that fact.
"Stephen Gianelli" continues to criminally harass me and others. This is a dangerous individual that your office evidently worked with to arrest me on two occasions. That is mind boggling. Or, perhaps it's not. In any event, I've been clear that IRS, FBI, and DOJ need to investigate what his motive is, whose payroll he is on (if anyone's), why he was posting on Michelle Blaine's Blog, why he and Blaine targeted my email accounts and blogs, why he was communicating with Cohen's lawyer, why he would work in tandem with Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh, etc. My younger son was targeted as a minor. That's why I was concerned Gianelli, who says he's an adult male, might be a sexual predator. I know your office views the criminal harassment of my sons as an "intent to annoy" Leonard Cohen and that's precisely why I've asked FBI if they have a drug testing kit.
Kelley Lynch
Sandra Baca - Excerpts:
Dr. Sandra Baca was the next witness for the prosecution. Immediately prior to Dr. Baca taking the stand, appellant did not object that she was not [96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 24] qualified to testify as an expert or offer any other objections to her testimony.
Dr. Baca testified that she was a clinical director of the About Face Domestic Violence Intervention Project. As the clinical director, her responsibilities included conducting individual and group therapy, supervising and training a staff of 15 people, and writing reports to the court. About Face was formed in 1986 and, among other things, provided services for perpetrators and victims of domestic violence, and their children. Dr. Baca stated that she came in direct contact with approximately 250 victims of domestic violence annually.
As for her educational background, Dr. Baca testified that she had a doctorate in psychology with a focus on family psychology and individual psychology. As regards her domestic violence experience, besides writing her doctoral dissertation on a family that suffered from domestic violence, she was in the process of conducting research that entailed administering a personality test on battered women and comparing their profiles. In addition, Dr. Baca was involved with four organizations related to domestic violence, including the Los Angeles Domestic Violence Council and California Alliance of Domestic Violence, and had trained police detectives on investigating reports of domestic violence. She stated she had testified in court for both the prosecution and defense in over 100 cases.
Dr. Baca discussed the "cycle of violence" associated with battered woman syndrome and the common behavioral characteristics of victims experiencing the syndrome. This cycle consists of three phases: (1) tension phase--common stress; (2) acute battery--emotional and physical abuse; and (3) honeymoon/contrition--
On cross-examination, Dr. Baca testified that although she was a licensed marriage and family counselor, she was not a licensed clinical psychologist. She stated that had taken the written exam as the first step to become licensed as a clinical psychologist, but she did not pass. [96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 25]
Appellant's counsel made only a few objections during Dr. Baca's testimony. When asked by the prosecutor whether, based on her training and experience, she had been able to determine certain characteristics of victims as a class with regard to domestic violence, appellant objected on the grounds of foundation. This objection was overruled. The next objection occurred after the prosecutor asked the witness to assume the following facts: "You have a couple for whom there's been a history of domestic violence, and an incident occurs where the perpetrator makes a threat upon that person and then destroys some of his or her property. [¶] Assume the fact that at some point the victim in this case changes her mind, minimizes or recants some, if not all, of the facts. [¶] Assume for a moment that the victim takes every possible step at some point after the incident to make sure that either the charges are dropped or that nothing happened and that it was all that person's fault. [¶] . . . Assume also from this set of facts that these people are not back together." Appellant's objections of "compound, lengthy, confusing, unintelligible" were overruled. Dr. Baca then was asked if these facts were consistent with someone who was battered and suffered the effects of battering, and consistent with a victim in a cycle of violence. She answered each question in the affirmative.
Dr. Baca was the final prosecution witness in its case-in-chief. The People rested.
During his closing argument, appellant's trial counsel discussed the reasons he believed Dr. Baca was inadequate and unpersuasive as an expert witness. He stated:
"They brought us Dr. Baca, an unlicensed doctor, who failed her examination, who said she was working up the courage to take her exam again, and that she doesn't read the research, she scans it.
"How would you like to go into surgery with a doctor who had no license, failed his exam and didn't read the material? I'd be really scared to do that. I wouldn't want to do it and I wouldn't put any faith in that doctor, and you shouldn't put any faith in Dr. Baca.
"She's also not really an expert witness and she's also really not a doctor. Sandra Baca gets 60 percent of her income from court referrals for her clinic and has testified 100 times in the last five years for the prosecution and five times for the defense."
The record in the instant case reveals that Dr. Baca had significant credentials in the field of domestic violence. Although she had not obtained a clinical psychology license, Dr. Baca was a licensed marriage and family counselor who had dealt exclusively with domestic violence for the last 13 years, actively participated in four domestic violence organizations, and had previous direct contact with over 2,600 victims of domestic violence. Thus, the court was well within its discretion in determining that Dr. Baca had the requisite "special knowledge" and "experience" allowing her to testify as an expert witness. "Expertise, in other words, 'is relative to the subject,' and is not subject to rigid classification according to formal education or certification." (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 408; see also 1 Witkin, Cal.Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Opinion Evidence, § 38, p. 570.) Once it is established that a witness has adequate credentials to qualify as an expert, then questions as to the degree of his or her expertise go to weight, not admissibility. (People v. James (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1155, 1164.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Baca's testimony. There was more than an adequate basis for her qualification as an expert.
