Kelley Lynch
Los
Angeles Superior Court
Stanley
Mosk Courthouse
111
N. Hill Street
Los
Angeles, California 90012
Re: Jury Duty & Grievances
To Whom It May Concern:
I
am writing in response to a message I received regarding jury duty. The message begins by informing me that my
initial request, dated September 28, 2016, asking to be excused from jury duty
was denied and a response was sent. I
never received any such response. In the
alternative, I received a new jury duty notice.
I therefore responded by once again requesting an excuse. In response to the second request, I received
a message informing me that it is a citizens civil obligation to perform jury
duty and an excuse for “bias” or “prejudice” cannot be granted. I have not requested to be excused from jury
duty based upon “bias” and/or “prejudice,” as these terms are defined below.
I
would like to take this opportunity to explain why I presently do not believe
it is acceptable for Los Angeles Superior Court to ask me to participate in
jury duty. My request is based upon the
egregious violations of due process I have personally witnessed and been
victimized by. I would like to go
through this very generally on a case by case basis and do wonder if a
reasonably intelligent person would find the totality of circumstances to be
truly random or a pattern and practice on the part of Los Angeles Superior
Court.
Please
feel free to read this factually accurate article “Whatever Happened to Kelley
Lynch” for a general summary of events.
There are a few relevant mistakes in this article. For example, I was not Leonard Cohen’s lover (although
the news media has repeated this allegation ad nauseum). I believe Leonard Cohen and/or his
representatives changed the address where I received my mail to Leonard Cohen’s
home address. And, I was not Chogyam
Trungpa Rinpoche’s personal assistant. I
was Kusum Lingpa Rinpoche’s personal assistant and remain his lineage holder.
Message
Detail
|
Subject
|
RE:
Excuse
|
|
Received
|
11/17/2016
|
Hello,
Our records show your request being received and processed on 9/28/16. A response was sent to you. Your request was denied and your service was rescheduled to the week of 10/31/16.
On 10/14/16 you requested a 2nd excuse via the automated telephone system. Once again your request is being denied and your service is now rescheduled to the week of 1/02/16. A notice informing you of this will be sent to you.
It is a Citizens civil obligation to perform Jury Service. An excuse for being bias or prejudice can not be granted. During your service week, if and when you are asked to report, you will need to speak with the Judge regarding your circumstances. Only he/she may excuse you from the service.
Thank you.
On 11/17/2016 2:43:02 PM You wrote:
To Whom It May Concern,
I wrote some time ago and requested to be excused from Jury Duty. I have heard nothing back and inexplicably received a new notice. I was clear in my original communication: I refuse to serve Jury Duty. I have witnessed people perjuring themselves on the witness stand, prosecutors lying and concealing evidence, and do not believe this is an actual court system. Since the Court condones the use of fraud and perjury to obtain judgments, orders, and verdicts, it is my position that demanding that people participate in jury service is unconstitutional. This is a formal grievance and I await your response.
Kelley Lynch
Our records show your request being received and processed on 9/28/16. A response was sent to you. Your request was denied and your service was rescheduled to the week of 10/31/16.
On 10/14/16 you requested a 2nd excuse via the automated telephone system. Once again your request is being denied and your service is now rescheduled to the week of 1/02/16. A notice informing you of this will be sent to you.
It is a Citizens civil obligation to perform Jury Service. An excuse for being bias or prejudice can not be granted. During your service week, if and when you are asked to report, you will need to speak with the Judge regarding your circumstances. Only he/she may excuse you from the service.
Thank you.
On 11/17/2016 2:43:02 PM You wrote:
To Whom It May Concern,
I wrote some time ago and requested to be excused from Jury Duty. I have heard nothing back and inexplicably received a new notice. I was clear in my original communication: I refuse to serve Jury Duty. I have witnessed people perjuring themselves on the witness stand, prosecutors lying and concealing evidence, and do not believe this is an actual court system. Since the Court condones the use of fraud and perjury to obtain judgments, orders, and verdicts, it is my position that demanding that people participate in jury service is unconstitutional. This is a formal grievance and I await your response.
Kelley Lynch
I have
listed below the Los Angeles Superior Court cases that involve me. I will now take the opportunity to generally
summarize these cases, the due process violations involving each and every one
of them, prosecutorial misconduct, use of fraud and perjury with respect to
them, and the complete and absolute lack of anything that remotely resembles a
remedy.
Los Angeles Superior Court Cases
Custody matter of Ray Charles Lindsey (Case No. SF0 000 150)
On or
about May 25, 2005, I kept my younger son, Ray Charles Lindsey, home from
school. This led to a SWAT incident that
evidently involved a call to 911. My
older son, John Rutger Penick, has described what he personally witnessed in a
declaration submitted to LA Superior Court.
That declaration can be viewed at the following link.
A Los
Angeles Superior Court custody matter was coordinated with the insane SWAT/King
Drew incident. It was based on
fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured declarations, a fraudulent domestic
violence order (which I was not served), and unconscionable governmental
conduct. That would include a man with a
history of domestic violence being granted custody of my son. There is a Child Protection Services file
related to at least one incident where the investigator was informed, by
numerous parties, that Steven Clark Lindsey was abusive, hit me and my sons,
and the investigator informed us that she felt Lindsey was harassing me, would
be charged, and possibly sent to anger management. No evidence was submitted to LA Superior
Court in support of the highly salacious, slanderous legal pleadings. The entire King Drew file is evidence of
fraud. The information contained
therein, including all identifying information and medical data does not belong
to me. I was questioned about Phil
Spector and a gun incident en route.
Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted an entirely
perjured declaration in support of this coordinated custody matter. This case resulted in an LA Superior Court
default judgment. My son’s father and
lawyer were in contempt of court for approximately five years. For the entire five years, contrary to a
court order, Steve Lindsey did not have my son phone me and Daniel Bergman, who
would ultimately end up representing Leonard Cohen, refused to communicate with
me. This is an ongoing situation with
respect to most lawyers I have dealt with, including prosecutors at the City
Attorney’s office, in almost every matter before LA Superior Court. Both of my sons’ lives were destroyed over
this situation.
From
approximately May of 2009, both of my sons have been exposed to unconscionable
criminal harassment, stalking, and outrageous conduct on the part of Bay Area
lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and others.
This is what this court system has exposed my sons to. I have a difficult time, if not impossible,
believing that any reasonable parent would conclude that I am simply “biased”
and/or “prejudiced” against this Court.
Automobile Accident (Case No. SC093188)
Case
Number: SC093188
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE AUTO CLUB VS. KELLEY ANN LYNCH
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE AUTO CLUB VS. KELLEY ANN LYNCH
Filing
Date: 03/19/2007
Case Type: Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 01/22/2008
Case Type: Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 01/22/2008
On June 13, 2005, I was rear-ended
and nearly killed on Mandeville Canyon Road in Brentwood, California. I was knocked out cold, suffered head trauma,
broke my nose, and my dog slammed into the console and later died. This led to a very interesting response on
the part of LAPD. It may very well be
that LAPD responds in a positive manner to wealthy individuals such as Thomas
Bradshaw who pulled out of his driveway and slammed into approximately two
driveways later. That would merely
indicate that I was not speeding. Not
all that long ago, I was informed that a default judgment was entered, the insurance
company is attempting to extort $80,000 from me, and LA Superior Court
transmitted fraud to the DMV resulting in the suspension of my driver’s
license. I intend to address the issues
in this case in due course. I am now
spending my entire days dealing with the aftermath of Los Angeles Superior
Court’s fraudulent default judgments, orders and decisions obtained by fraud
and perjury, and so forth. This case
also would involves fraud with respect to service of process issues. This one may very well take the cake. The process server, in or around the fall of
2007, served some documents (I have no idea what) on His Eminence Yongzin
Rinpoche. The proof of service clearly
states that Clea Surkhang, Rinpoche’s wife, was served and notes that I was a
co-occupant and her cousin. I was
neither. In any event, the insurance
company’s lawyer phoned my son and informed him that Thomas Bradshaw lied to
law enforcement about this incident and asked if I would be a witness against
their insured. This case was filed in
March 2007. I have no idea where any
documents were served as I will address in my motion to vacate. I have asked opposing counsel to provide me
with all documents, including the proof of service and Thomas Bradshaw’s declaration,
which he has refused to do.
First Restraining Order – Civil Harassment (BS099650)
Case
Number: BS099650
LEONARD N COHEN VS KELLEY A LYNCH
LEONARD N COHEN VS KELLEY A LYNCH
Filing
Date: 10/14/2005
Case Type: Civil Harassment (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Judgment by Court-Petition Granted 11/03/2005
Case Type: Civil Harassment (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Judgment by Court-Petition Granted 11/03/2005
On
October 14, 2005, after willfully and knowingly failing to serve me a retaliatory,
baseless, sham lawsuit, LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322, Cohen obtained a
“civil harassment” order against me. I
have no idea what the basis for this order is.
However, based upon Leonard Cohen’s testimony before LA Superior Court,
it seems to involve the SWAT/King Drew incident. The King Drew file does not relate to me. I
was questioned about Phil Spector en route to King Drew. I didn’t raise the topic. I have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate
this matter. I was unable to attend the
hearing as I didn’t have a car, Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me, and I
had been seriously injured in an automobile accident. As of November 3, 2005, as I would ultimately
discover, Leonard Cohen and his lawyers contacted Beverly Hills PD. This is on the same date that this so-called
restraining order was granted to Leonard Cohen.
Beverly Hills PD would in turn contact the District Attorney’s office of
Los Angeles. This is another matter I
have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate.
I am unclear at this time if that incident involves former DA Steve
Cooley, former DDA Pat Dixon, or former DDA Alan Jackson, individuals involved
in the Phil Spector murder trial. Rather
than serving me the summons and complaint, in Case No. BC338322, Leonard Cohen
and his lawyers refused to communicate with me, hung up on me, obtained a
fraudulent restraining order, and used the LA Superior Court Complaint to
file/amend Cohen’s tax returns, apply for/obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and
defend Leonard Cohen with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal
tax fraud.
In June 2005, six months prior to Cohen
obtaining his first fraud restraining order (based upon fraud and perjury),
Neal Greenberg , U.S. District Court Colorado Case No. Civil Action No. 05-CV-01233-LTB-MJW, (Cohen’s financial and
investment adviser) filed a lawsuit in against Cohen and his lawyer, Robert
Kory, which contained the following statements.
This would clearly go to motive.
145. When these tactics to draw Lynch into
his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch –
turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation. Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen
and Kory vowed to "crush her," and planned to use restraining orders
and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both
Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without
success to draw her.
In an
order, replete with fraudulent misrepresentations, Judge Lewis Babcock wondered
if the “thuggery” had worked against me.
Since the allegations in the complaint are entirely fraudulent, I do
question why any Court would be permitted to rely on them. I intend to address all fraudulent and/or
perjured legal pleadings, submitted to the U.S. District Court, in a declaration
I am preparing. That will include the
fraudulent default judgment (Case No. BC338322) Cohen obtained and then
transmitted to that Court.
“Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney
and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums
[including, Lynch assumes, the nearly $6.7 million in loans and/or advances
Cohen personally took from Traditional Holdings, LLC] from the plaintiffs by
tarnishing the plaintiffs’ reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing
a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to
accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish
defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel
Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her
arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her
children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery
was effective.”
Leonard Cohen Lawsuit (BC338322)
Case
Number: BC338322
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN ET AL VS KELLEY A LYNCH ET AL
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN ET AL VS KELLEY A LYNCH ET AL
Filing
Date: 08/15/2005
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006
On August
15, 2005, in response to the Natural Wealth lawsuit (Colorado), and with the
full understanding that I reported allegations of Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to
IRS, Leonard Cohen retaliated against me.
I was never served this lawsuit.
The proof of service related to the summons and complaint is evidence of
extrinsic fraud. This matter led to a
fraudulent default judgment which I also was not notified of. At that time, I was homeless in Los Angeles
and, although Cohen’s lawyers understood this and may have emailed me, there
was no agreement to serve anything by email, I was not in a position to open
attachments, download documents, print them out, and/or review them. Anyone who believes otherwise is totally out
of touch with reality. The fraudulent
misrepresentations and perjured statements, in the legal pleadings submitted to
LA Superior Court, were transmitted to Internal Revenue Service and Franchise
Tax Board. They were used to file/amend
Leonard Cohen’s personal tax returns, apply for and obtain fraudulent tax
refunds, and further used to defend Leonard Cohen with an IRS fraud group in
Los Angeles with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax
fraud. As a journalist recently noted,
this case is nothing other than a tax deduction for Leonard Cohen. There are now fabricated damages totaling $5
million and fraudulent financial interest totaling approximately $9
million. I am reviewing all legal
pleadings in this case with the Internal Revenue Service, Franchise Tax Board,
Senate Judiciary Finance Committee, and others.
This
default judgment is evidence of theft, involves the transfer of assets
belonging to me and corporations that were suspended at the time, never
revived, suspended at the time the judgment was renewed, and is evidence of
extortion, embezzlement, money laundering, tax fraud, and implicates egregious
federal and tax controversies. LA
Superior Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me as well as all
corporations inserted into the default judgment.
Writ of Possession (BC341120)
Case
Number: BC341120
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN VS KELLEY A LYNCH
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN VS KELLEY A LYNCH
Filing
Date: 10/11/2005
Case Type: Injunct Relief-not Dom/Harrassmt (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006
Case Type: Injunct Relief-not Dom/Harrassmt (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006
In or around April 2010, after discovering unauthenticated
documents (Case No. BC338322) online, I contacted Judge Ken Freeman’s
courtroom. I received a call back from
his court reporter. At that time,
Melissa brought this particular case to my attention. Not only was I not served anything related to
this case, I was unaware of the case itself.
This is yet another Los Angeles Superior Court default judgment. This case, which does not extend to
corporations I had a legal interest in, permitted the Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department to wrongfully seize corporate records, property that belonged to me,
and property belonging to Phil Spector, Machat & Machat, and others. The Court had no jurisdiction over the
corporate entities. Furthermore, Cohen’s
attorneys were copied on my emails to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff informing
them that I intended to ship this evidence to the IRS in Washington, DC. This evidently led to the filing of this
case. Neal Greenberg’s attorney
attempted to intervene, noted that the evidence related to the case before the
U.S. Court in Colorado, and LA Superior Court refused to preserve the
evidence. Cohen and his lawyers refuse
to provide me with the proof of service and other documents filed in this case
so I have been unable to file a motion to vacate as of this date.
Domestic Violence Order (BQ033717)
Case
Number: BQ033717
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN VS KELLEY ANN LYNCH
LEONARD NORMAN COHEN VS KELLEY ANN LYNCH
Filing
Date: 05/25/2011
Case Type: Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Case Type: Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
On or about August 19, 2008, after threatening journalist Ann
Diamond over her article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch,” Leonard Cohen
made an extraordinary flight into Boulder, Colorado – in the midst of his
European tour – to obtain a fraudulent civil harassment order. There was no legal basis for the temporary
restraining order issued at an ex parte hearing I was not a party to. On or about September 2, 2008, after I
informed the Court that I thought Leonard Cohen and his lawyers were “insane,”
and expressed grave concerns about the use of fraud and perjury to obtain the
temporary order, I agreed that the Court could make the order “permanent.” At that time, I assumed that – as with LA
Superior Court’s “permanent” orders - it was granted for a period of two to
three years. The Colorado order was used
to discredit me, entrap me, and to prevent me from requesting or obtaining IRS
required tax and corporate information in the form of 1099s, K-1s, corporate
accountings and financial documents (including balance sheets, profit and loss
statements, and so forth), as well as further preventing me from asking Leonard
Cohen (as IRS instructed me to do) to rescind unlawful K-1s his wholly owned,
LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS and State Kentucky for the years 2003,
2004, and 2005 indicating that I am a partner on this entity who received $0
income for these periods. This is
contradicted by the fraudulent financial ledger, which in no resembles an
accounting, used – together with perjured declarations – to obtain the default
judgment in Case No. BC338322. This
order was not a domestic violence order.
Leonard Cohen and I were never in a “dating” or “engagement”
relationship. LA Superior Court has
merely assigned me a dating relationship although for years Leonard Cohen
sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and exposed his penis to me. This conduct evidently annoyed him. Please see my declaration which will be
submitted to LA Superior Court in connection with my motions to terminate
certain “domestic violence” related orders as Leonard Cohen passed away on or
around November 7, 2016. I find it
impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent individual would view
this conduct as a brief, intimate, statutory required “dating”
relationship. Nevertheless, on or around
May 25, 2011, Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the Colorado order as a
domestic violence order. This order was
granted on May 25, 2011 and a fraudulent domestic violence order was provided
to Leonard Cohen. I was not served
and/or notified of this order which was also transmitted into numerous state
and federal databases and/or information systems.
In or around April 2014, I finally received confirmation from
the Boulder Combined Court that the original order was not a domestic violence
order. I then filed a motion to vacate
with Los Angeles Superior Court and was absurdly advised that I should have
litigated these issues during my 2012 trial (Case No. 2CA04539-01) without
knowledge or awareness of them. Leonard
Cohen did present perjured testimony about the nature of our relationship to
the Court during my trial but that was not in response to any type of
accusation related to “domestic violence.”
It related to testimony during a March 2012 hearing where Leonard Cohen personally
testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind – and we were in
a purely business relationship. This
testimony undermines the fraudulent default judgment and fraudulently obtained
domestic violence order. I have asked
IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Senate Judiciary to investigate this situation and that
would include the attendant VAWA funding fraud and transmittal of fraudulent
information into state and federal databases.
Trial & Probation
|
Case
Number:
|
2CA04539-01
|
|||
|
Defendant
Name:
|
LYNCH, KELLEY
|
|||
|
Violation
Date:
|
February
1, 2011
|
|||
|
Filing
Date:
|
January
25, 2012
|
|||
|
Courthouse:
|
Central
Arraignment Courts
|
|||
On or
around March 1, 2012, I was arrested in Berkeley, California for violating the
fraudulent domestic violence order. At
that time, I was unaware that the California domestic violence order existed
and had been advised that the Boulder, Colorado permanent order expired. Therefore, I knowingly and willfully violated
nothing. From approximately January
2010, Boulder Combined Court informed me that the permanent order expired on
February 15, 2009. The reason for this,
and they provided me with the information from their database in April 2014 as
well, was due to the fact that the employees of this Court reviewed the
database information and concluded as follows:
the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008, the permanent
order expired on February 15, 2009, and my motion to dismiss was entered on
January 12, 2009. I assumed, as I had
left the jurisdiction, that I was not served certain documents. The Boulder Combined Court advised me, and
others, of these facts from approximately January 2010 through April 2014. In January 2010, I contacted an old friend of
mine, a federal court practitioner and injunction expert, for advice about
vacating an order that is a wrongful restraint issued without findings. As it would turn out, the Boulder Combined
Court employees should have read the information as follows: while the temporary order was vacated on
September 2, 2008, it expired on February 15, 2009. Obviously, anyone could understand why this
might cause confusion. The Boulder
Combined Court judge informed me that I agreed to entry of the permanent order,
after I filed a motion to quash addressing the fraud and perjury, but at no
time did I agree to the entry of any order based upon fraud and/or
perjury. This order was issued without
findings and the Court had no jurisdiction with respect to subject matter
related to domestic violence. The
Boulder Combined Court maintained exclusive modification jurisdiction. Leonard Cohen would later testify that he was
concerned I might attend his concert schedule for nearly a year later. There was and remains no evidence that I
would attend a Leonard Cohen concert and I most certainly would not. LA Superior Court constantly permits
testimony and the submission of legal pleadings without any type of evidence
whatsoever to support the fabricated and/or false statements.
LAPD’s
report confirmed that my alleged emails, which I agreed to review against the
originals (since evidence can easily be tampered with and the voice mail
messages were in fact altered), were generally requests for tax
information. It is impossible to
conclude that LA Superior Court, or prosecutors in Los Angeles, are unaware of
the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and have taken it upon themselves to interfere
with and lie about federal tax matters, federal tax controversies, inform
jurors that I am in receipt of federal documents that I am not, and generally
argue that Leonard Cohen’s personal conduct annoys him but I should be prosecuted
over it. That would include, but is not
limited to, his exposing his penis to me, his testimony that I have stated that
he ripped my sons fingers off (which I did not), and so forth. As the entire trial record is replete with
fraud, perjured statements, false statements presented to the jurors, and
involves egregious prosecutorial misconduct, I have asked IRS, FBI, DOJ, and
others to investigate the trial. My
public defender concluded that the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage
IRS, discredit me, the DA didn’t want the Spector verdict overturned, and there
may have been a juror plant who relied on the prosecutor’s false statements
that Cohen’s retirement account – actually a corporate account – only had
$150,000 in assets. That is blatantly
false and corporate property is not Leonard Cohen’s personal property in any
event. Leonard Cohen personally borrowed
approximately $7 million or more from that account. That is a corporate asset. My appellate attorney concluded that the
trial was an IRS matter that demanded an IRS investigation. I attempted to
abandon my appeal in this case, due to prosecutorial misconduct and retaliation
(that involved a criminal stalking me repeatedly writing my prosecutor, lying
about me, and copying in my sons, family members, friends, government agencies,
etc.), but the Appellate Court refused. I refused to further appeal this case
because it is replete with false statements, including with respect to federal
tax matters and a tax controversy, and have asked IRS to investigate. The jurors would ultimately advise my lawyers
that they wanted to hear from the IRS. I
issued a subpoena to IRS Agent Luis Tejeda, head of a fraud group in Los
Angeles, but Judge Robert Vanderet refused to permit him to testify. Evidently people are not entitled to call
witnesses or confront their accusers before LA Superior Court.
This case
also involves retaliation related to probation.
The probation requirements involved fraud related to domestic violence,
domestic violence programs, and domestic violence fines and fees. The prosecutor used a domestic violence
counselor as an expert. This individual,
whose organization informed me and others that she does not “diagnose” people
without seeing them, was evidently provided five emails that I have been unable
to obtain. Sandra Baca is a domestic
violence counselor. Sandra Baca
evidently serves as a professional expert witness for prosecutors in Los
Angeles. Sandra Jo Streeter works in the
Family Violence Unit. There was and
remains no domestic violence.
Sandra
Baca
Dr. Sandra Baca
was the next witness for the prosecution. Immediately prior to Dr. Baca's taking
the stand, appellant did not object that she was not 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-relationship is once again fixed and
victim decides to remain in the relationship. The
cycle then repeats itself over and over, with the abusive period becoming
longer and longer, as well as increasing in severity, and the honeymoon period
shorter and shorter. After explaining this phenomenon, Dr.
Baca testified that in her experience, she has witnessed a battered woman
minimize and even recant a version of events in order to help her cope with the
abusive relationship. When this happens, she stated it is
common for a victim of spousal abuse to protect the abuser by completely
denying the incident and being reluctant to testify in court.
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.
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.
With
respect to the probation retaliation matter, that involved Stephen Gianelli, prosecutor
Sandra Jo Streeter evidently feared for her life because I sent an email to the
DOJ and FBI informing them that parties in Los Angeles use false threat scams
to set up innocent people and included a P.S. referring to Streeter. This email was sent to DOJ and FBI on
Valentine’s Day, was obviously directed to them, and Streeter apparently
concluded that she is a terrorist, on CIA’s alleged disposition matrix, and an
enemy of the United States. I asked
Detective Viramontes, LAPD’s TMU, if he believes this woman has psychiatric
problems and the actual threat here relates to my request that IRS, FBI, and
DOJ investigate the entire trial.
Karina Von Watteville Defamation Case (BC614279)
Case
Number: BC614279
KARINA FIMBEL VON WATTEVILLE VS PAULETTE BRANDT ET AL
KARINA FIMBEL VON WATTEVILLE VS PAULETTE BRANDT ET AL
Filing
Date: 03/17/2016
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Case Type: Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Karina
Von Watteville is a former roommate of Paulette Brandt. Ms. Brandt is an old friend of mine, dated Phil
Spector for years, and worked as Phil Spector’s personal assistant numerous
times over a period of thirty years. The
last time was from approximately 1991, after the death of Phillip Spector’s son
until approximately 2002. I worked as an
assistant to Mr. Spector from approximately 1988 through sometime immediately
following Phillip Jr’s death. I
personally believe it is relevant to note that Paulette Brandt and I have been
quite public about our views that Phil Spector is innocent. In fact, we have given interviews about this
fact. Stephen Gianelli, whose job appears
to involve slandering us, descended on that site and immediately began
slandering me, Paulette Brandt, and Ann Diamond.
Truth
Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder
trial)
Truth
Sentinel Episode 39 (Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK
Ultra)
Karina
Von Watteville, according to information I have been privy to and documents
submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court, promised to pay Ms. Brandt rent. This was addressed in a Small Claims case filed
with LA Superior Court. Von Watteville’s
refusal to pay the outstanding rental arrears led to Ms. Brandt issuing a
rental arrears demand letter to Karina Fimbel Von Watteville. In response to that letter, Karina Von Watteville
phoned Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, who advised her to sue me. At issue, according to statements Von
Watteville made to the Small Claims mediator in my present, were my alleged
emails to certain federal agencies such as IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and
ICE. Since approximately late spring of
2005, I have been documenting everything that unfolded, since reporting the
allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, for IRS, FBI, DOJ,
Treasury, ICE, FTB, Senate Judiciary, and others.
Once Von
Watteville received the rental arrears letter, which Paulette Brandt asked me
to serve electronically upon her, she began slandering me, informed certain parties
that she intended to get me in “trouble” and have me “investigated.” The gossip and slander continued, was
repeated to me by numerous individuals, and I informed her on numerous occasions
to cease and desist. A cease and desist
letter is sent in anticipation of litigation and asks someone to stop engaging in
the conduct they are presently engaged in.
Karina Von Watteville would end up represented by Bay Area lawyer
Stephen Gianelli who has harassed and stalked me, Paulette Brandt, and many Los
Angeles residents for over seven straight years. He has terrorized my sons. Stephen Gianelli is clearly an unofficial
member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team, argues and defends Leonard Cohen,
attempts to elicit information, and serves as an agent provocateur,
infiltrator, and “fixer.” He also may
very well be affiliated with Spector’s prosecutors. Ann Diamond, Leonard Cohen’s former lover,
has also been stalked, harassed, and slandered by Stephen Gianelli. Her piece on him summarizes his conduct,
personality, and probable relationship with Leonard Cohen perfectly. Karina Von Watteville is a litigious
individual who informed me and others that she has received property from the
estate of at least one elderly man, sued the estate of another elderly man,
received a slip and fall settlement, and has assisted Thomas Slater in suing
his son, Christian Slater, and mother, Mary Jo Slater for $20 million. She is now evidently the co-producer, star,
and cinematographer of a documentary called Slater v. Slater. Ms. Von Watteville has filed an entirely
baseless, sham lawsuit against me, Paulette Brandt, and our former roommate who
– together with Gianelli – Von Watteville terrorized over a declaration Linda
Carol was preparing. As of this date,
there are already problems with fraudulent misrepresentations, lies transmitted
directly to the Court in my presence, and service issues. I have informed IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others of
the fact that I believe her call to Robert Kory, and subsequent representation by
Gianelli (which led to her having the Small Claims award to Paulette Brandt
overturned), as well as her conduct and this sham lawsuit, should be
investigated.
Phil Spector Case
|
Case
Number:
|
XCNBA255233-01
|
|||
|
Defendant
Name:
|
SPECTOR, PHILLIP
|
|||
|
Violation
Date:
|
February
3, 2003
|
|||
|
Filing
Date:
|
September
20, 2004
|
|||
|
Courthouse:
|
Central
District
|
|||
During my
2012 trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony about Phil Spector. This was accomplished when Sandra Jo Streeter
asked Leonard Cohen to review an April 18, 2011 email I sent to Dennis
Riordan. In that email, I informed Mr.
Riordan and for approximately 20 years, Leonard Cohen advised me that Phil
Spector never held a gun on him and his stories were merely good rock ‘n roll
stories. After reviewing the email to
Dennis Riordan, Leonard Cohen testified that he was a recipient. On cross-examination, Leonard Cohen confirmed
that he was not a recipient.
Nevertheless, this led to testimony about Phil Spector and a gun. There are now three versions of Leonard Cohen’s
gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court. One involves his testimony during my trial
(an automatic held to his head), another involves an email Cohen wrote my
so-called prosecutor at the start of the trial (a weapon held to the neck), and
a third involves a version used in the Spector case. That third version appears in motions
submitted to the Court in the Spector case including a motion in limine that
addressed prior bad acts. In that
particular version, a semi-automatic weapon was held to Cohen’s chest. These three versions now involve a
semi-automatic weapon or an automatic weapon, and a gun being held to Cohen’s
head, neck, or chest. Other versions
involve a cross-bow, bottle of wine, and inane statements that Phil Spector
informed Leonard Cohen that he loved him.
Phil Spector does not love Leonard Cohen. I was on trial because Mick Brown, UK
Telegraph, informed me that Leonard Cohen’s statements and/or testimony was
presented to the Phil Spector Grand Jury.
That Grand Jury transcript was unsealed by Judge Larry Fidler. Therefore, the portion of that transcript
that relates to Leonard Cohen’s gun incident should have been provided to my
public defenders as Brady material. I
personally have no idea which version the government believes. The Grand Jury
Legal Adviser was unaware of what witness presented this testimony (or
statements) to the Grand Jury and advised me to contact Phil Spector’s
appellate attorney. She also advised me
to contact the DA and/or Judge Larry Fidler. I contacted Phil Spector’s
attorneys and have brought this to the attention of IRS, FBI, DOJ, and
others. Former DA Steve Cooley publicly
aligned himself with Leonard Cohen, elected not to prosecute him for fraud and
other unlawful activity I brought to the DA’s attention when I filed my
Complaint with the Major Fraud Unit, joined Cohen in targeting me, and there
may very well have been a quid pro quo that led to Cohen’s testimony about Phil
Spector and a gun during my trial and during the DA’s re-election campaign
which followed David Mamet’s public statements that he felt Phil Spector had been
railroaded. There are other issues with
the Spector case, and witnesses who may have perjured themselves, that Paulette
Brandt and I have privately addressed directly with Phil Spector’s attorneys,
IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others.
This
letter is a grievance to the government with respect to the above referenced
cases. It does not involve my personal
bias or prejudice. It involves a pattern
and practice on the part of LA Superior Court that relates to the use of fraud,
perjury, and misconduct to procure verdicts, judgments, orders and decisions. I am therefore asking this Court to advise me
how it intends to address and/or investigate these matters. I am also asking that I be excused from jury
duty because I have been continuously and routinely victimized by LA Superior
Court. Therefore, I do not believe it is
acceptable – morally, ethically, or otherwise – to ask me to serve as a juror
after what I have witnessed. That
includes, but is not limited to, a complete and utter lack of anything that
remotely resembles due process or a remedy.
I am asking you to provide me with specific details as to any remedies,
or redress this Court provides, in connection with my formal grievances and
complaints.
Clearly,
this is a simple summary of events. It
does not constitute an actual legal and/or factual summary of these cases. I reserve all my rights and remedies with
respect to the matters I have addressed herein.
I look
forward to your response.
Very
truly yours,
Kelley Lynch
cc: IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, Senate
Judiciary, FTB, Dennis Riordan, Esquire, and Bruce Cutler, Esquire
Definitions
Bias
Inclination;
bent; prepossession: a preconceived opinion; a predisposition to decide a cause
or an issue in a certain way, which does not leave the mind perfectly open to conviction.
Maddox v. State, 32 Ga. 5S7, 79 Am. Dec. 307; Pierson v. State, 18 Tex. App.
55S; Hinkle v. State, 94 Ga. 595, 21 S. E. 601. This term is not synonymous
with “prejudice.” By the use of this word in a statute declaring disqualification
of jurors, the legislature intended to describe
another and somewhat different ground of disqualification. A man cannot be
prejudiced against another without being biased against him ; but he may be
biased without being prejudiced. Bias is “a particular influential
power, which sways the judgment; the inclination of the mind towards a
particular object.” It is not to be supposed that the legislature expected to secure in the
juror a state of mind absolutely free from all inclination to one side or the
other. The statute means that, although a juror has not formed a judgment for
or against the prisoner, before the evidence is heard on the trial, yet, if he
is under such an influence as so sways his mind to the one side or the other as
to prevent his deciding the cause according to the evidence, he is incompetent.
Willis v. State, 12 Ga. 444. Actual bias consists in the existence of a state
of mind on the part of the juror which satisfies the court, in the exercise of
a sound discretion, that the juror cannot try the issues impartially and without
prejudice to the substantial rights
of the party challenging. State v. Chapman, 1 S. D. 414. 47 N. W. 411, 10 L. R.
A. 432; People v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 284. 18 N. E. 150, 1 L. R. A. 273; People
v. Wells, 100 Cal. 227, 34 Pac. 718.
Prejudice
A
forejudgment; bias; preconceived opinion. A leaning towards one side of a cause
for some reason other than a conviction of its justice. Willis v. State, 12 Ga.
449; Hungerford v. Cushing, 2 Wis. 405; SUite v. Anderson, 14 Mont. 541, 37
Pac. 1 ; Ilinkle v. State, 94 Ga. 595, 21 S. E. 595; Keen v. Brown, 40 Fla.
4S7, 35 South. 401. The word "prejudice" seemed to imply nearly the
same thing as "opinion," a prejudgment of the case, aud not
necessarily an enmiiy or ill will against either party. Com. v. Webster, 5
Cush. (Mass.) 297, 52 Am. Dec. 711. "Prejudice" also means injury,
loss, or damnification.
Thus, where an offer or ad- mission is made "without prejudice," or a motion is
denied or a bill in equity dismissed "without prejudice," it is meant
as a declaration that no rights or
privileges of the party concerned are to be considered as thereby waived or
lost, except in so far as may be expressly conceded or decided.
Fraud
Fraud
consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to withintent
to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. As
distinguishedfrom negligence, it is always positive, intentional. Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co.,67
N. Y. 292; Alexander v. Church, 53 Conn. 501, 4 Atl. 103; Studer v. Bleistein.
115 N.Y. 31G, 22 X. E. 243, 7 L. R. A. 702; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122, 9
Sup. Ct. 447,32 L. Ed. 878; Fechheimer v. Baum (C. C.) 37 Fed. 167; U. S. v.
Beach (D. C.) 71 Fed.160; Gardner v. Ileartt, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 232; Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, 108 Ga. 449,
34 S. E. 176.Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing
on a material part ofthe contract, created or continued by artifice, with
design to obtain some unjustadvantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other.
CivilCode La. art. 1S47.Fraud, In the sense of a court of equity, properly Includes all
acts, omissions, andconcealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable
duty, trust, or confidencejustly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by
which an undue and unconscientiousadvantage is taken of another. 1 Story, Eq.
Jur.
Perjury
In criminal law. The willful assertion as
to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or
knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his
evidence, either upon oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for
an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or
otherwise, such assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being
intended by him to mislead the court, jury, or person holding the proceeding. 2
Whart. Crim. Law.
Prosecutorial Misconduct
the
term that is applied to the misconduct of a prosecutor who needs to use legitimate ways to obtain a
conviction.
Due Process
This means in accordance with the fundamental principles
of justice and is in conformity with the usual judicial proceedings.
http://thelawdictionary.org/by-due-process-of-law/
http://thelawdictionary.org/by-due-process-of-law/
Jurisdiction
The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or
constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the
sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or
ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be
the subject of investigation or
action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who
present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner
sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.
http://thelawdictionary.org/jurisdiction/
http://thelawdictionary.org/jurisdiction/
Service of Process
the term for the delivery of a summons, writ or subpoena to
the opposing party in a law suit.
http://thelawdictionary.org/service-of-process/
http://thelawdictionary.org/service-of-process/
Notice
A legal notification or warning that is delivered in a
written format or through a formal announcement. An individual or party is considered liable if the party (1) has
knowledge of the the notice, (2) received the notice, (3) knows it through
experience, (4) has knowledge with regards to an associate fact and (5) could
have gained knowledge had an enquiry been undertaken.
http://thelawdictionary.org/notice-2/
http://thelawdictionary.org/notice-2/
Grievance
In Law, this is (1) a complaint due to injury, injustice, or
wrong. (2) The injustice itself.
http://thelawdictionary.org/grievance/
http://thelawdictionary.org/grievance/
Remedy
Remedy is the means by which the violation of a right is
prevented, redressed, or compensated. Remedies are of four kinds: (1) By act of
the party injured, the
principal of which are defense, recaption, distress, entry, abatement, aud
seizure; (2) by operation of law, as in
the case of retainer and remitter; (3) by agreement between the parties, e. g.,
by accord and satisfaction and arbitration; and (4)
by judicial remedy, e. g.,
action or suit. Sweet. See Kuapp v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. 824,
44 L. Ed. 921; Missionary Soc. v. Ely, 56 Ohio St. 405, 47 N. E. 537; U. S. v.
Lyman, 20 Fed. Cas. 1,024 ; Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 64 Pac. 705, 84 Am.
St. Rep. 53. Also a certain allowance to the master of the mint, for deviation
from the standard weight and fiueuess of coins. Enc. Lond.
http://thelawdictionary.org/remedy/
http://thelawdictionary.org/remedy/
Investigation
a term that means to examine and to look at carefully,
discover the factor make a legal inquiry.
http://thelawdictionary.org/investigation/
http://thelawdictionary.org/investigation/
