Petition for Writ
APP-151 (Addendum)
The Trial Court Action or Ruling You Are
Challenging
3. The Trial Court action or ruling I am
challenging is the ruling on the People’s memorandum setting forth “Statutory
Authority for the Filing of the Permanent Protection Order Issued in the State
of Colorado in Case Number 2008 C 776 ON 09/02/08.” On September 1, 2017, the People filed their
memorandum, failed to serve me, a self represented individual, copies of two separate
motions and/or memoranda. Deputy City
Attorney Ralston Henry handed the documents to me immediately before the
hearing scheduled for September 8, 2017.
The trial court concluded that this was acceptable, proceeded to hear
the case, read a fabricated prosecution narrative into the record, and
determined that both the conflicting Colorado and California restraining orders
at issue in the case are valid. As the
nature of the relationship changed from Colorado to California that is clearly
an erroneous decision.
I
objected to the ruling, confirmed that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to
make any determination whatsoever with respect to the Colorado order, and asked
for an opportunity to file an Opposition to the memorandum arguing the validity
of the registration of the Colorado order in California. I was denied that opportunity. Very serious issues related to the
applicability of the federal VAWA statute, Colorado state and federal
anti-stalking laws, LA Superior Court’s assignment of a statutory required
dating relationship (without any due process whatsoever) and domestic violence
designation, and other constitutional issues are relevant and material to the
case before the trial court. I maintain
that neither order is valid, lawful, and/or constitutional.
4. The trial court took this action or
made this ruling on the following date:
September 8, 2017.
5. If you are filing this petition more
than 30 days after the date you listed in 4, explain the extraordinary
circumstances that caused the delay in filing this petition: I am filing this Petition on October 9, 2017
as October 8, 2017 fell on a Sunday. I
have waited until this date for the following reasons: I required a transcript, it was unavailable
on September 25, 2017 when the Court instructed me to pick it up, I was unable
to return to Court until the following week, and I was forced to locate and
consult an appellate attorney about the writ, related appellate matters, and
potential federal proceedings. The
Colorado court has no jurisdiction over the protected or me, no one has resided
there since 2008, and there are no injuries – alleged or otherwise – in that
jurisdiction.
Appeals or Other Petitions for Writs in This
Case
Note: While there are no direct appeals and/or
writs in this specific case, an appeal before this Court involves the denial of
my motion to vacate the California domestic violence order that I was unaware
existed throughout trial proceedings in 2012 or during the appellate
process. The appeal of the denial of the
motion to vacate the order (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BQ0333717) is
before this Court under Case No. B267409.
Kelley Lynch’s Reply Brief is due October 12, 2017. Therefore, the case is not fully briefed.
Reasons for this Petition
10 (a). The trial court has not done or has refused
to do something that the law says it must.
1. Describe what you
believe the law says the trial court must do.
The trial court must provide me with an opportunity to file an
Opposition to the People’s Memorandum, challenge the validity of the
registration of the California order and People’s authority to argue a private
civil litigation matter on behalf of a deceased protected party, and provide a
fair adversarial hearing and meaningful opportunity to be heard. I will also be pursuing issues related to the
conflicting state orders in federal court at this time.
2. Identify the law (the
section of the Constitution or statute, published court decisions, or other
legal authority) that says the trial court must do this: The County of Los Angeles Criminal Division
Rules set forth in Chapter 8 certain Pro Per Issues. One such issue is set forth in Rule 9.42 Pro
Per Defendants in Criminal Cases. Under
subsection (c) it clearly states that notice of hearing and filing of papers
“must be filed with the clerk where the case is then pending, and a copy must be served on the prosecuting attorney
and all other attorneys ore parties in pro per ten days in advance of any
proposed hearing date, in accordance with applicable law. Service by mail is acceptable.” I was unaware that the City Attorney filed
the documents and was not served or provided an opportunity to file an
opposition or have a fair hearing on the issues. Once again, due to the fabricated background
narrative, an entirely fraudulent trial record is being created. Therefore, I am entitled to confront the
false accusations and insertion of extraneous matters into this case. For example, Leonard Cohen’s default
judgment. The renewal of that judgment
is also under appeal.
See copy of the rule attached hereto and made a
part hereof. The United States and
California Constitutions contain due process clauses. Due process requires notice, a meaningful
opportunity to be heard, and the proceedings must be fair.
3. Identify where in the
supporting documents (the record of what was said in the trial court and the
documents from the trial court) it shows that the court did not do or refused
to do this:
The issue re. the
prosecutor’s failure to serve their response to my Motion for Outrageous
Government Conduct is addressed beginning on page 2. I objected to the hearing on that motion due
to the failure to serve me the Opposition or provide an opportunity for me to
file a Reply. On page 3, I did inform
the Court that I felt it was inappropriate to hold the hearing when I was not
given sufficient time to reply to that motion.
This discussion continued through page 4. The Court offered to provide me an additional
30 to 45 minutes. That was unacceptable
as I had no opportunity to sufficiently review the Opposition and/or research
issues. The Court decided to proceed to
hear that motion. I objected to the
fabricated, slanderous background narrative beginning at page 6.
The Court raised the
validity of the protection orders on page 8.
I objected to the position that the Colorado (non domestic violence)
order is valid and/or the registration of that order in California as a
domestic violence order is a valid registration. The trial court, in the motion to vacate the
California domestic violence determined that it was a domestic violence order
and in 2012 I was sentenced under domestic violence laws. Leonard Cohen and I were not in a “dating
relationship.” Sexual harassment, sexual
assault, and indecent exposure are not dating.
He informed the Colorado court that the basis of the relationship was a
business relationship. Cohen reconfirmed
this during the March 23, 2012 preliminary hearing related to the alleged
violations at that time. This has been
addressed thoroughly in the related appeal.
The California domestic violence order was not served. I was not notified of the existence of that
order. And, I have been subjected to
more stringent domestic violence laws and acts.
VAWA requires service and a hearing for it to be applicable. It also has a separate relationship
requirement and prior to 2013 there was no intimate relationship category. There are also serious second amendment issues
as the Colorado order excluded the Brady Handgun Act. The Court addressed the Statutory Authority
memorandum beginning at approximately page 10.
On page 11, I asked if I had a legal right to file an opposition and
questioned whether the Court was holding a hearing on that memorandum. Service of process is a serious issue before
LA Superior Court. The same issue has
arisen continuously and that includes with respect to the default judgment
itself. The prosecutor, on page 11,
began arguing issues related to res judicata.
Those arguments should not have been made without my being served a copy
of the memorandum and provided an opportunity to file an opposition. Res judicata would apply to the nature of the
relationship in Colorado. LA Superior
Court has modified the Colorado order, converted the nature of the relationship,
and the Colorado court maintained exclusive modification jurisdiction. On page 11, the Court gave its tentative
ruling that the Colorado permanent order is binding and valid. The Colorado order was issued without my
being advised of the allegations, alleged unauthenticated evidence submitted to
the court ex parte, Leonard Cohen’s ex parte testimony (that has now been
destroyed), did not discover Cohen’s entirely perjured declaration until after
the hearing, and only discovered the Verified Motion when the Colorado court
wrote to confirm that their order was not a domestic violence order and
provided me a copy of the motion.
Leonard Cohen evidently checked a “stalking” box. I was unaware of that until April 10,
2014. That does not sufficiently address
issues related to stalking and my online posts, re. European concert reviews,
refuting Leonard Cohen’s slanderous, false accusations. I have been advised by journalists that due
to the Court’s decisions, they have a right to defame me. The trial court is not in a position to
determine the validity of the Colorado order.
The prosecutors are now arguing a private civil matter on behalf of a
deceased protected party. They have also
asked the court to issue domestic violence related orders (PC 136.2) to Cohen’s
lawyers, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice, without notice, service, and/or a
hearing. That issue will be addressed
more fully in appeal and elsewhere. The
discussion about failure to serve me and proceed with the hearings continued on
page 13. On page 14, I informed the
court that I was not ready to proceed.
The prosecutor than weighed in that my request to file an opposition
should be denied. See page 15. Again, the prosecutor argued issues related
to res judicata. During the 2012
proceedings, I was unaware (as were the jurors) of the manner in which the
Colorado order was registered as a domestic violence order. The trial court took judicial notice of the
order in that case. That order was the
California domestic violence order in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BQ033717. The juror verdict forms
instructed them that I violated the Colorado order. The prosecutor did not provide the Court with
any documentation or a declaration to support his statements. On page 17, the trial court provided her
ruling that the Colorado permanent order and so-called reciprocal order in
California are valid. I wholeheartedly
disagree.
11. This petition will be granted only if
there is no other adequate way to address the trial court’s action or ruling
other than by issuing the requested writ.
a. Explain why there is no
way other than through this petition for a writ – through an appeal – for your
arguments to be adequately presented to the appellate division.
The trial court has determined that the
conflicting Colorado and California orders are valid and I should be prosecuted
under domestic violence laws. I will not
be able to address any harm that ensures from these determinations at a later
appeal.
b. Explain how you will be
irreparably harmed if the appellate division does not issue the writ you are
requesting.
I will be irreparably harmed because the trial
court has made a determination that the Colorado order is valid. That determination should be made by a
Colorado and/or federal court. I will be
further harmed by the determination that the California domestic violence order
is valid. This will subject me to more
stringent domestic violence laws and acts.
Furthermore, the entire 2012 trial record is evidence of fraud. That includes Leonard Cohen’s perjured
testimony that, while he testified previously that we were in a purely business
relationship, he only denied that we were “lovers” because – according to his
hearsay statement – I deny that fact. I
remain unconvinced that any intelligent individual would believe that
testimony. I also deny that I
misappropriated anything or violated any order.
12. I request that this court
a. Order the trial court
to do the following: provide me with an
opportunity to be properly served, a new hearing date set, and further provide
me with the opportunity to follow an Opposition. That would require research and therefore the
fact that trial court was willing to initially stay the proceedings for half an
hour was not a remedy for the complete failure to serve me. Furthermore, the Deputy City Attorney’s
arrogance in demanding that I simply show up at trial court to see if filed the
documents and obtain a copy is astounding.
b. Order the trial court
not to do the following: not to proceed
to trial until these issues are properly resolved.
c. Issue a stay ordering
the trial court not to take further action in this case until this court
decides whether to grant or deny the petition.
d. I (2) did not ask the
trial court to stay these proceedings for the following reasons: I was unaware that these issues would arise,
did not understand what I had any obligation to request a stay with the trial
court, and the next hearing before the trial court is presently scheduled for
October 30, 2017. This creates certain
time constraints related to the 30 day filing requirement (set forth on this
form) with respect to the filing of the writ.
e. Grant any additional
relief that the appellate division decides is fair and appropriate.
14. The following documents are attached to
the Petition:
Memorandum setting forth the
statutory validity
Transcript of Hearing on September
8, 2017
