From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:49 PM
Subject: Michelle Rice
To: DOJ cc: Multiple Recipients
Hello DOJ,
The criminal harassment over IRS required 1099, etc. continues. This is a portion of Michelle Rice's testimony. This woman is a liar and her testimony is perjured. There are problems with the chain of evidence. Evidently, LA Superior Court has no rules regarding these types of matters which is shocking. I've included Rice's February 14, 2011 emails and one of my replies. She is lying in those emails. She didn't register the order and it takes 1 minute to research how to register a foreign order. Try it your self. Google: "How do I register a foreign restraining order in California?" You'll get your answer within 1 minute. That does not explain why this order transformed into a "domestic violence" order; why I was prosecuted for violating a domestic violence order; convicted; sentenced and received probation requirements re. domestic violence; victimized in an extortion attempt over domestic violence fines and fees; or explain what the City Attorney's Family Violence Unit was doing in this matter. It also does not explain why this is being heard by Family Court at all. The Colorado order, I requested, was a civil harassment order and the basis of that relationship was a business relationship. Modifying the order in a foreign court would not provide that order with Full Faith & Credit.
Furthermore, there was no evidentiary hearing and Rice is clear about that. I waived no rights and was unaware of Cohen's perjured declaration at the time of the hearing. I addressed that in my Motion to Quash.
Rice perjured herself over at least one material issue in this trial. She testified that as of September 2, 2008, there were no outstanding litigation matter involving me and Cohen. Judge Babcock didn't provide his order in the Colorado District Court matter until September 5, 2008 so she lied about that and she was the attorney of record. The issues re. conspiracy and extortion have not been litigated. The California judgment is void and Judge Babcock should not have relied on it. I was not served and LA Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over me. They just continue to lie, behave unconscionably, and they condone perjury and fraud. I'm very clear about that.
My email to Rice on February 14, 2011 (to which Steven Machat responded re the transcript of our conversation) addresses federal tax and corporate matters. I would like a formal opinion on these issues. I intend to file State Bar Complaints once I file the two motions addressing the perjury and fraud in the motion to vacate response documents and the fraud domestic violence order. I was prosecuted under the domestic violence statutes so that's fraud. The Proxy Stalker continues to criminally harass me over these issues and he's on someone's payroll. Let me assure you of this - these motions will be filed; State Bar Complaints will be filed; and federal lawsuits will be filed.
All the best,
Kelley
PD: You stated that you collected these emails … you went to the police; is that correct? Rice: That is correct. PD: And who went to the police? Rice: It was Mr. Kory and myself. PD: And you came – did you come with that binder or a similar copy of that binder that you sent Ms. Streeter? Rice: No. PD: You just came with the CDs. Rice: We didn’t come with any evidence. We just filled out a police report. RT 346-347
More problems with chain of evidence.
PD: You testified that you filed a Colorado permanent restraining order in the State of California; is that correct? Rice: Correct. I was the attorney of record, correct. PD: And you actually had supervision, or you actually filed that document in Superior Court? Rice: I did. RT 347 Court: Is that the Colorado order? PD: Yes, Your Honor. RT 347
Defense Exhibit B – 4-page out-of-state restraining order.
PD: What is that document? Rice: It’s form DV-600, registered out-of-state restraining order in the matter of Leonard Norman Cohen. And it’s stamped police copy at the top, and it shows that it was filed – it looks like May 25th, 2011, with the Los Angeles Superior Court. PD: Is that when you filed that document, to your recollection? Rice: Yes. PD: And attached to that California order is a three-page attachment. What is that document? Rice: That’s actually a verified copy of California – I’m sorry, Colorado permanent civil protection order issued pursuant to Section 13-14102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. PD: To your knowledge, when was that order issued by the Colorado Civil Court? Rice: That one was issued on September 2nd, 2008. PD: So you filed this restraining order in California three days before you and Mr. Kory went to the police; is that correct? Rice: Not three days. It was about five days. PD: Five days before? Rice: Yes. RT 348-349
A “police copy” would not be the certified original and the Colorado order is not four pages. That would be the California registration of the order. This must have come from the police. Which police?
PD: Now, you also testified as to sending Ms. Lynch an email on February 14th, 2011, in which you told her to cease and desist contacting Mr. Kory and Mr. Cohen; is that correct? Rice: That is correct. PD: And you sent this in direct response to the email that you received directly or was it one that was forwarded to you? Rice: Well, Mr. Cohen had been forwarding me a group of emails
Throughout the period of January that he received January of 2011, and he kept telling me, you know, basically she’s emailing me directly. And he did not seen me on the distribution list, so he would forward me the emails, so I was getting them from both parties because they did not see me, my email address on Ms. Lynch’s emails. PD: And you wrote approximately, would you say about a page of emails to Ms. Lynch, explaining her conduct and why you felt her conduct was inappropriate and illegal. Rice: Correct. PD: And you used your professional legal judgment in drafting this email? Rice: Yes. PD: Your Honor, I’m holding a three-page document. It’s an email dated 2/14. I’d like to mark it as Defense C for identification only. RT 349-350
Defense Exhibit C – Three page email dated 2/14.
PD: Now, Ms. Rice, I’m going to show you this email. Do you recognize this as the same email that you sent to Ms. Lynch? Rice: Yes. PD: And the portion of the email – I believe there’s some extraneous forwards in that – Rice: Uh huh. PD: -- to Ms. Streeter, and Mr. Streeter sent that to me. But in the portion that you drafted to Ms. Lynch, do you see a bracketed portion that I’ve highlighted? Rice: I do. PD: Could you read that portion out loud, please? Rice: It says, “Through the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, protect orders issued by a sister state, in this case Colorado, are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States. Mr. Cohen’s protective order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement. I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the Court from which it was issued.” PD: Thank you, Ms. Rice. Now, again, you sent this email on February 14th; is that correct? Rice: Correct. PD: Okay. And you didn’t actually file the Colorado order in California until May 25th, which is approximately three months later; is that correct? Rice: That is correct. PD: So you told Ms. Lynch that you had filed it when in fact you hadn’t at that point. Rice: Well, at that point we were actually doing research, legal research regarding how to file it in the State of California. And I was actively involved in the research portion, and we were going to file that you know, around the time that we said that we were going to file it in the date of that email, February 14, 2011, because it was. PD: Thank you. So you were doing research, you said, but you had not actually filed it yet? Rice: That is technically correct, yes. PD: And you didn’t actually file it until approximately three months later in Superior Court? Rice: That is correct. PD: Now I want to take you back to the actual permanent restraining order hearing in Colorado. You said you were present during that hearing; is that correct? Rice: I was. PD: And Mr. Cohen was also present during that hearing? Rice: Mr. Cohen was not at the permanent restraining order hearing. He appeared and testified for the preliminary hearing which was August 15th. PD: Okay. Were you there on that hearing? Rice: I was. PD: Now, for that permanent hearing, were you the only other person present as a witness? Rice: No. Mr. Kory was there as well. PD: You and Mr. Kory together, and another attorney, Mr. Steinberg; is that correct? Rice: Harvey Steinberg was the Colorado counsel. I’m not admitted in Colorado, so we had to retain local counsel. PD: Now, you observed this entire proceeding as it occurred? Rice: Yes. PD: And Ms. Lynch was also present. Rice: She was. PD: Okay. Now, is this the first time you’ve met Ms. Lynch? Rice: No. PD: When was the first time you met her? Rice: She came to our office a couple of times [one time – perjury]. PD: When did she come to your office? Rice: I believe it was probably Spring of 2005. PD: And both occurrences were in Spring of 2005 that she came to your office? Rice: One may have been in the summer of 2005. PD: So both in 2005? Rice: Well, there was a third one, yet another proceeding that, yes, I had occasion to interact with Ms. Lynch, yes. During 2005 … PD: And even though you were there to testify at this permanent hearing and evidentiary hearing, it didn’t actually take place; isn’t that correct? Rice: That is correct. And it was at Ms. Lynch’s insistence that the evidentiary hearing not proceed. RT 351-354 PD: But isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch, during that proceeding, asked the judge if she could attack this restraining order at a later date and he told her he couldn’t give her legal advice; isn’t that correct? Rice: Correct. It was actually a female judge. It was Carolyn Enichen. RT 355 PD: Isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch asked the Court, in open Court, whether or not or whom she could direct inquiries regarding any ongoing litigation because Mr. Cohen and her were in litigation at that point? Rice: That is incorrect. There was no ongoing litigation at that point. By the point when we had the 2008 permanent restraining order haring, the default judgment had been rendered by the LA Superior Court in May of 2006. Perjured Testimony – Judge Babcock’s Opinion in the Colorado matter was not rendered until September 5, 2008. This hearing was September 2, 2008. This is a very serious material lie. There are also very serious federal tax and corporate matters outstanding. PD: Okay. Was there also a case in – in Federal District of Colorado between Mr. Neal Greenberg against both your client, Leonard Cohen, and also naming Ms. Lynch as a defendant regarding the same issues that surrounded the end of their business relationship? Rice; I believe that the Federal District Court action was also concluded by the time the permanent restraining order, but I – again, I’d have to look there. But we filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Mr. Cohen in May of 2008. The September 2008 hearing was sixth months later. PD: So there was litigation in 2008 where Ms. Lynch was a party, Mr. Cohen was also a party and it was in the State of Colorado; it that correct? Rice: In 2008, correct. But by the time the permanent restraining order hearing concluded, that action had concluded with regard to Mr. Cohen. RT 355-357 PD: And you were an attorney of record in the federal case? Rice: I was. RT 357 PD: So you were familiar with the pleadings of that case and the procedural posture of that case? Rice: It is to the best of my recollection that Ms. Lynch never made an appearance in that lawsuit. She never answered any complaint that Mr. Greenberg filed. She – you know, this was a multiyear litigation matter that I only became attorney of record for Mr. Cohen in the later stages of that. Prior to that, he had Colorado counsel, Jay Horowitz. PD: But indeed the nature of the allegation in that lawsuit involved very heavily the relationship between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen; is that correct? Rice: No. I would characterize the litigation in that way. RT 357 PD: How would you characterize it? Rice: I – I mean, basically, the investment firm sued Mr. Cohen first, and I believe Ms. Lynch was only made a party later in the proceeding. So I would characterize it as basically primarily between the investment adviser and Mr. Chen in the beginning stages. He also sued Mr. Kory. PD: But isn’t it also true that in that allegation of that lawsuit that Ms. Lynch, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Kory were engaged in civil extortion and fraud against the Plaintiff in that case, Mr. Greenberg? Rice: That is what they can state in the Complaint. But, as you know, you can make any kind of allegations in a Complaint … PD: And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct? Rice: I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a co-conspirator. RT 358
JUDGE BABCOCK SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, D. COLORADO.
NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE
· Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB. (D. Colo. Sep 05, 2008)
· Decided September 5, 2008
NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE, INC., a/k/a Greenberg Associates, Inc., d/b/a Agile Advisors, Inc. a Colorado corporation; TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile Allocation Services, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group, a Colorado corporation; and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California; KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California; and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25, Defendants, and, LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY BARNETT, a Colorado citizen, Counterclaim Defendant.
Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
September 5, 2008
size=0 width="100%" align=center>
ORDER
LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief District Judge
This matter is before me on Defendant, Leonard Cohen's, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader[Docket # 185], Pl
The allegations in this case are adequately noted in prior orders of this Court, and I need not repeat them here. After several years of litigation, each claim and counterclaim in this case — with the exception of Plaintiffs' interpleader claim now at issue — has been dismissed. Plaintiffs' interpleader claim concerns approximately $154,000 in funds ("the funds") belonging to Traditional Holdings LLC, an investment entity created by Cohen and Defendant Lynch for purposes of managing Cohen's assets. Plaintiffs disavowed any interest in the funds, but requested interpleader for purposes of settling the conflicting positions of Cohen and Lynch regarding ownership of the funds. Plaintiffs paid the funds into the Registry of the Court pending resolution of this issue.
On May 12, 2006, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled on the issue of ownership of the funds, and entered default judgment in favor of Cohen and against Lynch in the amount of $7.3 million in damages and interest. See Judgment, Cohen v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 338322 (May 12, 2006) [Docket # 186-16]. In rendering judgment, the California court declared Lynch was "not the owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC" and any interest Lynch had in "any other entity related to Cohen . . . she [held] as trustee for Cohen's equitable title." The California court enjoined Lynch from interfering with Cohen's right to receive any such funds or property or in any other way exercising control over any funds or property related to Cohen. The California court ruling was not appealed and is now final. *33
The final judgment of the California court settles the dispute between Lynch and Cohen over ownership of the interpleaded funds. As Plaintiffs are no longer exposed to multiple liability, Plaintiffs' interpleader claim is now moot.See FED. R. CIV. P.22(a)(1). When the dispute underlying an interpleader claim is mooted, the interpleader claim should be dismissed. See Oldcastle Materials, Inc. v. Rohlin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 762, 787 (N.D. Iowa 2004);Burningtree v. Holland, 760 F. Supp. 118, 119 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader is DISMISSED;
2. Defendant Cohen's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader [Docket # 185] is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. The interpleaded funds currently in the Registry of the Court — including any accrued interest, less the Court Registry handling fee — shall be disbursed to Defendant Cohen within ten days of the date of this Order;
4. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs related to this motion.
Googled this “research” question in one minute: how do i file a foreign restraining order in california court? The answer:
www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
I am protected by the attached protective/restraining order. ... I ask that the attached order be registered with this court for entry into the California Law ... This form sets forth the procedure to register a foreign protection order under Family Code ...
Enforce a Restraining Order - California Courts
Enforcing Out-of-State Restraining Orders
If you have a restraining order from another state, that order is valid in California. Law enforcement must enforce it as long as it is a valid order.
If you want your out-of-state restraining order to be entered into California’s restraining order computer system, you can register your order in California. Once your order is in the computer system, it is available to law enforcement all over California so police officers across the state can find out about your order in case you need to call them.
To register your order with the court:
- Fill out Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS) (Form DV-600).
- Take your Form DV-600 with a certified copy of your restraining order to your local courthouse.
- Once your court registers your order in California, ask the clerk if your court will send your order to the state computer system. If not, take a copy of the order to your local police department.
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Notice of Violations of Permanent Restraining Order - Cease and Desist
To: "Michelle Rice" <mrice@koryrice.com>
Cc: smachat@gmail.com, Dennis@
*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov, wa
Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:28 PM
Rice,
I have been legally advised that I am permitted to ask for all information necessary to prepare and/or amend my 2001-2010 tax returns. That includes, but is not limited to, the complete forensic accounting, an explanation for the illegal and criminal K1s issued by LC Investments, LLC to me (see Cohen's declaration); a retraction of the fraud and perjured lawsuit that wrongfully and illegally converted my property to Cohen (willfully overlooking all evidence); an accounting of all commissions due and owing me; etc.
I am well aware of who was present in Boulder, Colorado and have brought this to the attention of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Treasury - as well as others, including Phil Spector's legal team. That entire proceeding was fraudulent on Cohen's part.
Everything between me and Cohen relates to Cohen's criminal tax fraud that I reported to the IRS. I was NOT served Cohen's lawsuit and the proof of service is fraudulent. There is no judgment but there is concealment of deadly serious issues. I have been legally advised otherwise: that I am permitted to request the tax and financial data I have requested. To say otherwise is a bald faced lie and Carolyn Enichen does NOT have jurisdiction over my federal tax returns. LA Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to alter my federal tax returns and that is criminal. I have also been legally advised that I may request general information I requested. In fact, I was legally advised that it was shocking that a TRO was granted at all.
You're threatening me with arrest are you? Well, you've notified the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and Dennis Riordan of that matter. You cannot threaten me with arrest for requesting information with respect to my tax returns or advising Cohen to cease slandering me. Furthermore, I represent myself and therefore I am opposing counsel. The State Bar advised me that opposing counsel MUST communicate with me.
I believe the FBI should arrest Cohen, you, Kory, and others. Be governed by that opinion.
Kelley Lynch
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com> wrot
Dear Ms. Lynch:
As you know, our office represents Mr. Leonard Cohen. As you also know, Mr. Cohen obtained a permanent Restraining Order (the "No Contact Order" or simply, the "Order") against you in legal proceedings brought in Boulder, Colorado in September 2008. During those legal proceedings on September 2, 2008, you personally appeared in court before Judge Carolyn Enichen. Mr. Robert Kory, Mr. Harvey Steinberg and I were also present as the legal representatives of Mr. Cohen. In open court before Judge Enichen, you acknowledged your receipt of service of the No Contact Order. When read the specific terms of the Order by Judge Enichen, you acknowledged that you understood that under the Order's terms you were thereafter prohibited from attempting to contact Mr. Cohen in any manner.
I have attached a copy of the permanent No Contact Order issued by Judge Enichen to this e-mail for your future reference as well as the reference of those recipients on your recent e-mails who may not understand that your continued direct harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory or attempted or actual indirect harassment through third parties is illegal behavior under the No Contact Order. Your illegal behavior in violation of the court's Order will not be tolerated.
I again refer your attention to the provisions contained in Paragraph 5 of the Order which specifically prohibits you from contacting Mr. Cohen by "phone, mail, e-mail, text message or through third parties." Judge Enichen emphasized during the restraining order proceedings that the "through third parties" language was to be liberally interpreted.
I understand that despite your receipt and acknowledgement of the terms of the No Contact Order, you have resumed your harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory. Those prohibited contacts include repeatedly calling Mr. Cohen at his home residence and Mr. Kory at our offices in Beverly Hills from pre-paid Verizon telephones with California (310) area codes as well as sending dozens of e-mails addressed directly to Mr. Cohen. Each of these prohibited contacts constitutes a separate violation of the No Contact Order and given that the prohibited contacts are repeated and willful, are punishable by arrest and incarceration.
Through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Protective Orders issued by a sister state - in this case, Colorado - are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States. Mr. Cohen's Protective Order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement. I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado Order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the court from which it was issued.
I strongly urge you to cease and desist your violations of the No Contact Order. This is the only warning you will receive before legal enforcement proceedings will commence. Again, I strongly urge you to govern your behavior accordingly.
Sincerely,
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.
As you know, our office represents Mr. Leonard Cohen. As you also know, Mr. Cohen obtained a permanent Restraining Order (the "No Contact Order" or simply, the "Order") against you in legal proceedings brought in Boulder, Colorado in September 2008. During those legal proceedings on September 2, 2008, you personally appeared in court before Judge Carolyn Enichen. Mr. Robert Kory, Mr. Harvey Steinberg and I were also present as the legal representatives of Mr. Cohen. In open court before Judge Enichen, you acknowledged your receipt of service of the No Contact Order. When read the specific terms of the Order by Judge Enichen, you acknowledged that you understood that under the Order's terms you were thereafter prohibited from attempting to contact Mr. Cohen in any manner.
I have attached a copy of the permanent No Contact Order issued by Judge Enichen to this e-mail for your future reference as well as the reference of those recipients on your recent e-mails who may not understand that your continued direct harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory or attempted or actual indirect harassment through third parties is illegal behavior under the No Contact Order. Your illegal behavior in violation of the court's Order will not be tolerated.
I again refer your attention to the provisions contained in Paragraph 5 of the Order which specifically prohibits you from contacting Mr. Cohen by "phone, mail, e-mail, text message or through third parties." Judge Enichen emphasized during the restraining order proceedings that the "through third parties" language was to be liberally interpreted.
I understand that despite your receipt and acknowledgement of the terms of the No Contact Order, you have resumed your harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory. Those prohibited contacts include repeatedly calling Mr. Cohen at his home residence and Mr. Kory at our offices in Beverly Hills from pre-paid Verizon telephones with California (310) area codes as well as sending dozens of e-mails addressed directly to Mr. Cohen. Each of these prohibited contacts constitutes a separate violation of the No Contact Order and given that the prohibited contacts are repeated and willful, are punishable by arrest and incarceration.
Through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Protective Orders issued by a sister state - in this case, Colorado - are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States. Mr. Cohen's Protective Order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement. I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado Order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the court from which it was issued.
I strongly urge you to cease and desist your violations of the No Contact Order. This is the only warning you will receive before legal enforcement proceedings will commence. Again, I strongly urge you to govern your behavior accordingly.
Sincerely,
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Notice of Violations of Permanent Restraining Order - Cease and Desist
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: smachat@gmail.com, Dennis@riordan-horgan.com, *IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov, rbyucaipa@yahoo.com, robert.macmillan@gmail.com, moseszzz@mztv.com, anderson.cooper@cnn.com, wennermedia@gmail.com, rand.hoffman@umusic.com, woodwardb@washpost.com, harriet.ryan@latimes.com, ajackson@da.lacounty.gov, Truc.Do@mto.com, wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov, jthompson@da.lacounty.gov, "Teresa teresa.low"@doj.ca.gov, oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org, anndiamond2002@yahoo.ca
Ms. Lynch:
While I do not desire at this juncture to engage in an extended back and forth communication with you by e-mail or otherwise regarding legal issues that have long since been resolved through several court cases from years ago, since you have taken the time to compose a reply to my previous e-mail, I will take this present opportunity to address the issues you raised in your initial e-mail response. I note that since sending your first e-mail reply, you have subsequently sent out more than two dozen e-mails, some publicly impugning my integrity and calling me everything from a liar to a thug. It was this very same type of menacing, threatening and uncivilized behavior, along with most alarmingly, threats of physical violence towards me, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory that prompted Mr. Cohen to first seek a restraining order against you in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) as early as October 2005. Despite being prohibited by the LASC from continuing to harass Mr. Cohen, you moved to Boulder, Colorado shortly thereafter - conveniently out of reach of Los Angeles law enforcement - and continued your vicious harassment long distance necessitating our seeking permanent redress from your behavior in a Colorado state court. That you now deny that Judge Enichen had personal jurisdiction over you or the issues that were raised in that proceeding is utterly ridiculous given the fact that you personally appeared in court before the judge and signed the restraining order and assented to its terms in open court before many witnesses.
While I do not represent you and what follows should not be in any way construed as offering any kind of legal advice - I assume you have consulted your own independent legal counsel and discussed these issues at length. What follows is my response to the issues you have raised.
First of all, let's assume, arguendo, that you are representing yourself and desire now to be cognizant of and abide by federal law, California state law and the State Bar rules governing the conduct of attorneys and counsel:
1. Mr. Cohen is a represented party and has legal representation. As such, even if there were no permanent Restraining Order in place which prohibited you from contacting Mr. Cohen directly, which there clearly is - he is a 'represented party' and the California State Bar rules prohibit the knowing direct contact of a represented party.
Therefore, as so-called "opposing counsel", please cease and desist contacting Mr. Cohen directly. Thank you for providing another, yet independent legal reason in addition to the Permanent Order of Protection issued by the Colorado court for you to cease and desist your harassment of Mr. Cohen.
2. As for the prohibition from contacting me or Mr. Kory currently to request information regarding Mr. Cohen: this issue was specifically discussed in the restraining order proceedings before Judge Enichen in Colorado and I will happily provide a transcript of those proceedings to refresh your memory regarding the rationale behind the Court's order prohibiting you from contacting our law office regarding Mr. Cohen. The reason the Order of Protection includes a no-contact Order protecting our office (please see Paragraph 2 of the Order) is because there are no current legal proceedings open between you and Mr. Cohen and as such, you have no right to randomly and repeatedly contact our office and demand information and continue your harassment, even if you are as you say "representing yourself." Any lawyer advising you otherwise must not have had full information or the history of the operative facts or knowledge of the Colorado Court's Order upon which to base their advice. Even if there were open unresolved legal proceedings between you and Mr. Cohen, which there are none, there is an orderly process by which to obtain information from an opposing party during the course of litigation proceedings. For the record, you chose not to avail yourself of these orderly processes during the course of litigation proceedings which were instituted to resolve the legal controversies between you and Mr. Cohen nearly five years ago. You were never denied access to any information during the course of any litigation between you and Mr. Cohen. You simply chose not to respond to any of Mr. Cohen's allegations against you. You now rather disingenuously intend to imply that somehow there was some withholding or concealment of information from you during the course of litigation, which is a blatant untruth.
3. As for your current belated requests of our office to provide tax returns, business records and a "forensic accounting" for Mr. Cohen's business entities - you had ample opportunity in the lawsuit Mr. Cohen brought against you in August 2005 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Case Number BC 338322 to request any information of Mr. Cohen that was pertinent to the issues you now belatedly raise many years later. As you are well aware, since you chose not to exercise your legal rights at the time of the lawsuit and failed to respond at all to the complaint, much less engage in an orderly discovery process to obtain the information you now seek, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a default judgment against you in May 2006. The legal issues you now attempt to raise - nearly five years after a Los Angeles Superior Court has entered judgment against you on these very same issues - are fully precluded from being raised again in a court of law by, among others, the doctrines of statutes of limitations, laches and res judicata.
As there are no open litigation matters between you and Mr. Cohen, you have no legitimate reason to continue to contact our law office or Mr. Cohen. Any continued attempt to contact our office or Mr. Cohen is a continued violation of the Permanent Restraining Order. As such, I have no obligation to continue to communicate with you, nor contrary to your assertion, do I or Mr. Kory have any obligation to respond to your demands for information.
Once again, I ask that carefully reread the terms of the permanent Protective Order and carefully consider the consequences of your further actions.
Sincerely,
Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641
NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.
