Pre-Trial Hearing – City Attorney Retaliation – Fraud Domestic Violence Order
June 26, 2017
Department 53
Court: We are here today for pre-trial and follow up on KL’s request for an investigator; discovery update; motion to recuse; City Attorney’s Amended Complaint.
Regarding the Amended Complaint: What charges have been made? What change or addition to charges?
Ralston Henry: At the hearing before last, the People raised the issue of a violation of the order. [This relates to the fraud allegations re. violation of the fraud DV related order issued to Kory and the fabricated evidence pulled from my blog – email to IRS – altered, etc.] I provided the Court with a copy of that email where Ms. Lynch purports to describe the declaration of Robert Kory. The Court asked how long it would take to obtain IP address re. kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com. She said this was not her email address. [Objected to this mischaracterization of my statements to the court.] We obtained a search warrant [which I was not served]. The email address belongs to Ms. Lynch. We have located several emails forwarded to the prior prosecutor by Ms. Lynch from same email. [Truly mind boggling authentication policies.] I have a copy of the search warrant and email addresses. [Provided me with evidence sent from Google related to a Facebook account and email address that are not mine – kelly.lynch.2016@gmail.com.]
The People provided Ms. Lynch notice. We mailed by certified mail list of all discovery and items of discovery. [Never received the package or certified mail notice; neither did Paulette. City Attorney had no signed certified mail notice.]
Court: Did you file Notice dated today? [Amended Complaint]
Henry: Yes.
Doesn’t have a copy that he can provide me.
Henry: We provided it with disc that was mailed to her.
Court: Is it your position that you provided Ms. Lynch with notice of motion? Do you have a return receipt? Proof of service?
Henry: No.
Court: What mailing address are you using?
Henry: 1754 N. Van Ness Avenue.
KL: We have problems with our mail and have filed many complaints. [Mention that Paulette is in the courtroom and she can confirm this; Court said it doesn’t care who is in the courtroom.]
Court: We will set dates. No question that Ms. Lynch has [not] received the documents she is supposed to receive? What did you mail her?
Henry: Took photograph [certified mail receipt].
Court: I accept that you mailed it. I’ll ask you to make a copy of that. I anticipate that there will be more motions filed by both sides. What was in the envelope? Would you agree that she is entitled to the documents? I’m going to go forward with the premise that mailing documents is an insufficient method of service.
RH: At least 13 items were provided. There is a memory stick that has to be copied.
Court: The Court understands that you need time to put together the materials. How much time do you need today to effectuate a duplicate copy. I can have her come back at 11.30. Would you also bring documents – discovery acknowledgment verifying the documents. We are going to agree that she said she did not receive it. Anything included she did not receive. And you did not receive a certified acknowledgment. And you sent it certified.
RH: Sent 6/10.
Court: 16 days. And it has not been returned? Once the discovery is provided to Ms. Lynch, then set a bail review hearing re. OR status.
KL: Asked Court about service of search warrant and whether the search warrant will be in the documents. Judge doesn’t want to hear about this issue.
11:30 AM
Court: This morning the Court asked you to duplicate what you mailed. She advised the Court that she did not receive the package.
RH: I have 24 items. We were unable to duplicate 3. Item 10 (DVD of Google data); Item 14 (Property Record); Item 17 (Forensic Report – letter sent to LC).
Court: Sign the acknowledgment that you received the discovery.
Court: On the next court date will you be able to provide her with the other three items?
RH: Yes.
Court: Discovery dealt with. Copy of Amended Complaint. A new charge that alleges you committed additional crimes. The prosecutor is putting you on notice of their intent to prosecute.
KL: I explain that I’m confused about the charge in Count 17 because no one is named and it doesn’t specify what the charge relates to. I am aware that 166(c)(1) is contempt of court but receive a lecture about the problem with pro se litigants about familiarizing myself with the charges.
Court: Reads Count 17. On 2/27 you violated PC 166(c)(1). Any further information is your responsibility to ascertain. [I object to the fact that domestic violence was raised in this charge, confirm that the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order, and further note that the City Attorney claims it is enforcing the Colorado order.]
1:30 PM
Court: Pre-trial matters on this case. Recusal motion. The Court read all documents. The motion to recuse the City Attorney is denied. The Court finds persuasive People v. Hamilton which sets forth the criteria re. motion to recuse. Recusal is disfavored. No such basis set forth by the moving party. The evidence does not show a conflict of interest.
KL: I ask about recusal of the City Attorney’s Family Violence Unit which is a unit specifically dedicated to prosecuting domestic violence and family violence unit. Mention that there isn’t a domestic violence order and the Colorado order is not a DV order. Court doesn’t care how City Attorney allots their resources.
Court: The fact that Mr. Henry is assigned to a particular unit. No malfeasance. It doesn’t matter.
KL: That he is handling a DV order that doesn’t exist?
Court: I have made my ruling and have stated the current law and the cases which construe the proper basis for a recusal motion. Two prong test: 1) conflict of interest; 2) conflict rendering unfair proceeding.
KL: I ask how I will get a fair trial when the prosecutors have lied throughout my trial, all proceedings to date, and continue to lie to the court and about me. Asked if her ruling relates to prosecutorial misconduct.
Court: [Prosecutorial misconduct] Not a sufficient basis.
Court: Request to have an investigator. The Court went through several options. We have found one. My clerk has located another P.I. The original one had health problems. Provides me with name of investigator. Once this hearing is over, I will have you give your telephone number to the Clerk. The PI will be in touch with you.
Court: Follow up on the requirements for a bail review hearing. What is the basis for the amendment?
Henry: We ask that OR be revoked. Bail to be set.
Court: Set a bail review. Provide to the Court the change in circumstances. Count 17 reflects a change of circumstances. You now have evidence that Ms. Lynch violated the P.O. [This relates to the fabricated evidence and the fraud Kory DV order.]
Henry: We did have evidence. IP search. We have evidence that she violated the restraining order on February 27th. The People are concerned by the willful misrepresentation to the Court that she did not send the email. After the Court continued the case to 11:30, Allan Blackman (City Attorney’s Office) was seated in the dining room. He heard two people having a conversation – Paulette and Kelley – one issue she dealt with: the name on the email [fabricated] was misspelled; the person on the end of the email wrote Kelley with three lls. [This is a blatant lie – the three llls are part of the email address.] Mr. Black (who phoned Ralston Henry) relayed that he heard – woman on the phone asking how could she change the name on the email. We will have Mr. Blackman at the bail review hearing. Asks for bail of $20K re. the new charge (contempt of court).
KL: I object to Henry’s statements at this point. I inform the Court that I called REDACTED and advised the Court what evidence/information he wanted from me related to the fabricated email. I said I think it’s relevant and material to find out if (and how) an email name/address can be changed after one opens the account. This relates to the email address with three llls and the altered email to IRS that was posted on my blog on February 26, 2017.
Court: Any other alleged contact other than the February 27th email?
Court: I am going to follow my normal course of conduct when dealing with a [first or initial] violation. I am going to admonish Ms. Lynch that she has no contact with Kory and Rice or any member of the City Attorney’s Office.
[Setting of a bail hearing mentioned.]
KL: I didn’t send the email.
Court: You have several cumulative charges – no contact. This [charge/allegation] will be determined at trial.
[I mention that Ralston Henry is once again “lying.”] The Court lectures me about using the word “liar” and/or “lying.” I ask how she would like me to address it and ask if it is lying when he lies to the court about me. She mentions the phrase “misrepresentation of facts.”
Ralston Henry: [Hands me a document re. prior bad acts – including 1109 (domestic violence) which I object to; court overrules and notes that this will be addressed later.]. Notice of the People’s intent to introduce evidence – 1109, 1101, and 1102.
Some discussion about this evidence.
Court: Whether or not it is admissible will be determined at a later date.
I ask about the Table of Contents the Court instructed Henry to bring to this hearing re. the evidence binders. He states that the evidence he provided me, including thumb drive, has all email evidence. That takes the place of the index. Putting me on notice of other evidence of bad acts. I ask the Court if the City Attorney could provide me with information re. the prior bad acts raised during my trial as it is relevant and material to “prior bad acts.” I explain that I have no idea what the prior bad acts were. Henry says I sought appellate review which has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. I mention the fact that my public defenders have not provided me with any information related to this. Court notes that this is collateral. I note that one of my prior bad acts evidently related to former DA Steve Cooley. Henry mentions Case No. 2CA04539. Court takes note of the case number.
Court: When and if Mr. Henry seeks to introduce prior conduct, he will file a motion and admissibility [will be addressed].
Court: Next Pre-Trial (Discovery) – August 1, 2017. Trial could be scheduled for 20 days following that date if parties are prepared.
Henry notes that he needs additional documents: Colorado Court documents that are certified. He’ll provide that to me at hearing on the 1st.
EMAIL POSTED ON MY BLOG
Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS Re: the City Attorney of Los Angeles, Federal Tax Matters, & Robert Kory's Thoroughly Deranged Declaration
