MICHELLE L, RICE, SBN 235189 KORY 4 Rick, LEP conFonmeD c il ‘Blvd., Suite 200 a Beverly Hills, Clifornia 90212 super Benno etna Felephone: G10) ze ieee aunty of Los Angeles: ;mail: mriee(@korveice.com AUG 17 2015 tory for PLAINTIFF EEONARD NORMAN COHEN Shera can taste feng 8y: Niche Rearauen, Oeply ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -CENTRAL DISTRICT “ASE NO.: BQU33717 ssigned to the Hon. B, Scot Silverman; ph? QUEST FOR JUDICIAL, NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION "0 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET SIDE/VACATE MAY 25,2011 "ALIFORNIA REGISTRATION OF "LAINTIFF'S COLORADO PERMANENT ROTECTION ORDER LEONARD NORMAN COHEN, PlaintitPetitioner KELLEY ANN LYNCH. Defendanv/Respondent fearing Date: September 1, 2015 ime: $30 A.M. pt: 7 ‘olorado Onder Registered: May 25, 2011 ‘TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND DEFENDANT IN PRO PER: Pursuant to Scotions 451, 452 and 453 of the California Bvidence Cade, California Rules JoF Court, Rules 3.1113() and 3.1306(e) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §273(a), Plaintiff requests thatthe Court take judicial notice of the following documents, attached as Exhibits 1~ 15 hereto, in ruling on Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate the May 25, 2011 California Registration of Plaintiff's Colorado Permanent Protection Order “Colorado PPO.”10 u 2 13 “ 8 6 ” 18 1» 2» a 2 24 26 Py 28 ‘Authority Tudicial Council Form DV-600, revised July 1, 2015 Plainiff's Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order, Boulder County Court, State of Colorado, Case Number 20080776, Filed August 19, 2008 Certified Transcript of Proceedings held in the Matter of Leonard Cohen v, Kelley Lynch, Permanent Restraining Order Hearing, Boulder County Court, State of Colorado, September 2, 2008, Case No, 2008C776, Division 8, Before the Honorable Carolyn Enichen, Judge ofthe Boulder County Court, (Clerk's Cerificate of Copy, Register of Action, Permanent Civil Protection Order, Leonard Norman Cohen v, Kelley Ann Lynch, Case Number: 20086776, County Court, County of Boulder, State of Colorado ‘May 25, 2011 Order of the Los Angeles Superior Court Registering Colorado PPO ‘Reporter's Transcript of Hearing, March 23, 2012, The People of te State of California_v. Kelley Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number, 2CA04539, People's Proposed Sentencing Memorandum, People ofthe State of California 1. Kelley Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 2CA04539, filed ‘April 17, 3012 Centfied Reporters Transcript oF hearing April 12, 2012 before the Honorable Robert C. Vanderet, Peopie v. Lunch, Los Angeles Superior Court Criminal Case Number 204539. ‘Appellant's Opening Brief, The People of the State of California v. Kelley Lynch, Appeal from the Honorable Robert C. Vanderet, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 2CA04539, Appellate Division of the Superior Court, Case No, BR 050096, fled November 17, 2012. 0 ‘Respondent's Opening Brief, The People of the State of Calfomia v. Kelley Lynch, Appeal fiom Los Angeles Superior Court No. 2CA04539, filed February 14, 2013, Opinion of the Appellate Division of the Superior Coun of Los Angeles, ‘of the State of . Lynch, Case Number BR0S0096, Central Trial Court No. 2CA04539, filed May 29, 2013. @ Onder of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Ine Kelley Lynch on Habeas Corpus, Case Number BX 001309, Central Trial ‘Cour Gase Number 2CA04539, filed May 29, 2013, 3 Colorado Revised Statutes (2008) §13-14-102 @ Colorado Revised Stanutes (2008) §18-9-117 is TS USC. §2265, Full Faith and Credit Given to Protection Orders10 2 B 4 18 16 7 18 » » a 2 24 25 26 a 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Cal. Evid. Code $450. Cal. Evid. Code §451 establishes matters for which judicial notice is mandatory. Cal. Evid, Code §452 establishes matters for which judicial notice is perm Section 451 of the Evidence Code provides that mandatory judicial notice shall be taken ofthe decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and ofthe United States.” Cal Evid. Code §451(8)..Seotion 452(d)(1) ofthe Evidence Code provides tha itis eppropiate fora court to take dice notice of “records of..any court inthis state” and “as well as “facts and propositions tht are not reasonably subject to dapute and are capable of immediat and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Cal Bvid, Code §452(2) and (h). Seetion 425(8)(2) provides that iti appropiate fora court to take judicial notie of records of:..any cour of record of the United States or of any state of the United States” Cal mandated for matters that comport with the Evid. Code §452(4X2). Judicial notice requirements of Evidence Code §452 and §453, provided that the requesting party: (1) gives adequate notice to the adverse party; and (2) includes sufficient information to enable the Court to ake judicial notice, See Cal. Bvid. Code $6452, 453. Only relevant materiel may be noticed, Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. #8 1122, 1135 fi. 1 (Cal, 2001); Mangini v. RJ. Revnalds Tobacco Co., 7 Cal. 4" 1057, 1063 (Cal. 1994) overruled on other grounds by in Re Tobacco Cases I 41 Cal. 4! 1257 (Cal. 2007}*judicial notice, since it is & substitute for proof, is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issues at hand”). California Rules of Court 3.11134) provides that “any request for judicial notice must be mace in 2 seperate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must Jcomply with rule 3.1306(¢)." Rule 3.1306 provides that a party requesting ju ‘material under Evidence Code 452 or 453 must provide the court with and each party with a copy ical notice of ofthe material0 " n 1B 4 15 16 7 18 ry 20 a 2 4 2s 26 a 28 |. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPERLY TAKEN OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM. Dv-600 Exhibit 1 is a blank Judicial Council Form DV-600, a document entitled “Order to Register Out-of State or Tribal Cour ProtetiveRestining Onder (CLETS-OOS)” Judicial notice is properly taken of this form because itis the mandatory form adopted by the Judicial }Council for use in all Califia courts to register an ouvoF-state protetion order under Family Code §6404 as noted inthe lower le-hand comer ofthe first page ofthe fom, Exh. 1. Panily JCode §§6400-6409 is known as the “Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act” and Section 6404(a) provides that any foreign protection order when presented for repistation in Califonia “shall” be registered and entered into the California Law mn 6380, Fam, Code [Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) established under Se $6380, $6404(a)(1). Section 6401(5) of the Uniform Act defines a “protection order” that may be registered pursuant to Section 6404 as “an injunction or other order, issued by a tribunal under the suing state, to prevent an domestic violence, family violnoe, or antstalking laws of the individual from engaging in violent or theatening acts against, harassment of, contact or Jcommuniation with, ox physial proximity to, another individual” Fam, Code $6401(5). Form DY-600 was revised effective July 1, 2015 and is now s two-page form On the sccond page of the form i clearly sites: “no court hearing is requted to register the foreign protection order” Exh. 1 p.2 ‘This document is relevant because Lynch argues in her Motion thatthe Colorado PPO, ‘which Lynch acknowledges was issued under the antstalking las of Colorado, was improperly registered in Califomia on Form DY-600, Motion, p. 2, lines 5-9; 14-15. Lynch futher argues 10 a domestic that such registration “wrongflly modified and transformed the Colorado order violence onder.” Id. Lynch also argues that the Califomia Registation is “void” and unenforceable” because there was no hearing held on the California Regstation ofthe Colorado PPO in Califomia, 1d, at pp. 25 Plaintiff sequests thatthe Court take judicial notice of Form DV-600 for wo purposes: /1) that Form DV-600 clearly states that no hearing is required to register a foreign protection0 u 2 B 4 15 16 ” 18 » 2 23 25 a 28 order; and (2) thatthe use ofthis form is mandatory when registering an out-of state order that has been issued under the entistalking laws of the issuing stat, Ml, JUDICIAL NOTICE 1S PROPERLY TAKEN OF THE COURT RECORDS OF BOULDER COUNTY COURT IN LEONARD COHEN V. KELLEY LYNCH, CIVIL CASE NUMBER 20080776 California Evidence Code §452(d)(2) provides that a court may take judicial notice of the records of “any court of record of the United States or of any state af the United States.” Cal, Evid. Code §452(4\2), Plaintiff requests the Court notice the following decuments from the 2008 civil protection order proceedings against Lynch in Boulder County Court in the matter of Lconard_Cohen v. Kelley Lynch, Civil Case Number 2008C776 in the state of Colorado: 1) PleinsifP's Vevitied Motion for Civil Protection Ones filed August 19, 2008; 2) the certified fwanseript of the permanent protection onder heaving held on Seplember 2, 2008 before the Honorable Carolyn Exichen, Judge of the Boulder County Court; (3) Boulder County Court [Clerk's Cerca of Copy, Register of Action snd Permanent Civil Protection Onde. Exhibit 2 is PlinGf's Verified Motion for Civil Protection Onder fled on August 19, 2008. This document is relevant to these proceedings because it shows that Cohen applied for an onder of protection in Colorado against Lync forsaking under CRS. §18-9-111(4) to (6) and physical assault, threat or oe situation.” Exh. 2. Exhibit 3s the cerifed transript of the permanent restraining order hearing held on September 2, 2008 in Boulder County Court, State of Colorado, in Civil Case Number 2008776, before the Honorable Carlyn Enichen. “The report ofthe offical reporter, o official porter pro tempore of any cout, duly appointed an sworn, when transcribed and certified as being &comect transcript ofthe testimony and proccoings inthe ease is prima face evidence of tht testimony and proceedings." Cal, Code Civ. Proc. §273(a). The ceritied taasetipt of the September 2, 2008 hearing is relevant to this aston in chat it demonstrates that Lynch had notice ofthe Colorado protection order by making personal appearance atthe permanent protetion order hearing and sssenting t the no-contact and stay-sway tems and condition ofthat order, Exh 3, p. 27, lines0 a 2 13 4 18 16 ” 18 19 20 a a 23 4 26 28 11-24, It also demonstrates that Lynch signed the permanent protection order in open. court, thereby waiving any claimed defects in personal service of the temporary protection order or any subsequent challenges to the personal jurisdiction ofthe Colorado court. Id, Exhibit 4 is the Boulder County Court Clerk's Certified Copy of the Register of Action in civil case number 2008C776 and a certified copy of Plaintiff's Permanent Civil Protection Order issued on September 2, 2008. The Register of Action is relevant in thet it reflects thatthe “Motion to Quash” the Colorado PPO filed by Lynch on December 2, 2008 was denied by order of the Boulder County Court on Jansary 12, 2009. Exh. 4. The entry on the Register states: “The Motion to dismiss the PPO is denied. The CT reminds the DEF that se agreed tothe entry ofthe PPO on 9.2.08." Id. The January 12, 2009 Order denying Lynch's Motion to Dismiss the permanent protection order isthe “last event” listed on the Register. Id, The Register of Action also shows that the temporary protection order was vacsted on September 2, 2008 end was replaced by the Permanent Protection Order issued atthe permanent restraining order bearing held Jon September 2, 2008. Id. Accordingly, Plaintif requests thatthe Court take judicial notice of the court records from. the Boulder County Court, State of Colorado in Exhibits 2-4. IIL JUDICIAL NOTICE 1S PROPERLY TAKEN OF COURT RECORDS OF THE, ‘APRIL 2012 CRIMINAL TRIAL OF KELLEY LYNCH FOR VIOLATIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S PROTECTION ORDER; THE APPELLATE COURT RECORDS: OF LYNCH'S APPEAL OF HER CRIMINAL CONVICTION; AND THE ORDER DENYING HER PETITION KOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS California courts may take judicial notice of “(records of...any court in this state.” Cal Evid. Code §452(€)(1). “It is setled that a court may take judicial notice of the contents ofits own records.” Duan v. Dison, 216 Cal. App. 2d 260, 265 (Cal. 1963). A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but ean only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments. Magnolia Square Homeowners Ase'n v, Safeco In, Co, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1049, 1056 (Cal. Ct. App, 6" 1990), When courts take judicial notice of the existence of court documents,the legal effect of the results reached in orders and judgments may be established. Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowmers Ass'n, Inc. v. Tecolote Investors, LLC, 234 Cal. App. 4 166, 185 (Cal. Ct App. 2015); Wiliams v. Wraxall, 33 Cal. App. 4120, 130 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1 1995)Gjudicial notice of the th of results reached in orders, statements of desision, and |udgments allowed). Exhibit 7 is People’s Proposed Sentencing Memorandum filed by the City Attomey's Office on Aprit 17, 2012 in People v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number }2CA04339. This document is relevant to these proceedings because Lynch argues in her Motion that “Cohen does not qualify as a protected party according to the Domestic Violence Protection Lic, Prevention} Act” (Family Code §6200 et seq.) Motion, p. 2, lines 22-23. The issue of whether Cohen qualified as a protected party within the meaning of Family Code §6211 was determined by the trial court in Lynch's criminal trial, In the People’s Proposed Sentencing Memorandum, the prosecution argued that “victim (Cohen) would be described pursuent to Family Code §6211(@) as someone ‘with whom [defendant] is having or has had a dating or Jengagement relationship.” Exh, 7, pp. 2-3. The People argued that Penal Code §1203,097 was applicable for sentencing purposes. Id. Exhibits 6 and 8 attached hereto are certified transripts of court proce eld in Penne v. Lunch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Numbet 2CAO4S39: 1) the bail hering held Jon March 23,2012 before the Honorable Samuel Mayerson, Judge ofthe Los Angeles Superior JCout; and 2) the sentencing hessing held on April 17, 2012 before the Honorable Robert ]vanderet, Judge ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court. The transcript of Lynch's sentencing hearing is relevant to these proceedings beeause Lynch's public defenders azgued that “the orders that were given in this case, the Colorado and the Califomia orders, were not of the type that are required under (Penal Code] 273.6" because of the “requirement of domestic violence in this ease Exh, 8, pp. 639, lines 6-23. The tial cour rejected the defenses argument and Lynch was convicted bythe jury of ive counts of Penal Code §273 68. Ida p. 642, lines 6-11. Exhibits 9 and 10 are Appellants and Respondent's opening brie, respectively, filed in Lynch's appeal fom her criminal convition, Los Angeles Superior Court Appellee Division0 a 2 13 “4 18 16 1" 18 19 20 24 23 2s 26 21 Case Number BROSOO96, Exhibit 11 is the May 29, 2013 Opinion of the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court affirming Lynch's convition, in Appellate Case Number /BROSO096. Exhibit 12 isthe May 29, 2013 Order of the Appellate Division denying Lynch's petition for wt of habeas corpus in Case Number BX 001309, The sppelste cout records are relevant to these proceedings besause Lynch raised in her appeal issues that she now seeks to reiigte in her Motion, As in her current Motion, Lynch argued on appeal thatthe lack of service of the California Registration of the Colorado PPO renders the California Registration void” and “unenforceable” and violated her dv procass rights. Motion, pp. 35; Exh 9, pp. 13- 14, The Appellote Cour rejected this argument in affirming her conviction and in denying her peti for wrt of habeas corpus, Exh 1, p. 4, lines 21-25; Exh 2, p. 2, lines 22-27. Lynch's Appellant's Opening bit is relevant because Lynch didnot challenge the valiity of the California Registration of the Colorado PPO, her conviction of five counts of Penal Code fotence laws on appeal. Exh, 9. In her §273,6(a) and her sentencing under California's domestic ‘Appellant brief, Lynch states: “Mr. Cohen and Ms, Lynch had an intimate relationship, sometimes sexual that spanned for a period of time.” Exh. 9, p. 5. In her Motion, Lynch claims that there ‘was no “intimate” or “dating” relationship with Plaintiff and secks to “vacate” the Californis, Registration of the Colorado PPO on that basis. Motion, p. 2, lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 10-125 p. 9, lines 24.25; Lynch Deel. 6. ‘The Los Angeles Superi because the issues Lynch now raises in her Motion to attempt to vacate the California Registration ofthe Colorado PPO have been determined in the prior criminal proceeding for Lynch's violations lof Plaintf’s Colorado PPO. The documents show the issues that were rsised in Lynch's criminal ‘Court records in Exhibits 6-12 are relevant to this proceeding vial and considered on appeal. When courts take judicial notice of the existence of cout documents, the legal elfect of the results reached in orders and judgments may be established, Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowners Assn’n, Inc, 234 Cal. App. 4® at 185. ‘Thus, the legal effect of May 29, 2013 Opinion of the Appellate Division affirming her conviction and the /May 29, 2013 Order denying Lynch's collateral attack upon the final criminal judgment by Petition for writ of habeas corpus may be established to bar Lynch fiom seeking to reltigae issues4 is 16 7 8 1» a 23 25 a 28 conclusively determined by the criminal judgment. Seo Exhs, 11,12 Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice of the court records of the Los | Angeles Superior Court in Exhibits 6-12. IV, JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPERLY TAKEN OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES OPERATIVE AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF COHEN'S 2008 COLORADO PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER AGAINST LYNCH Califia Evidence Code §452(0) provides thet judicial notice may be taken of “the decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state ofthe United States” Cal, Evid. Code 452() Judicial notice is therefore propely taken of Colorado Revised Statutes §13-14-102 and §18-9-111, ataced as Exhibits 13 and 14 hereto, These statutes are relevant because Cohen's Colorado Permanent Protetion Order was isued under CRS, §13-14-102, Exh. 5, Section 13+ 14-102(1.5) authorizes any Colorado cour to issue civil protection onder: “(a to prevent assaults and treated bodily harm; (6 to prevent domestic abuse; () to prevent emotional abuse ofthe elderly or ofan atisk adul and (8) to prevent stalking” CRS, §13-14-102(.5)@)(4) Exit 1 is the archival version ofthe state as it existed in 208 when Cohen's PPO was issued by the Boulder County Court on September 2, 2008. In Cohen's Verified Petition for Civil Protection ]Ordes, Exhibit 2, Cohen applied for the Protection Order against Lynch on the basis of stalking Exh.2. lunder §18-9-111(6) 0 (6), CRS, and “physical assault, reat or other situation, 111 is the statute governing staking. CRS. §18-9- Colorado Revised Statute 184 111(4)@) discusses the legislative intent ofits antistalking statute Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, itentals great predictability and creates great stress and fear forthe vitim. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim’s personal privacy and autonomy, with an ‘mediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety ‘of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. ‘The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking tnd edopts the provisions inthis subsection (4) and subsections (5) and (6) ofthis seetion with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can «sealate into behavior that has even more serious consequences, Because stalking is “an extraordinary tisk crime”, section 5(a) of the antistaking statute provides for first offense to be charged as a felony under Colorado law. CRS. §18-9-111(5\@),Accordingly, judicial notice is properly taken of the Colorado Revised Statates in Exhibits Band M4, SUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPERLY TAKEN OF FEDERAL LAW PROVIDING FOR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO PROTECTION ORDERS BY THE STATES, 18 US.C. §2265 be taken of the California Evidence Code §451(@) requires mandatory judicial not “decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States.” Cal. iff attaches as Exhibit 15 documents obtained from the United States Evid. Code §451(a). PI |Code Service Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110A, relating to Domestic Violence and Stalking. The code sections provided are 18 U.S.C. §2265, relating to fall faith and credit given to protection orders, and Section 2266, which contains definitions forthe state. ‘These federal code sections are relevant to this proceeding because the Colorado PPO states on page 3 that “This Order or injunction shall be accorded full faith and eredit and be enforced in every civil or criminal court of the United States, Indian Tribe or United States Tensitory pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2265." Bxh. 5, p. 3. Section 2265() provides that “any protection order issued consistent with subsection (b) ofthis setion...shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State.” Section 2265(b) provides that “a protection order issued by a State...is consistent with this subsection if— (1) such court has jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of such State.and; (2) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to protect that person's right to due process.” Section 2266(5)(B) defines “protection order” to include stalking. Lynch argues in her Motion, without any supporting citations, other than reference to 18 /USS.C. $2265(a)-(b), that the Colorado PPO is not entitled to full faith and credit in California junder 18 U.S.C. §2265 because it was not issued under the domestic violence statute of Calorado, which is a misreading of the statute's provisions. Motion, p. 10. Section 2265(d) provides that a State...according full faith and credit to an order by a court of another State... shall not notify or require notification ofthe party ageinst whom a protection order has been issued that the protection order has been registered or fed in thatu n B 4 15 16 7 18 » a 23 24 26 an 28 enforcing State.” 18 U.S.C. §2265(d). Lynch argues in her Motion that lack of Proof of Service ofthe May 25,2011 Calfomia Registration makes the Order on the California Registration void and unenforceable and continues to assert, as she did unsuccessfully inher appeal from her criminal conviction, the lack of service as a basis to vacate the California Registration. (See Motion, p. 3 lines 13-14, wherein Lynch argues tht “no proof of service dated May 25, 2011 is attached tothe registration of the Colorado order in Califomnia."). Section 2265(@) clearly provides that notification of the act of registration ofthe foreign oxder inthe enforcing state isnot required. ‘Plaintiff requests thatthe Court take judicial notice of 18 U.S.C. §2265(d) the Notification and Registration provision of the statute and the “definitions” section of 18 U.S.C. §2266(5)(B) suhich defines “protection order” under the statute to include “(B) any... orders, remedies or ree issued as part ofa protection order, restraining order, or injunction pursuant to State. authorizing the issuance of protection orders, restraining orders, or injunctions for the protection of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, or stalking,” (emphasis supplied. VL CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court tke judicial notice of the documents attached hereto in Exhibits 1-15 DATED: Avgust {P2015 Respectfully submitted, mcf MICHELLE L. RICE KORY & RICE, LLP 9300 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF <10-Exhibit 1Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal [A tes dle ore wt To oc, aed) Court Protective/Restraining Order @ Name of Protected Person: Your aver nis case you have one) Name: _ State Bar No. Fim Nim [Altes (I oi have a Taper forts case, give you Tamers Information. you do ot have layer ane want to keep your home aves private, ive a diferen mang adress instead. Yu donot have to give you telephone, fx, or oma ‘Superior Court of Clem fe Cay Tp Tete EM Ao - @ Name of Restrained Person: See omr Sec OM OF Race Address (ono citys Sia Relationship to protested person Height Hair Color Bye Color Date of Bint Tan protected by the atached protesivelestaining order. The oder was made By name and alivass of ur The attached order: + Is tue and corost copy * Is curently valid and in fll force and effect + Has not been changed, canceled, or replaced by any other order *+ Was made ina diferent sae, U'S. teritory, Indian tribal court, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands or ina military court + Expires on (das) - 1 ask tat the attached order be repstered with this court for entry into the California Law Enforcoment and ‘elecommunication Systom (CLETS). My request is voluntary. understand that registration ofthe onder is not necessary for enforcement. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of ® @ California thatthe above information is trac and Dat , Tip or prayer iar nae er ESE Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court DV-E00, Pape et FESVEu iat Mocs) Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS-OOS) > (Domestic Violence Prevention)‘The attached out of tate restraining order is registred, valid and enforceable in California, and ean be entered into CCLETS, unless it ends ors changed by the court that made it Date “Tage or Fuoial Officer) edfe_ Sout clerk Must Seal This For and Atachod Foreign Protection Oder tom rh reset cg pein er ene Parl Ordon fo oon heaving is require to vister the foreign protection order] This frm and the stached foreign protection srder must be sealed pursuant to Family Code section 6704). Acsess othe foreign protection order is allowed only to Jay enforcement, the person who registered the order pon written request wth proof of ientieation, the defense ater arraignment on criminal charges involving an alleged violation of the order, or upon further order ofthe (Clerk wit ft ou this port) —Clerk’s Certficato— Che's Cote 1 cert that this Orde to Register Outof State or Tribal Court Proteeive/Restraining nl} (Onder is a tue and core apy ofthe orginal en file inthe cour Da: Clerk, by Deputy eee eae Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court BV-600, Pope 22 Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS-O0S) (Domestic Violence Prevention)Exhibit 2Court, mae ‘State of Colorado Tne stee , Boal, Colrao 80302 sou EBL Hh neaus 19. 1 G01 PhaintfoPetiioner: LEONARD NORMAN COHEN DOB: 09/21/1934 Dateien KELLEY ANN LYNCH Bose ermont cour ustonny_ ay AS cae Sn Seti 2 on rn, 20 Dene Coa ata OBC FH Fetter 30-0620 | PAX Number: 303-832-7116 Atty, Reg. #: 9196 Division ——_Courtoom ‘Attorneys for PlaintiiPetidoner _ VERIFIED MOTION FOR CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER | Protection Order, nd in [LEONARD NORMAN COHEN request this Court to issue « Ci support of thie requst states the following 1. Tem seeking this Civil Protection Order asa victim ofthe following 1 Domestic Abuse (§13-14-101(2), CRS.) Stalking (18-9-111(4) (0, CRS) 1 Senual Assault (§18-3-402(1), CRS) {D Ualawiul Sexual Contact (18-3-404, CRS.) Oi Abuse ofthe Biden or an AURisk Adult (§26-3.1-101(1), CRS) 1 Physial Assul, Theat or oher situation, 1. Lresde or am employed inthe County of LOS ANGELES State of CALIFORNIA, and KELUEY. ANN LYNCH is believed toresde inthe County of BOULDER, State of COLORADO. know [KELLEY ANN LYNCH because: Ms, Lynch was a former employee. 8) Theos recent incident hat causes me task fora Civil Protection Order occured on oF bout See, EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto, 1) Te most serous incident that causes me to ask for a Civil Protection Order oveared on ov about See, EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto, 9) Any ober past incidents of violence or threats? The threat of violence, stalking, ‘lander, and harassment has Been ongoing since approximately Apri, 2005,sere Me i terre Ra fre sent ee Calf apenas mt Sn a ena alone chon 6) Asotin Oe crea efit ei ort ir mat Yeti ci Pein rr psn Stef Cann opin oman 44. Telieve that I am in imminent danger ftom KELLEY ANN LYNCH, © Harm to my life or health if she snot esined as requested [ Physia! or emotional! har to my emodonal health or welfare if se snot excuded from he family home, the home of anotker, ending emails to myself the protected persons or third pres associated lo me, ise eno ressined from baving third parties contect me, and ifshe {snot restrained from placing phone calls ome, or protected persons listed inthe Civid Protection Order, and other hed partes associated with me. 44 request te following relief fom the Court hat KELLEY ANN LYNCH: 2) Be ordered orefinin from attacking, beating, molesting, itimidating, nd ‘verbally harasing me, following me, threatening my life, or threatening me or anyother ‘protected person listed onthe Civil Protection Order with serious boaly injury. 1b) & Beordered to hve no contact tall with me or the other Protected Persons ©) Becexchded fom my home, werk and eter 8) Beexolaed from making calls tome or anyone associated with me, ©) & Beexchuded ftom emailing me or anyone astocited with me 1) &1 Becaclded from making public sttement bout me o any public ety (Le ewspepers websites, logs, any frm of ress, ee) f) @ Boexcluded from making contacto third partes associated with me. 8) & Beexcluded from having third purty individuals make contact with me or any person sociated with me. 1) B Beordered to stay at eat $00 yrds fom the following places: Home: Work: Bother: 5, request that be permitted to omit my adces from this Verified Motion for Civil Protection Orde, ‘eoause am a public figure and including my adress may endanger me farther,{swear or firm under penlty of perjury that he information contined in his Verified [Motion for Civil Poteotion Order is tre and correct Ttnderstand that onee a Civil Protection Order is [Roted it cannot be modified or diisod by me or the other person without permission ofthe Cour. AA Uenndiiten ey A Sieabare ‘Leonard Newnan Cakes Subserted and aired, or wor o before me in te County of _Denvey , Sate of Colorado, his__14 "day of Angst, 2008, My Commission Expives:_/ /t Jzz010 Tyas op TS "Notice: Colorado Revised States §13-14102 identifies tht a temporary injunction may be issued by the Court and that upon personal tvice or upon waiver and acceptance of service by the Restrained Pecan, isto bein efect against the Restsined Person for period determined tobe appropriate by the Court This injunetionrstsins the Restined Person from: 1. Ce transportation, is only about the safety of the Plaintife, Tt ien’e about the IRS for example. And Ia a m 25 don’t mean financial MS. LYNCH: Well, T understend that. THE COURT: Okay. So that's the subject, the topic, and the heart of the matter. Ms. IYNCH: But ae ~~ THE COURT: Safety of the Plaintiff. MS, TYNCH: But there is evidence here that this man has tried to silence and terrorize me, crush and destroy me -— THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: -- 90 it’s hard for me to sit here. THE COURT: Probably it would be if those things were true, but let me tell you another thing. MS. LYNCH: Okay. ‘THE COURT: ‘This is not ~~ MS. LYNCH: Me-hewn. ‘THE CouRT: ~~ about whether you aze at risk for your safety. This is not -- that is not the issue at all. MS. LYNCH: No, this is a preemptive legal strike, but ‘THE COURT: We don't ~~ we don't in Colorado, have what are called mutual restraining orders MS. LYNCH: You don’t? 1 couldn't get a reciprocal one?n 2 B 1“ 1s 1s ” 8 19 20 a 2 6 THE COURT: You could only apply as did he, pay the filing fee, and allege the grounds by which you think ‘that you are in danger. ut right now this moment —~ MS. LYNCH: tinh. IME COURT: -- we are proceeding only on the issue of whether or not you pose a risk to his safety. MS. LYNCH: And in the futuse can I attack this Af it’s brought ~~ if I can prove it’s fraudulent and there's perjury going on here? THE COURT: First of all T haven't even ruled MS. LYNCH: Right. THE COURT: Bue Lf there’s @ ruling that is adverse to you and you ~~ and you wish to appeal the proceedings, you can always do that. Ms, LYNCH: Okay. Fine. ‘THE COURT: As can anybody. MS. LYNCH: Thank you very much for your tine. ‘THE COURT: You’ re welcone. Mz. Steinberg, you may proceed. MR. STEINBERG: I call Kelley Lynch to the scand. ‘THE COURT: Okay. Please come right up here MS. LYNCH: Okay. Can I just leave my bag here? ‘THE COURT: Whatever's moze comfortable.u 2 B 4 6 a 8 9 20 21 2 m Ms. LUNCH: Okay. ‘SELLEY LUNCH called as an adverse witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, testified as follow: MS. LYNCH: I do. Tue COURT: Okay. Ms. LYNCH: Thank you. THE COURT: Please be seated. Just make sure that microphone {e turned right towards you which it looks 1ike it is. NS. LYNCH: And Ronald mitchell is in the courtroom and I was wondering if he had contact with cohen ‘THE COURT: What I'm going to do because T don’t know who that is er what this is about -- MS. nyc: Uh-huh. ‘THE COURT: -— is simply to make a sequestration order, end T order any potential witnesses to be seated in the hall and order them not to discuss testimony with any other person. HS. LYNCH: So would that include Hr. Ronald Mitchell sitting right there? ‘THE COURT: I have no idea if he's a witness. Mg. LYNCH: He -- I don’t know how he could be a witness.10 B B “ 1s 8 m with poten 8 ‘WE COURT: Well, I just —- my ruling has to do (thal witnesses. And you algo have the right to call witnesses. witnesses. is. Lye: 1 -- T don’t want to call 1 have plenty for later. THE COURT: Okay. WS. LYNCH: But I thought perhaps Ronald witchell was contacted by Leonard Cohen and it’s ~~ Mr. Cohen ‘THE COURT: I don’t known anything ~ MS. LYNCH: -- an onchostrated campaign ‘HE COURT: Let's focus here. Te’s about and you. Mg. LYNCH: Torturing me. HE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: Okay. That's fine. THE COURT: No editorial conuents, please. MR, STEINBERG: May I? HE COURT: You may proceed. (DIRECT_EXAMINATION BY WR. STEINBERG: @ your last a a a can T get you to state your full name and spell name for the court record, ma’ an? Kelley Ann Lynch, L-y-n-c-h. And you your address? My address is care of Idz Craig, 7432 Brockway10 1" 2 B 4 1s 16 ” 8 9 20 B 2s Drive, Boulder, Colorado, 80303. I don't have a residence any longer. My rent was only paid through yesterday. @ okay. A So 1/11 probably be staying with the Craigs © And you know who te. Leonard Cohen 1s? A obviously. © And is St conrect that you vere served @ restraining order from California, and you received that restraining order in person? When? Q Did you ever receive one? A Are you aking me about this one or one years ago? When the sheriff's department was there grabbing docunents for the IRS? a ves. A Yes, I did. A fraudulent one that I didn’t contest @ Okay, So we're aware you agree that you were personally served a restraining order in the state of california, correct? A Yes. Q And that restraining order prevented you from having any contact, either directly or indirectly with0 " 2 8 1“ 15 16 7 8 19 a 2 Py 2s Mr. Cohen, a defrauded talking. 10 correct? So that meant Mr, Robert Cory about being in huge financial issues? THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. ws. LYNCH: Yeah. ‘THE COURT: When T start talking no more you only answer the question asked. Mg. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: For example, he didn’t ask you a question that had to do with another person. Ms, LYNCH: Okay. ‘THE COURT: And you responded by talking of another person. @ MS. LYNCH: ALL right. THE COURT: I know it’s hard. okay. 1/21 try. HE COURT: Okay, Ms. LWNCH: AL right. ‘Tae COURT: Thanks. (By tir. Steinberg) Am I correct that you were aware of the restraining order, yes? a @ We've already been through that, yes and that it prohibited you from having either a We've gotten there, yes. understand that.u 2 B 4 15 16 17 18 19 a 2 4 25 4 ‘THE COURT: Okay. He hasn't finished the question. @ (By Mr. Steinberg) gither directly or indirectly with Me. Cohen, correct? A T understood directly. 1 don’t really know what indizectly means to answer the question. Q okay. Did you read a copy of the restraining order? AT don’t know what indirectly means at this point. QT don’t think that was my question. Let me ask you again. AI ust answered ay question. TEE COURT: Excuse me MS. LyNcH: 1 -~ but T don’t know what indirectly means, can you tell me? ‘THE COURT: You have to stop talking the minute T start talking. Ms. LYNCH: Okay. ‘THE COURT: Always stop. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: He didnt get the chance to ask the question MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: -- before you began to answer.a 2 25 2 MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: Plus. your answer was nonresponsive. okay? MS. LYNCH: ALL right. ‘THE COURT: He'd asked a different question. MS, LYNCH: ALL right. ‘rie court: And -- and I’m just trying ~~ MS. LYNCH: But how can I answer a question —~ THE CouRT: =~ to -- because -~ Ms. UYNCH: -~ 4£ T don’t know what it means? ‘THE COURT: Okay. You can ask him to explain. okay. . Fine okay? ALL right. And I just want to let you know that 1 deal with lots of pre se people who don’t have Right. + and so I -- I know it can be tough sonetines and T’m trying to give you some help. Ms. LYNCH: Yeah. Oray. ‘Thank you very much. Q (By Mr, Steinberg) Now, what T had asked you 4s did you have an option to actually read theB restraining order that was served on you? A I believe read’ through it, yes. @. And would you agree that it prohibited you from having contact, either directly or indirectly, send messages, mail or email to Nr. Cohen? AT just said T don’t know what direct indirectly means. Could you explain it? Q Lot me ask you this first. Do you agree that the restraining order that you received and cead said the following, “that you are not to contact either directly or indirectly via telephone, or send messages, or mail, or enails to Mr. Cohen?” A x understand what you're saying. I’m saying I don’t understand indirectly means 0 I can’t answer the question ‘THE COURT: Let me help you out. HR. STEINBERG: "Okay. THE COURT: He’ not asking if you understood the language, he’s asking if you recall reading the Language. MS. LYNCH: I don’t know Sf T recell reading directly or indirectly. For the record WR. STEINBERG: May T approach? ‘THE COURT: Sure. WR, STEINBERG: And do T have an exhibitu 2 8 4 35 16 17 18 19 20 a 23 “4 sticker that T can use at the table? ‘HE COURT: There should be and they’re -~ and Plaintiff's ere numbers, please. MR. STEINBERG: Te says People’s, that was my only concern. ‘THE COURT: We'll go with it. WR, STEINBERG: That's fine. 1 used to be a mathematician years ago ‘THE COURT: Let's see. T can check for you. Let's go with the People MR. STEINBERG: That's fine. THE COURT: Okay. (By Me, Steinberg) I'm going to hand you ~~ WR. STEINBERG: And T think you said numbers, THE COURT: Yeah. wk. STEINBERG: IE 1 might approach, Judge? THE COURT: Sure. © (By Mr, Steinberg) I’m going to hand you what Tve marked as People’s Exhibit 1. There's the exhibit sticker on the back, Could you just take a look at this and see Af it refreshes your recollection? AI didn’t say st could zefzesh it because £ can't renember distinctly reading it so that would be hard. But I'LL read it now.1 ALL ight. Do you see that 2 A Ta that -- Ss that what you're asking me to do? 3 Which section. ‘4 @ Well first off, you had said that 3 A hich section? 6 @ Hold on. First off you had said that you had 7 read this -- 8 AX don’t know S¢ T read it and understood it ~~ ° THE CouRT: Excuse me. 0 HS. LYNCH: You know, Stfa — n ‘THE couRT: When I start talking, you stop 2 MS. INCH: Okay. 8 THE COURT: He didn't finish the question. 4 MS. BYNICH: Okay. 8 THE COURT: And before he asks it again, I’m 16 going to ask him a question. MS. LYNCH: Okay. 18 THE COURT: Could you please help the Court and 19 determining the date of the restraining order -- 20 MR. STEINBERG: Sure. a THE COURT: -- that’s the subject of People ~~ 22 of Plaintiff's 12 2B NR, STEINBERG: Yes. m4 0 (By Mr. Steinberg) Tt was filed in October of 25 2005; is that correct? ‘There should be a stanp on it.Beer never recall reading the document? Do you see that Me. Lynch? A November, I soe, 3. 2005. ALL right. De you recall now having ° AT dont recall ~- @ -- read that document? A ~ having read it. THE COURT: He hasn't -- MS. LYNCH: T recall -- WE COURT: -- finished -- MS. LYNCH: T thought he just asked me. THE COURT: I T= did you finish asking? WR, STEINBERG: No, but that’s all right. But ehat's okay. THE COURT: Okay. © (By Mr. Steinberg) Axe you now saying you AL Wo, I didn’t say that. I’m going to answer-ny question -- your question now? I xecall being served thie @ okay. AT zecall a lot of insanity going on at that time, and 1 don’t know if I specifically read all of it Like that. AID Eight. Take a A That's as honest as I can be.w u 2 B ° ” Because you had earlier eaid you didn’t know what indirectly meant. a ® a o a That's right. In your ~~ in your question. okay. Do you —— Not in the restraining order. Well, it is in the restraining order. Well, T don’t understand it in both, 1/d have to read it right now. Te that what you're asking me to do? a Because my -- no. My question vas if you didn't understand indirectly did that mean that you had read the restraining order because it does use the word indirectiy? A Twas responding to your question actually at ‘nat point @ okay. | “A. Because you had the. paper Q Take @ Look at page 2, and there's 2 box that’s checked. And it's in that phraseology that talke about -~ A I have to get my glasses -- — = contact -- A de that all right? TRE COURT: No problen. MS. LYNCH: I don’t think you’ re going to stand10 2 B 4 5 6 7 18 9 a P7) 2s 18 a chance to prove ‘THE COURT: I don’t want you talking when in the witness stand, please. you're not under the MS. LYNCH: This de just -- you know, my child's Life has been destroyed here, Your Honor. t's very difficult for me. This man’s lawyer has a declaration of my 00/8 custody matter. THE COURT: Okay. Try to conpose yourself. We're having a hearing on one issue -- NS. LYNCH: But it’s very serious on all issues, ‘THE COURT: T respect that. ‘Take a moment to compose yourself, would you like a glass of water? HS. UWWCH: Yeah, please. THE COURT: T think there's a cup right next to you. oo TTT sani: ALL ight. ‘Thank you. THE COURT: Would you Like a tissue? NS. LYWCH: No, T have one. Thank you very mach. THE COURT: You're welcome. MS. LYNCH: What do you want me to read. © (By Mr. Steinberg) Sure. May 1 approach? A Please don’t be nice tome. This is really serious. My Life has been destroyed.19 1 Qf try to be nice to everyone, so -- 2 A Not to me, please. 3 Okay, ‘ MR, STEINBERG: May T approach? 5 ‘THE COURT: Sure. 6 {By Mr. Steinberg) Do you see whore 7 A Please don’t ~~ 8 @ == that box is? ° A ~~ come near me, I'11 hand it to you there. 10 @ Okay. Do you see where the box is where it 11 says you stay away and then it etso has —~ 2 A dust show me where you want me to read and 1/12 13 do At. 4 @ Sure. Right here. If you could read paragraph 15 six and paragraph seven 16 THE COURT: Do you wish the witness to read 7" "ty" “them out loud? ee oo 6 MR. STEINBERG: Sure. Please. 8 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MS. LYNCH: Personal conduct orders. You must, 21 not do the following things to the people listed in 1 and 22 11. A, check, harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault 23 sexually or otherwise, hit, follow, stop, destroy ~~ 24 destroy personal property, keep under surveillance or { 25 block movements. 8, chack, contact directly or2 B “ 1s 16 ” 8 19 20 21 2% 20 Andixectly, telephone, send messages, mail, or email. Peaceful written contact through a lawyer or a process sezver or other person for service of legal papers related to 2 court case does not violate these orders. Wow, when I read that I thought 1 was representing myself, also and there's got to be a way to communicate with someone about serious issues. ‘THE COURT: Excuse mo, you haven't been asked a question. Ms. LYNCH: (By Mr. steinberg) you did read it now. oxay. But I’m just saying it. So when you read this -- so You would agree that ~~ A You know what? Q =» this has refreshed your recollection A what did I just say? MS. LYNCH: THE COURT: Fizst of all, you don’t get to T can’t have this hearing. Just 90 ahead and make the restraining order permanent, okay? ‘tis court: ms. LyNct: ‘re court: Ms. LYNCH: ‘THE court: Ms. LYNCH: Okay. I really can’t. okay. These Okay. okay? people are insane. They've destroyed my Life, they've silenced me, they've terzorized me. Robert Corya 2 2 as a has a deciaration of ay son's custody matter. Can I ask. fone question? To whom can 1 communicate about very serious issues? Legal issues? ‘THE COURT: A lawyer. MS. LYNCH: Mo. T don’t have a lawyer right, now. I'm representing myself. I mean, with Leonard Cohen’ s parties THE COURT: Judges can’t give legal advice. MS. LYNCH: Right. THE COURT: Can only recomend that people get attorneys, and if you're having money issues, you can seek out legal services. MS. LYNCH: Right. I’m waiting for Liz Cutier. THE COURT: Right now -- excuse me, Ms. Lynch. MS. LYNCH: Yeah ‘THE court: Do you wish to give up your right ‘to have a hearing and do you want to agree that the ‘temporary order should become permanent? MS. TYWCH: Well, 1%¢ like them permanent because I think he's dangerous to me but may I ask something? May I attack this later as fraud and perjury? ‘THE couRT: No. MS. LYNCH: May T sue later if it ie fraud and perjury? THE COURT: No. x'm not giving you legala 2 2 2 25 advice, I'm juat asking you the question of whether or not you agree that the temporary order that was previously issued today ~~ MS. Tinie: Right. THE COURT: -- this monent becone permanent? MS. WwNcH: Yes, T would Like that very much. ‘THE COURT: Granted. MS. LYNCH: Thank you very much. ‘THE COURT: You're welcome. NR, STEINBERG: 1 do have one additional request: ‘THE COURT: What is it? MR, STEINBERG: Since being served Ms. Lynch has sent me literally -- 1’m going to say 20 to 30 different emails -- ‘THE COURT: Has sent you? WR. STEINBERG: Yes, About matters completely Azvelevant regarding this situation, IRS, Bruce Cutler, you know, the meanderings of matters that aren't relevant to me {THE COURT: Mache. WR. STEINBERG: 1 have sent her a cease and desist request ~~ THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: This morning.2 1 MR, STEINBERG: This morning and shortly after 2 chat 1 got another email. 3 MS. LYNCH: Saying T would -- I would stop and 4 keep you in the dark. MR. SIBINSERG: I prefer to be in the dark and 6 — T would just ack that this Court advise Ms. Lynch that T 7 am not intezested in receiving any emails, don’t vant to 8 be on her list and ask that she renove me. ° ‘THE COURT: Okay. 10 MS. LYNCH: The Court can do that? n THE COURT: Well, it -- there are various ways 12 that the Court can do thet. 8 WS. LYNCH: Mecham. 4 THE COURT: One way is to look at you and 15 politely ask you == 16 NS. LYNCH: Right. “ay “gue "court: =~ "stop having any contact’ with 18 Harvey Steinberg. 19 vs. LYNCH: I will for certain. 20 ‘THE COURT: Thanks. 2 MS. LYNCH: I'd be more than happy. But who 22 should T communicate with about Leonard Cohen’s matters 23 and the monies he owes me? Ey WR. STEINBERG: There is nobody that is 25 interested in communicating with you4 1 MS. [YWCH: Tam aware of that but to whom, 2 because I was never served the lawsuit in California. 3 THE COURT: Excuse ne. Just now he said no 4 one. You may get out of the witness stand, go to the table 6 NS. LYNCH: Mm-hn. 7 THE Court: -- and 1/11 give you your 8 paperwork. ° MS. LYNCH: thank you very much. 0 ‘THE COURT: You're welcome. What T’m going to 11 do ds go over the paperwork with you and then if you have 12 any questions please osk them. 3 MS. LYNCH: Okay. Thank you. 4 ‘TE COURT: You're welcome. Is your nane 1S spelled Ke-1-1-e-y? MS. LYNCH: Yes, it is. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Lynch, I have 18 written the following. What's going to happen next is ny 19 clerk's going to enter it into the computer -~ 20 ws. LYNCH: Okay. at HE COURT: -- go it’s typed -- a MS. LYNCH: Okay. a THE COURT: -- and then she’l1 give it to ne 24 for my signature off the bench. ( 25 Ms. LYNCH: ALL right.to u 2 B 4 15 6 "7 18 19 2 a 2 23 2s 2s THE COURT: And she’ bring it in and give each aide a copy. S0 these are the restrictions. You're to have absolutely no contact with the Plaintiff, Leonard Cohen. You're to keep a distance of 100 yards avay from him, So if you just randomly run into him you can’t approach him within 100 yards. Is that including in a courtroom? okay. ‘THE COURT: You're not to have any contact with him wherever he lives or works. MS. LYNCH: Oh, excuse me. Could I ask about that? ‘rue couRT: Yeah, MS. LYNCH: He’s on tour now so, how would T know where he is at any given moment in time ‘THE COURT: Well, that’s just like Life itself. one never knows. You could bump into hin in the grocery store ~~ MS. LYNCH: Macha. ‘THE couRT: | -- but there ~~ MS. LYNCH: And then what happens at that point Af you did just bunp into someone inadvertently? ‘THE COURT: Well the police would be in charge of determining whether or not there was # violation.u R B “4 is 9 a 2 23 4 okay. ‘THE COURT: Typically inadvertent contact would not be a violation but that would be up to the police to docide, and the Prosecutor to decide whether or not they could prove that -- MS. LYNC: Okay. THE COURT: -- it was not inadvertent. In addition, you're not te have any contact with the law office that’s located at 9300 Wilshize Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 80212. and finally you may not contact the Plaintiff by phone, mail, email, text messaging or through a third party. As an example if you contact Mr. Steinberg about Leonard Cohen MS. LYNCH: ren-hm, ‘THE COURT: -- that would be a violation of this protection order. I€ you violate the protection ‘order in any way MS. LYNCH: Minha THE COURT: -~ then you will be charged with Class T misdemeanor punishable with up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine or both. MS. LYNCH: T have no interest in contacting then. May T just ask is 9300 West Olympic Boulevard the Law Office of Robert Cory? THE COURT: I just said Wilshire Boulevard.7 1 WS. LYNCH: 1 know, but can we name who that 2 is? 3 ‘THE COURT: You said Olympic Boulevard. 4 tis. L¥WcH: No, I said Law Offices of Robert 5° Cory. On, Olympic. Its wilshire? 6 It/e Wilshire. 7 nd ie that Robert Cory? 8 ‘THE COURT: Mr. Steinberg can answer that, 1 9 have no idea. 10 MR, STEINBERG! Tt is " ‘THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions 12 about the meaning of the protection order? B MS. LYNCH: The actual meaning of it for the 14 purposes of the Court right now on their side? is THE COURT: Do you understand what this means? 16 T understand deadly seriously what 7 se means oO 7 oe 18 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. LYNCH: I do. 20 okay. 2 MS. LYNCH: On every pexspective. 2 ‘THE COURT: ALL xight. The protection order is 23 made permanent 24 MS. LYNCH: Thank you. 23 THE couRT: And my clerk will enter thea 2 2 8 information into the conputer and bring it to me for ny signature and return to the courtroom. MS. LYNCH: Thank you very mich. THE COURT: You're welcome. Tt will take about two to three minutes NR. STEINBERG: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: You're welcome. ‘the Court’s in (Whereupon these proceedings were concluded.)2» ‘TRANSCRIBER’S CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO} > 38 county oF BouLoER I, Maureen O'Toole, do hereby certity that I have Listenod to the electronic recording of the foregoing? further that the foregoing transcript pages 1 through 28, were reduced to typewritten form from en electronic recording of the proceedings held Septenber 2, 2008, in tthe Boulder County Court, in the matter of Leonard Cohen vy. Kelley hynohs and that the foregoing is an accurate record of the proceedings as above transcribed in this matter on the date set forth. DATED this 14% day of Nove, ld, Yn fea WieoleDaily Dockets Page | of This docket search ONLY shows data for 09/04/2008 & 09/02/2008 between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Data is updated weekdays at 6:30PM Ifyou did not find your ease and the appearance date is on 09/01/2008 or 09/02/2008, please contact your local court for verification. jCounty cx search ‘Sorting Data: Click on a column's the, click a second time to reverse the order [coun Case Lastname Sour 2 Date Time Division] pane revi ip: www.courts state co1usICourtsDacketefm/Location_ID/T3/Lestnameflynch 89/2008,Exhibit 4COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO — (CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF COPY E = SERTEOT COLORADO) ss County OF noutDE 1 DEBRA I, CROSSER, Clk ofthe COUNTY COURT ofthe 208 judicial Dist of te state of Colorado within an forthe County of Boulder, do hereby cetty she Yoregoing to bea tue, perfec, and complete copy of Case Number: 20080776 {Gm ZONARD NORMAN, manera, ‘Bee, my any, DerINDANe. [REGISTER OF ACTION, MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFES PROTECTION ORDER, PERMANENT CIVIL FROTECTION ORDER. | NORMA SIERRA, Judge of the COUNTY COUKT ofthe 208 judi District ofthe tate of Colorado within and fr the County ‘cf Boulde, do ery cety that DEBRA I CROSSER whose tame is noecibed fo the ovegolng Cericate of Atestation, now {and waa he sme of signing a sealing the sve, Clerk ofthe COUNTY COURT of Boulder County aforesid and Keeper ‘ofthe sooo at sol threo, day spall ad quest ote th fal ith end ret ao of ight ara ought 10 De lal acts ar such inal Court of Rocord and else ete; and that her sti atesttion is ne frm of ew a Dre der my hand and seal on june 4, 2018, 1, DEBRA L. CROSSER, Clerk ofthe COUNTY COURT of he 20 judicial District of te state of Colorado, within and fr Boulder County, do hereby cetify that NORMA SIERRA, wiose genuine signature is appended to the foregoing crifiat, was athe time of signing the same, Judge ofthe COUNTY COUR of Boulder, of the sat of Colorado ely commissioned and qualified ‘ha il ith snd credit are of right endl ong to he sven to ll rofl ate uch, en all Courts of Record und lcwhes nthe eon whet, have Beret thy hd and ae th wf id Coty oes Boule-FileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page 1 of | Se og po ER | | i [Snr coorec oT ED PURSUANT TO STE1S-102, CRE. (CPERMANENT TIVE PROTECTION Wan] Fee] Fa lanatasstceemyeteecrnet | Oi Bel Lo [se Topo [aw cts Sa ostsea Pee) oct oor Ou aap Vntss Peo be, TSG ‘2c a, “Tis roc Grr DOES NOT EXPIRE nd oly ha Goat con change Wis Ove don usa en nepal “Te cour orton ta yo ral Paton sae a as om. ee le oe {latory cin hy enedoy Com aa ato) ‘hc, on oat reg a oem ma a fe or gyn oumet apa atn_$88 yds ot i eee afc C8 noua a tps” jit courts state.cous/ilebound/aline ViewernlinePrinPreviewaspx?dovid=.. 6/4/2015#ileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page of 1 Comte const OWED NA INGLIS AL Com ember iH, © Carl pate seam he lon pw sy ny yo ean pace Pun sl esses anom tn Pood wi tend) (amon nna ageneinbaatse sas ine a ea he eto (aime “MSR ELANCE ES $B ee wane an i — TR WER mer wanes —__ ‘Dsevet home! Gone: mui RSLs Gescosbe {hisietoel ne soins ttc alcove scan avai (namsfpown, amon aot mecomelode mpi Eos eal Fem en alae pss sO na al ‘cpr nce ca tone a ee. Hane een 4 lesan oncaning Carn. (rng Ten an Oslo ing responses) oy row aorcton [Poem elem hen wt tren Ca q ; ‘ass pt ae crn mao apo pe a a BPE ose ron ws ra tar ne seen CaP tng goin owe eye 5. omer Prostns {ymca so oe sb aa pare ELEN CRS. Eine sate pay oP Birman (Senet raves Pan Epo Soto Boat" (OTE, ii. aanoag neat i Odo ead Pas el pence, Qa fa =a a Law Enforcement sail uae a reasonable means 1 enoree this Protetlon Orda. nups:fwirw,jits.coursstte.co.us/lebound/alineViewerllalinePrintProview.aspxTdocide... 6/4/2015“FileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page Lof | a ee IMpORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION ORDERS. GENERAL INFORMATION [NOTICE TO RESTRANED PERSON {utiaessoar autgescegmentan rayon peep, uma arate ‘Sitecun ou cmcarynyapncstmyemntecomrcmgne irene ssn Wt et ‘owes To prorecren Penson 4 scitytcennye smear gt tatindnomroetuhinadia dine apne ont ‘oTCe Yo LAW ewroncEMENT OFFERS \OFSIORNT PEUMEXT CN. ROTECRONCROERESO RGUMITOSISIENE.CRE Peed Inxpsu/wivw jbits. courts state-co.us/lebound/Iline ViewerTnlinePrintPreview asp 7docid=... 6/4/2015,‘FileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page 1 of 1 eet, Kaley pas cme BEIM, he ge ccroracios omomamo@onstnst (0 Tee nett defn it gover by ey Tad Vises Preveson A, BUC HRD oaN oO. [00 _ suds tom poretedpaer andes, 1 Nocosctecet (Thera pry sree at de oe ors te wt cl of a aang epee Ff Rome shaper Efe Cyeth Me ——e Salyers = en = ee Bf one 1103" Litdeize KIVA LBC Rapier Che BL eee Crean Coa ado Se Resin pay erated edge with ners Paring ti veered etn Pacing tin exper ox Patng Ge Do00cG: #0 teen deiin hing espouse gio 1 Pade tr ein mag eons (Paani coved in sooug_—e2 mmbed. {2 The Resto Fay ssl et purer and putas eam amen, eroer wpe, Com ier as a (a PhinimPenioer Dele espondeat eos A titanate Def. ont net Contect tT ba phere patil, tet) tedden ul or toenagh tab OBE © motte WTO srt ein Proofs srs © gerne cen Sr oh tn om gaa nips: jbits. cours stte.o.usfilebound/Inline Viewer/InlinePrintPreviewaspxdocid... 6/4/2015ENTEGRATED COLORADO ONLINE NETWORK (rcOM status: 2500 pROG cLgD county Court, Boulder county Esse: 2008 c 000776” ““oiv/noom's” “rype! “procastion Order SORE, ROHARD/ oe vo. LAR KEELE Alt bv erarus: case File Date: 8/19/2008 case Close Date: 9/02/2008 apyenteas i Sessa Recaeetaey.. pax f xane guaicial of¢...1 b1868s BAD nowy ARCHULETA MERE feces! sonbes Description seat mate Tine Ra/D Rrtad oso eos dro Bact cha invent! or00 Tent Schd Evecl! pecmmment Restraining Ord ti uHLD 9/02/2008 2100 P RASS seme: Grae tae 3/53/2008 Attorneyie) 2-5 gudgenenes. a weetone elisa 22000 amount Prayed for... 0 Sry Fee Feld. sees parma ---- PARTY non ems waite sronaer non Bor noe 7° Eine, saa at pate of AS yan/assr Bere rena fase. 22002) Ssueasian Busines’ Bhone (395) 985-2203 iogne: ae feighe: 133 mee Soar. III Bom Bye colores... Eee Heo aageoos.0 0000000000) 5aiawon verve ipowes Re 6 rea PIF 1 PRA conn, Leowas> Homa pate of" gies om 5/21/1924 Bae oF BPR oi ale etghe. 200000 oy meagnes 00001 3 Tal? Goior. | hey Bercoteee ro! fra eee naarows 2! en ibewrsa Prag pars gvier puscerprion Wis/avee_ Complains wrvent 10: 900002 H-Piled: cnt 2° ano Sate San Five t/is/a008” feap Protsction Ord-Granted vent 1D: 000002 w-Pi2ea:/ DEF/RST LYNCH, KELLEY ANNILE DATE VENT DESCRIPTION PEF/PRA COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN Bxpiration Date: 02/15/2008 Keep a distance at least 100 yards from protected parties Exeluded from 100 yards Work Nae WHEREVER PLAINTIF? WORKS Work Address WHEREVER PLAINTIF? WORKS Other 9300 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGHLES, CA 60212 (LAW OFFICE) Exceptions NONE Foes paid by Plaintiff/petitioner ie is Purther Ordered DEFENDANT MAY NOT CONTACT PLAINTIFF BY TELEPHONE, M AIL, EMAIL, TEST MESSAGES, OR THROUGH 3RD PARTIES one Related Event TOV Temp Protection Order Vacated 9/02/2008 FILE DATE SCHEDULED EVENT DESCRIPTION SCHD DATE TINE OGM PRI 8/19/2008 Temporary Restraining Ord Weg 8/19/2008 09:00 aM Officer: CARE HOYE ENICHaN Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Statue., HeLD-Hearing Held 9/02/2008. Permanent Restraining Ord # wg 9/02/2008 02:00 MB ‘Officer: CARE HOYE ENECHEN Length: 1-00 Hour(s) Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 9/02/2008 Perm Protection Order-Granted vent ID: 000003 E-Filed: DBD/RS? LYNCH, KELLEY Aka IP/PRA COHEN, LBONARD RORMAN ‘the Court finds that the defendant ie not governed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U..c. §922(D) (8) and (g) (8) Keep a distance at least 100 yards from protected parties Wo Contact except NONE Excluded from 100 yards Home WHEREVER DLAINTIFY LIvEs Work Name WHEREVER PLAINTIPE WORKS Work Address WHEREVER PLANTIPP WORKS Other 9300 WILSHIRE BLVD; LOS ANGELES, CA 80212 (LAM OFFICE) It is Further Ordered DEY MAY NOT CONTACT PLAINTIFF BY PHONE, NAIL, B-NATL,” Bex taba Gx ino sist oaRtneS" Hay served sn court 5708/3008 “Refsrh of Service Protect Ord | Bvent 1D: 000004 E-Fited: Eelitea Svene” Boe Bers pootection Srier-axantea, 5/02/2000 2/02/2008 Stee Closed Sce"tps Goo00s | E-rileas 3/83/2008 Hemp srStection ordex vacated Event 1D. goug00 Filed: Eelitel erent "shoe Temp Frotection ori-eraneea "» /19/008 12/02/2008 Hotton Boent or"000006 | ECP leas 6 Desde somes, renner am 49 onan pare BMOnCTIVE ORD pee 15/84/a008 “sme Order (to Print) vent 1; 009007 Eevited: toi toe eattteg: assronse Fiat OK 2/005 "onaer vent 1D; 000009 B-Fiteds sid Moston xo browsse rus ovo x6 psuxeo, ms cr ambos Ser THAT Ei AGREED TO EWERY OF THE PEO ON 9-2-08. End of Case: 2008 © 000776Exhibit 5° Bou Register Out-of-State co (a Restraining Order Your hue rece pron ».ALLED [Leonard Norman Cohen {EOS ANGELES SUPERIOR CouRT Yu addres (Ski hs ifou be a ge) (you want orale Be yy prince, ive ring add ima: har XE 2011 JOHIVA, CLARKE, CLERK Gi; Sees ip - Your pine #lpoade (——) ——— SAMENORAS, DEPUTY Yous lye oe bon ume ale ple and Se Bar Garam ed eee ae Superior Court of Califor, County OF Fy & Rice LLP, 9300 Wilshire Biv, Sie 700, fide angeles evely Hills, CA 90212, Telephone: 310-285-1630 Stanley Mosk Courthouse IIT North Hill Steet Los Angeles, CA 90012 "Nae of peson you want prowecan from Gesrained person): Kelley Am Lynch nna ‘Descipcin of hat penon: Sox IM EF _ Ti eat nae ie Har come tear | |" BQ 33.7 17 Bye Color: Blue Age: $4 Date of Bik: 127157 ‘am prowected by he aachedresraining oder The onder was med by (same and adres of Boulder County Court. Boulder lustce Center. 1777 Sixth St. .0.. Boulder, Colorado 80306-4249 “The anached order: Tea tue and correc copy Is curren valid and in il force and eee Has not been changed, canceled, o# replaced by any other onder “Was made in a different sate U.S. eon, crib! land, che Disc of Columbia, on a milter coure Expiter on (de: Permanent Order 4 Tasked forthe original protective order or Cl The person in @ asked forthe orignal onde, But Tazo ated the cour in wing fora provetive oder ‘The cour ssid beth people in @ and @ have che sigh wo a prorective oder. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stare of California thatthe above information is true and Date: May 24, 2011 ‘Atorney Michelle L, Rice for Leonard “perp ome “The exached oucofstare renin onder iE into CLETS, uns itende ore changed by the Dac 25.20 arcane Register Out of State Restraining Onder Deore a7 Eos ill ine pty 04 (CLETS) Comet Vitec eventosa al oat Ca Oa (UE COPY [Court Ades: Solder dusts Cener Boater 00, 3064240 DEBRA T GROSSER SOMBINED COURT SOUNTY, COLORADO Plitt/Petioner: COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN accross ‘CONFIDENTIAL Wm be DEBUT . [a cousruse ONLY _A. DetndariPesrondent: LYNCH, KELLEY ANN [ease Nomber: 600720080 000776 Access "90 ARAPAHOE. BOULDER, Co. s0802 vison: 8. 109 PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT 10 $13-14-102, CAS. Full Name of Restrained Porson] ateot [Sex | Face | Welgn] Volant] Haw | Eye Lirrotcte Porsenateges Wesponiwatved | Birth color | color oH] ion ELLY a semss7| gel _w_| v0 | 6 | anol aw FulNane ofPoteciedPucon | taieat [Sex] Race | FaltameolProlededPacon | Datoat Poeuce Bi ih Sore RONRORORTIN wennsee| wy] W ‘The Court nds that thas jecton oer the pats and tho subject mats; thatthe Resvanad Porson was porcoaly served and given reasonable noice an opportuni tobe heard thatthe Restaned Person consitves« credbl heat tthe ean heath ofthe Protected Persons named inaction; end suticent care ext forthe osuance of el Preteton Orde The Court finde that the etied PersorC] Wf] = not governed by the Brady Handgun Valence Prevention At, 18 USC. 922 (8) and (aX. “This Protection Order DOES NOT EXPIRE and only the Court can change this Order. ‘Tho Court Orders thet you, the Restrained Person, shlinat contact, hares, sak, re, intimate, thresten, or moles! he Protected Pereons or there vist he Ord. You shal not Ue, arto use, cr Testo to use physical ore ‘gant he Protected Persons thst would reasonably be expected to cau body ing, YoU shal net engage in ay concit that Would lace the Protected Persons in reasonable ero! boll ny. [EIA Temporary Injunction is haeby entre by tis Gout and iin fer nt {ate) not to oxeoos 120 cays ‘ster the issuance ol thi Order. This nunelon resane the Rested Person fom ceasing to make payments fr mongage tren. Insurance, utiles o related sence, transportation, medial care of chi are when the Restrained Person has & Prior existing ety o ag! obigstion o make such payments o trom Warsong, encumbeig, concealing rn any Way ‘Ispsing of personal effects cr rel propery, excel nthe ural ures of businaks or forte necesties o He, ‘You must keep a it 16 of at least__100 yards trom the Protected Porsone. 1. Contact. [tis ordered that you, the Resta Peecn shall ave no.eéntactof any kind wih tha Protgced Pereons and yu shal ol atone o contac eld rtd Peron ouah any he paren, except your aoe}, crept a follows: 7 in aa ead wa deat aT oar VaR] ‘ra deinquont acti commited by joven) pureyanlo $108 090.5, RS ond menial rdnanee JOFSG0 R717 PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISGUED PURSUANT TOS1-14102,0RS, Pago 1013eo me coin conn” ae sanciesuce at cove nbc a +2 Exclusion from Places, "tis ordered that yoube excluded fom the fofowing ples and shal stay st fast 100 _ yrds aay teow pistes: Pass eps thesdaree(ce) whoo the Pitected Peroons reside, work aaa eohoct) [Che Precio Parson hag requste thal tho excess be om rom the writen order othe Cou, okcng| the Reale of Aston (iHome: WHEREVER PLANTIEF LIVES 1 Work: Name: WHEREVER PLAINTIEE WORKS Rgress: WHEREVER puanniee wonks [aSehoot: Namo; ares: {@ Other: sooo WiTSHIRE BVO: LOS ANGELES. GA aBet2 (LAW OFFIGE) ChExceptions: 3. Caro and Control Provisions. [CIWS he bet rire eth abov-Aamed mind ehten thai ce and ontol ofthese ciken be award to (ame of person). This temporary cars and corral order expires on (Gate ari ot 72 dye Wom he Oe) al cher provisos Orcer remain al ~~ Forces est parma a ‘This Order govern any other Oder concerning the eae and cottl of sald cron. However, provsone nother Order concerning th chleen that co nt cot wit thie Order mit be alowed. 4, Issues Conceming Children. (Parenting Time and Decision-Meking responsibilities) {G Restrsinod Porsn granted parenting ine wit the minor chron BiPareting tine expres on, (sta) or] abe rat exe unt tunher order ofthe Court an shal be a foowe: on ry (Gis a nan hearing) snd sal bos aon o. {fae o person) shal have cole doision mang responses, [ho paris sal ony sare disor making respons, Bother ae ot orth inthe "Other Provisone ston buh [Parenting tine and deetion making reponse shalbs a previously ordered by the Bistet Coun, Cases iio matngYosponebines {5 Other Provisions [The Court waives aloes and no fo0s for sowie shouldbe assessed persuat to §19-14-102121}), CAS, [Fees shallbe pas by the] PlehtlPettoner [] Delondan/espondent Bilt isturher oaered that DEE MAY NOT. LAINTIEE 8y PHONE, SSAGE OR THROUGH THIRD © [Cithis Permanent Protection Orr is tdemtial othe Temporary Prolcalon Orda and dass wat eave sonvee onthe asraied Person. [His Pormansnt Protection Orde i erent rom the TemgeraryProtston Orde and requis service onthe Restrained Porson bore ts provilons become efetiv. [Served Restrained Person I Open Gaur on 1022008 "(OATE), By slging,! acknowledge recep of ths Order or E]Restaned Person snot preset in courtroom my Hore, I Shih a as ” ran ‘Per rai eal Chee kos ‘Cha oO -EMIGHEN, CAROLYN HOVE arty tat tie ea wean conpi eyo hans ade. fendi Gian Law Enforcement shall use all reasonable means to enforce this Protection Order. JOFS00 R777 PERMANENT CM, PACTECTIONCADER ISSUED PURSUANT TOSI814:102,0R8. Page 203. casa Nye conn. LEoNAeD @H ws__v. Lv sericea Qc number: 2on80 00078, IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION ORDERS ‘GENERAL INFORMATION — ie re cn scored nt end Bn etas bere in cote Sas, Tee rind Saha Tory pn 8 UG G8 Te Cathet vi as a fe mas ‘J Pesaro eu. gra nial roy ae pes arate hot es ct a 0p Parentage ees en fre ane ons repr ar, revo lnoner oa tlw a6 ane sn ene soy eae NOTICE TO RESTRAINED PERSON “J Ansont = Psoraisis enc nolan lomo an ‘acct ota rn ot nce i mo ve sO ue et ose 500020 ‘eoiph tment Von dem ctu comnleast ere oder apet Wn ee ‘Orn Seti conmimeroh Dearne ana ee your fe Oxar ng al peed prc rane ata ghenjxpeneon, you wong sans mee eee ens ie Oi cb arty agate Oa Cou S ENNgS MISO Pseson fam eth Pemrert Proetan Ore fe mseanan Fry re Feo, USC ‘Yume ete i a etn ent ct cto rin ya tern isn P eo Orr pcb eae) SR, NOTICE TO PROTECTED PERSON J Yoimeyiheas st ns Orvandyn may elon rors, Youre cone procweigr pi Patna Pemen the Orde nd ac aon request prestige tine cosenp postage the oieiened in cil ation. J Yoscanerg he eared Pan paris cage pe Ct ayy Otte Ga ean hanger °F Yeunay sobs cas eet canta et Pteten rr any ie SIS CTs CRS. NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS {tt ort inet temps eed en coe it peg acl lasses all urea i oye ch re aol sigh err. Sl pcr Carnac een a em (861-2, AS) J) Yooratun oe sete mass wares raster Ox J Yutlnese tinction see wal nga tt ames ed arate tl Bo Ieabnd Peso yihan tan aang pice at Fein Paros va eared le fy monn Oc wt sin exces pate HOS65, C218 ermencpd de an Forres Pana nn pop snes ha copy hse Pst Peon as eed ah reel etc en ae ‘Yeu stetoc i Gr vitae rest ti Prion aCe ty. {eat to feral Pere ree tee oy. ‘ovmay vn or args arenes a rh Paes Pas. OF 380 R77 PERMANENT CHIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TOIS6-102,0.R8, PapelExhibit 6SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VISION NO, 4¢ HON. SAMUEL MAYERSON, JUDGE TAS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIEE-RESPONDENT, No. 2¢R08539 KELLEY LYNCH , i ' ; : ' : REGORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2032 APPEARANCES POR THE PLAINTTEP: SANDRA JO, STREBTER DEeUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT ORR B. PERRONL, TET DeeurY PUBLIC DEFENDER AuwerTe b. VAN OLDEN, CSR #7514 GEPEcIAL COURT REBORTERP0PLE's sTTWESSES ESONARD CORE DEFENDANT'S Misesses {(NOwE CALLED) egeno: vorr DIRECT_CROSS ABDIRECT RECROSS DIRE VOL vorr DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE VOLpers vt = NEMBER: 2on04539 ThE NAME PEOPLE VS. KELLEY LYNCH ANGELES, CALEFORNIA MARCH 23, 2012 TEPRRTWENT NO, 44 HOW, SAMUEL, MAYERSON, JODGE TER: ANWEDTE VAN OLDEN, CSR 80.7534 s 10:00 A.M. (THE DEFENDANT, KELLEY LYNCH, PRESENT WITH COUNSEE, JOHN PERRONE, ITT DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; SANORA JO STREETER, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) ‘THE COURT: PEOPLE VERSUS KELLEY DYNCH. ‘THAT YOUR NAME? ‘we DERENOAWE: YES, TT 1S. THE COURT; THE CASE 18 NUMBER 2CA04539, WILL COUNSEL STATE YOUR APPEARANCES? WR. PERRONT: JOHN PERROWE, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER Ob BEKALY OF MS. LYNCH, €S. STREETER: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, SANDRA STREETER TOR THE PEOPLE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, £ GOP THIS FILE A SHORT TIME AGO, AND 1 SCE SHAT WE HAD A CONPLAINT CILED ON JANUARY 25TH, THIS YEAR [RND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED THIS MORNING, AND THE TTRANSFER MEMO SAYS WE ARE HERE FOR A BATL HEARING. I -THINK IN THE GOMPLATNT T SAW AN ARREST eestaee RANT ISSUED. THE BALL WAS SET ON THAT WARRANT AT 339.000, NS. STREETER: I WOULD BE HORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLAIN 0 THE COURF. 1 DON'T KNOW IF COURT AND COUNSEL WANT ME "0 MAKE MY MOTION 70 EXCLUDE WITNESSES NOW? If THE COURT AND COUNSEL DOES, 1 CAN THE COURT: ARE WE GOING 70 HAVE WITWESSES TO TESTIFY ON TAIS SUBJECT? MS. STREETER: YES. THE PEOPLE MAKE A MOTTON TO EXCLUDE WiTNEsses THE COURT: PEOPLE ~~ LET'S SEE THE MOVING PARTY IS THe PENSE, IS THAT YOUR REQUEST? MR. PERRONT; I BELIEVE BOTK PARTIES ARE THE MOVING PARTY IN THIS SETUATION. "HE REORLE ARE SEEKING TO INCREASE BATE AND ‘THE OEE ‘SE TS SEEKING TO HAVE HS. LYNCH RELEASEO ON HER ‘om RECOGNTZANC! ‘THE COURT: IS THAT THE SITUATION, MS. STREETER? MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: THEW YOU ARE ASKING TO INCREASE IT? MS. STREETER: BUT IF 1 COULD EXPLAIN? IF MY WETNESS COULD STEP OUTSIDE, YOUR HONOR? ‘THE COURT: ALL RIGHT QUT X HAVE TO FIX -- MS. STREETER, IN THE (ORDER OF PROCEEDING, THERE'S TWO MOTIONS BUT WHO TS CO: xe ‘70 CARRY THE BURDEN? THERE IS A BAYL. I UNDERSTAND T7 TS 350,000{EETER: 0. COURT: WHAT TS THE BAIL? STREETER: 15,000. SE COURT: OH BS, STREETER: IT WAS REDUCED. SINCE IT'S BEEN REDUCED, THE PEOPLE KAVE ORL THFORMATION THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT COORT WASN'T OF AND WHICH IS TAE BASTS OF THE PROPLE'S AMENDMENT SEE BASIS OF THE NEW INFORENTION, AND THE PEOPLE'S STr0N TO AMEND, THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING TO AT A MINIWUM THE BAIL GO BACK UE TO WHAT THE WARRANT WAS ISSVED HE COURT; IW THE FILE, YOU DID SET FORTH A coMpLere @RIEF TO JUSPIFY FILING THE AMENDMENT, AND T PRESUME THAT YOU WERE GIVEN THE PERMISSION TO FILE 1? MS. STRESTER: WE UST NOTICED. THE DEFEWOANT OION'T ENTER A PLEA IN THE MOTION ‘THE COURT; WELL, I LOOKED OVER THE AMENDMENT, Nut IP Dr WAS ADD THREE COUNTS OF THE SAME TYEE OF CONDUCT. MS. STREETER: THAT IS CORRECT, BUT OVER THREE ADDITIONAL MONTHS, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: ‘THEN YOU MEAN THE TSSUE OF WHETHER OF NOP =~ WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE PERMITTED TO FILE THE COMPLAINT, I? HAS A FILE STAMP ON IT ~~ MEAN THE AMENDED ccoMPLa Ne Ns. sragever: RIGHE. ‘THE COURT; ID YOU ATPEMPT TO ARRAIGN THE DEFENDANT ow THE ADDITYONAL COUNTS IN THE COURT WHERE YOU FILED THEsigereireo ONBUAIWT? 3. SEREETER: THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO 00 THAT 15 BEEN MY EXPERTENCE WHENEVER PEOPLE FILE A = TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENSE ASKS FOR WORE TINE Tt RESPOND TO THE ANENOMEN?. THE COURT: THAT 18 THE SENSE OF YOUR BRIEF? MS, STREETER: THAT IS TRUE. ‘THE COURT: THAT NO TIME 1S WARRANTED TO OBLAL? MR. PERRONT, DID T SAY YOUR NAME RIGHT? HR. PERRONT: YOU DTD, YOUR HOWOR. ‘THE COURT: HAVE YOU OBJECTED TO THE ARRAIGIMENT OF SOR CLIENT ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT? WR. PERRONI: NO, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT; THEW LET'S 00 THAT FIRST. MS, STREETER: OKAY. ‘HE COURT: THEN THE PEOPLE, MAKING A MOTTON TO INCREASE BATL, 1 WELL CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE INITIAL MOPION. THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO FIRST IN THE PRESENTING OF EVIDENCE. 1 AM ADDRESSING, MS. STREETER MS. STREETER: BUT T GUESS BEFORE T GET TO INCREASE BAIL, PEOPLE MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD THREE ADDITONAL COUNTS WE NOTICED, HAVE THE DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED OW THEN TX ‘THE COMPLAINT. ‘re COURT; I SAID WE'LL GO ANEAD AND ARRATGN HER NOW OW THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. MS, STREETER: OKAY. OKAY. ‘THE COURT; ARE YOU GOING TO AMEND ~~ ARRAIGN HER? MS. STREETER: DOES THE DEFENDANT WATVE ~sRONT: YOUR HONOR, THE DESENSE ACKNOWLEDGES + 27 THE ANENDED MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT. DEEENORNT WAIVES ARRATGNMENT, FORMAL READING £ IOMBLAINT. WE WAIVE FURTHER READING OF THE ONAL RIGHTS. WE DENY THE ALLEGATIONS. WE ENTER 5 OF WOT GUILTY. WE MAKE AN INFORMAL REQUEST FOR IDUERY AND WE RESERVE MOTIONS. SHE COURT: THANK YOU. [THANK YOU, MR. PERROW MR. PERRONE: THANK YOU THe COURT: ALL RIGHT MS, STREETER: ON THE BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT, THE PEOPLE ARE NOW SEEKING TO HAVE THE BAIL, INCREASED, ‘THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOTCE UP SO ILD HEAR YOU cone. sone. T HAVE 70 MAKE My NOTES AS TITS GOB: ALL, RIGHT how, THE ISSUES ARE DRAWN, BUT THE OEEENDANT'S ENTERING A NOT GUILTY PLEA ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE PEOPLE HAVE A NOTION TO RAISE THE BATE, 1g THAT 177 MS. STREETER: CORRECT, BASED ON THE ANENDED COMPLAINT, THAT 15 CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. SHE COURT: OBVIOUSLY THE DEFENSE IS GOING -~ THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO OFFER WITWESSES AND MADE A NOTION ‘10 EXCLUDE. HOW ANY WETNESSES 00 YOU HAVE, MS, STREETER? MS. STREETER: YS, ONE,TQURT: WELL, THERE ARE THREE PEOBLE IN THE ARE ANY OF THEN OBESNSE WITNESSES? Xx, PERRONT: NO, YOUR HONOR, STREETER: NO, THEY ARE NOT WITWESSES, YOUR INIT. ONE IS AN INVESTIGATOR WITH NR. COHEN'S LAW FIRM. ‘THE LADY SETTING IN THE BACK 18 AN apo WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND T SIrve THE OTHER GENTLEMEN IS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, SteRECT? HE 1S A DEFENSE ATTORNEY ‘THE COURT: ALL RIGHT [AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT WITNESSES, THEY ARE ERTAINLY ENTITLED TO REMAIN TN THE COURTROOM. NS, STREETER: THE REASOW WHY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY cyvesrtGatoR 1S AERE, YOUR HONOR, TS IN THE NUMBER OF THE S-NATLS THAT MS. TYNCH AAS SENT, SHE'S ALSO MADE THRERTS AGAINST MR, COOLEY. THAT IS WHY THE OISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR 18 HERE TODAY. COURT: SHE'S ENTITLED. Ccabt YOUR FIRST WITHESS us, STREETER: THE PEOPLE CALL LEONARD COHEN TO THE wetNEss STAND ‘THE CLERK: SIR, PLEASE RAESE YOUR RIGHT-HAND, You 00 SOLEMVLY STATE THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU NAY GIVE TH THE CAUSE NOR PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALI {BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT ‘THE TRUTH SOSHE WEMWESS: YES, STR. THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. SIR, PLEASE STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND SSYRS FOR THE RECORD. WETNESS: LEONARD COHEN, I-E-O-N-A-8-D TABS ‘SHE CLERK: THANK YOO. ‘THE COURT: PROCEED. WS, STREETER: ALL RIGHT LEONARD CONS) CALLED AS A WETNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFTED NS FOLLOWS: DIRECT EXANTWATION BY MS. STREETER: @ GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. COHEN? A GOOD APTERHOON, MAYAN. @ 00 YOU KNOH AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE NAME OF KELLEY LUNCH? 1 00. 18 SHE HERE 56 COURT? A ° AYES, SHE TS @ CAN YOU PLEASE POINT HER OUT, WHERE SHE'S SERTED AND WHAT SHe*S WEARING? A SHE'S WEARING A BLUE JUMOSUIT. * SHE'S SEATED An THE END OF THE TABLE stueCOURT: YOU MEAN AT THE LEFT END? SE SITWESS: THE LEET END OF THE TABLE LET'S START OFF MY WAY. THIS 18 NOT A ©, THIS LADY 1 THE ONLY PERSON TN THE COURTROOK JAIL UNTEORM. 1 WERE A LINEUP, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT 100 DIRECTING THE WITNESS'S ATTENTION TO THE LADY LOE? ENO OF THE TABLE, IN FRONT OF US 18 THAT THE LADY YOO NOH? THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. THE COURT: LET'S NOT WASTE TINE. MOVE IT OW. NS. STREETER: ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. @ NOW, HOM DO YOU KNOW MS. LYNCH? A Taw sorry? 2 How TO YOU KNOW MS. LYNCH? NS. LYNCH WORKED AS MY BUSINESS MANAGER FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS OR SO. oy. AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU GEE, EVENTUALLY 6&1 1A PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST MS. LYNCH? AYES. WE HAVE THREE RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST ws. LYNCH. @ AND SINCE You'VE GOPTEN RESTRAINING ORDERS, HAS MS. LYNCH CONTACTED YOU? to ‘SHES CONTACTED ME FREQUENTLY IN THOUSANDS OF E-MAILS, HUNOREDS OF TELEPHONE CALLS. OKRY. I WAWT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION,79 THE TIME PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 15TH, 2011, TO == = AM SORRY -~ FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012. ALL RIGHT, NR. COHEN? yes, MAYAN Now, T SBE YOU'RE OPENING UP A BOOK, ARE THOSE SOME NOTES YOU HAVE ABOUT THE 4 YES, 1 AAVE SOME FIGURES ABOUT HOW MANY yvatu8 WERE SENT. @ LET'S 00 THIS, MR. Con N, TAM GOING 70 ASK SOME QUESTIONS. = AYES, WAAL TF YOU AAVE AN IDEA ABOUT THE ANSWER BOT CAN'T {UL RECALL, THEN HAT T CAN 00 IS I CAN ASK YOU TF YOU 20 TO LOOK AT YOUR NOTES TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? A unpeRsz000. 18 We COULD gust UT YOUR NOTES -- YOU SBE THE SSUE RIGHT THERE, IF WE COULD POT YOUR NOTES AIGHT UP =. | nexr to THE TISSUE RIGHT NOW WHILE YOU ARE TESTIFYING. 2 THEN IF YOU HEED 0 LOOK AT IT, WE'LL 00 THAT. z $0 DURING THE MONTH FROM OECEMBER 16TH 70 > is&| oecemaer 3287, 2012, DID MS. LYNCH -~ ¥ : THE COURT: GIVE ME THOSE OATES AGAIN. ~- Ms. SPREEPER: DECEMBER 16TH THE couRT: 20112 is. STREETER: YES, TO OECEMBER 3187, 2011COURT: THAT IS SOMETHING LIKE BARELY TO STREETER: 110 AND A HALE MONTHS TSE COURT: THAT IS A THO AND A HALE MONTH PERZOD. YOU UNDERSTAND THE PERIOD OF TIME NOW, THE WITWESs: YES, SIR, THE COURT: WHAT IS THE QUESTION RELATING 70 THAT MS. STREETER: TAM GOING TO BREAK 17 UP, YOUR HON 8. STREETER: | ‘0 SO LET ME ASK. Le? Me DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION DECEMBER 25TH, 2011, TO DECEMBER 3197 2011 DID WS. LYNCH CONTACT YOU VIA E-WAIL, conten? @ AWD TS YOUR S-HATL ADDRESS B-A-L~D-Y-N-O-N-K wT ROL por con? @ AND Do YOU KNOW How MANY E-MAILS YOU RECEIVED FROM MS. LYNCH OURING THE TIME PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15tIt TO DECEMBER 318P 20117 NR. PERRONI: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, FOUNDATION. ‘THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE MrTWOSS: YES, T 00, IF T MAY CONSULT mY NOTES? MS, STREETER: OULD THAT HELP REFRESH YOUR RECOLLEK erz0N? THE WITWESS: YES, WATAWFEE COURT: GO AHEAD. : YOU MAY LOOK AT YOUR NOTES IF THEY ARE JUST TO H YOUR MEMORY. - THE WITWESS: 192 E-WALLS IN THAT FIRST PERIOD. 'S. STREETER: ALL RiGHr. (ECTING YOUR ATTENTION To THE TIME PERIOD -— £ 22D YOU RECEIVE ANY TELEPHONE CALLS FROM MS. LYNCH DURING £ THE TINE PERTOD OF DECEMBER 25TH, 2011 TO OECEMBER 31ST, | . Ak DONT RECALL @ omar. DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME PE; 0 OF JANUARY 187, 2012 70 JANUARY 3187, 2012, HOW WANY E-MAILS DID YOU RECEIVE FROM MS. LYNCH? AT RECEIVED 486 E-varts WR. PERRONZ: JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT ‘THESE FIGURES ARE BEING READ OUT OF UR. COHEN'S NOTES FOR ‘THE RECORD ‘THE COURT: ELL, YOU SAID YOU NEEDED TO REFRESH | | | WHEN DID YOU MAKE TH Notes? a | He HE count: uAsT NzGHE, BY stHeLY couNEING? | 5 Me wievess: connect? a] os Tne COURT: HAD YOU SAVED THOSE 8 YOUR cOMBUTER? a] oa HE WERWESS: T SAVED REN ON MY COMPUTER AND MY ae | arzonveys PREWTED-rHEH oT. T WENT THROUGH EVERY ONE OF —R COURT: JUST ANSHER NY QUESTION. ' TEE WITNESS: 1 AM SORRY COURT: D0 YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE NOTES TO (SER THESE NOMBERS? TSE WITNESS: I AM AFRAID I DO, MY HENORY 1S NOT ‘HE COURT: ALL RIGHT SO IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE HOTES AND THEY REERESH YOUR MEWORY, MS. STREETER 'TERENT FOUNDATION THAT HAS TO BE LAID FOR PAST THERE'S A + Stomzose reconnen, ‘THe COURT: ALL RIGHT. tot Do rr near way. } “ ‘WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE. | WR. PERRONI: SHOULD I MOVE TO STRIKE? ARE WE ALL <1] OW THE SAKE PAGE HERE? THE COURT: JUS? LEAVE TT ALONE FOR NOW. IF YOU'LL 2 | aay THE PROZER FOUNDATION, HE CAN JUST READ 17 a}: 60 AHEAD WILL YOU, MS. STREETER. S| = | syns. steerer: 3 © 00 LOOKING AT THE NOTES HELP REERESH YOUR 5 RECOLLECTION AS 70 HOW MANY E-NAILS YOU RECEIVED FROH y ms. uxwoh? =| ‘THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MS. STREETER. IP 18 NOT man » REFRESHING HIS MEMORY TF HE HAS NO MEMORY OF THE NUMBER. IT'S A LARGE NOMBER, AND HE SAID HE COUNTED THEM. IF AEa) voce s 2B IEEHTED THEM, OID HE RECORD THEM? WHEN HE RECORDED THEM, OTD HE DO THAT AT ABOUT = TIME HE MADE THE COUNT? THEN HE CAN READ WHAT HE OTE, 17 1S NOT RBFRESRING THE MEMORY. TT IS A FEERENT FORN OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE WITH A PROPER SINDRTION, Ms. STRESTER: OKAY JUST A YOMENT, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: MAY I ASK WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING UP, 1 vs. sTaeereR? MS. STREETER: I AM LOOKING UP THE FOUNDATION FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, YOUR HONOR, SO I CAN MAKE SURE F Go THROUGH ALL THE STERS. THE COURT: T UST GAVE YOU THE PROCEDURE. T TOLD YoU TF HE COUNTED THEM, DID HE RECORD IT, AND DID HE 00 ‘THA WHILE TP WAS IHMEDTATELY REFRESHED IN HIS KNOWLEDGE: [AS A RESULT OF HIS COUNT, AND HE HAS NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE RECEIP?. 180 HE CAN READ WHAT HE WROTE, MS. STREETER: ALL ATGHT. | ey we. smReerer: WR. COHEN, YOU MENTIONED LAST NIGHT THAT YOU READ ALL THE E-WAILS BETWEEN ~- 4 A TREAD ALL THE €-¥AILS OF TWO DAYS. THERE WERE OVER A THOUSAND PAGES. “ID YoU COUNT THE E-HAILS FROM THE TIME PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15TH, 2011, TO FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012? yn ves, © Orb,[AND AFTER YOU COUNTED THOSE E-MAILS, DID YOU HOW MANY E-MAILS YOU RECEIVED EACH WONTH pROM seen? aA Lor, AND AT THE TINE THAT YOU RECORDED THE NUMBER, HAP INFORMATION FRESH TN YOUR MEWORY? AYES, IF AS. ony, ‘Qe COURT: DON'T ENBELLISH. JUST ANSWER GACH ISESION AS BRTEELY AS YOU CAN, AND IF I? REQUIRES A YES, NO, GIVE THAT ANSWER. 2 Yoo HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT, I'LL slow 17, ALL RIGHT. BY MS. STREETER. pO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT THE COURT: NOT NDEPEWDENT ay MS. STAGETER: @ —_DXD YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THOSE EVENTS AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECORDED THEM? (WO AUDIBLE RESPONSE. QAP THE TIME YOU RECORDED THE INFORMATION, WAS your ano? A Mes. @ 00 YOU HAVE AN INDE2ENDENT RECOLLECTION Now WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NOTES OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE THAT YOU WROTE DOWN? A WELL, TT's asouT 800. 2 omy,co buereus 4 ’ 15 a rr E BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT ~~ D0 YOU HAVE AN 2 FRDBPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EACH, THE NUMBER FOR EACH 2} NownH WETHOUT LOOKING, READING YOUR NOTES? AT AW SORRY, T DON'T. HE COURT: THAT'S WHY PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, SE CAN SIMPLY READ WHAT HE WROTE DOWN WHEN FT WAS FRESH IN ATS WIND AETER THE COUNT. HE SAID HE RERD OVER A THOUSAND PRGES OF E-MAILS.. 2 MS. STREETER: THAT IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO LAY THE FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. By MS, STREETEE : @ 80 FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, HOW MANY B-MAILS io You RECEIVE? fl A 486: : @ AND 00 YOU RECALL, WHETHER OR NOT MS. LYNCH + | canneo'you ourrNe THE NoWTH OF JANUARY? A 1 BELIEVE SHE 010, Bur 7's -- 1 DON'T RECALL. 23, | 1 BELIEVE SHE DID, BUT OON'T RECALL THE NOMBER OF = | aimes Q — oray DIRECTING YOUR APTENTION 70 THE TIME PERIOD OF 22 | eesnuagy isr THROUGH FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012, DID YOU RECEIVE 2a | Bewarus PROM NS. LYWCH? de Ayes, 1 onD. 2s © HOW MANY E-MAILS DID YOU RECEIVE FROM 26 | Ms. LYNCH OURING THAD TIME PERIOD? 2 Aue 2 2 omya rr rF Now DID YOU PRINT OUT ANY OF THE E-MAILS THAT ‘Ou' RECEIVED FROW MS. LYNCH DORR iG THE DECEMBER 15TH THROUGH THE FEBRUARY 20 DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 THROUGH SBRUARY 29TH, 2012 PERIOD? A DIDN'T PERSONALLY, MY ATTORNEYS OID. Qo omay. WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN YOUR ATTORNEYS PRINTED OUP THOSE E-NRILS, MR. COHEN? A Wo. @ TD YOU LOOK AT THE E-NATLS THAT WERE PRINTED OUT, ANY OF THE E-WATLS THAT WERE PRINTED OUT DURING THAT INE PERIOD? AYES, 1 LOOKED AP THEM. a omy. AND WAS THAT Dio THAT TIME PERIOD COVER JANUARY 19TH, 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 2257, 2022 AYES, 1 STUDIED THOSE LAST NIGH. IREETER: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, 1 HAVE A BOUND VOLUME OF E-NATLS. 1 WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT MARKED FOR PEOPLE'S 1 FOR REFERENCE. 1 PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED A COPY TO THE OF ense | ams coorT: YOU HAVE A BINDER WITH RBOUF A FIVE TCH STACK OF oRPER Ms, staaereR: THAT TS coRRECT He COURT: WELL, ARE! ALL THOSE SOCUNENTS EXHISIT 17 ws. STREETER: ES ‘THE Count: ES. 100 YOU KNOW HOH MANY EAGES THERE ARE THERE?a ate as 26 a a v8, STREETER: No, THOUSANDS | THE CLERK: WE CAN MARK XT AS A BINDER? TE COURT: A BINDER PLUS A LOT OF PAPER IN THE BINDRR, PLUS CONTENTS WILL BE EXIBIT 2 NS, STREETER: TOR REFERENCE, YOUR HONOR THE COURT: BY REFERENCE, EXHIBIT 1 FOR | roewrtercarzon NOW YOU'LL OFFER THEN BY REFERENCE? (PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 1 18 MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION BY REFERENCE. ) MS. STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. If 1 COULD APROACK? ‘THE COURT: YES. By MS.” STREETER: @ SHOWING YOU WHAT IS PEOPLE'S 1 COR IDENTIFICATION, 00 YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, NR. COHEN? AYES, MATAR. WHAT 5 THAT? | A THESE ARE THE E-MAILS THAT WERE RECEIVED BETWEEN JANUARY 19TH AND GRNUARY 21ST, 1 BELIEVE THERE | ARE 22 Su¥arLs wimH asoUP 50 PAGES EACH BASED O8 THE E-RATIS AND VOTCEHAILS THAT YOU | necerveo enow pscewsen 1stH sHsoUeH FEBRUARY 29TH OF 2012, Do YOU HAVE AKY CONCERN ABOUT YOUR SAFETY, NR. COHEN? MR. PERRONE: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE ‘THE COURT: OVERRULED.eo eres ste 18 ‘THE WITWESS: YES: BY MS, STREETER: Q waar rs quar, sre? A GIVEW THE SENSE OF MENACE AND THREAT OFFERED BY ALL THESE PAGES, ANY MAN WOULO BE PRUDENT TO HAVE THE SENSE OF FEAR. © HAS — MR, COHEN, SINCE YOU'VE GOTTEN A RESTRAINING ORDER TS THE NUMBER OF B-MATLS THAT ARE IN PRONE OF YOU RIGHT NOW, IS THAT TYPICAL OF THE NUMBER OF ema THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM NS. LYNCH SINCE YoU RECEIVED THE RESTRAINING ORDER? NR. PERRONE: OBJECTION, VAGUE. . THE COURT: WELL, IF THE WITNESS UNDERSTANDS rf, He THE WITNESS: YES, THESE ARE SINILAR TO THE ONES T RECEIVED" FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS ‘THE COURT: YOU MEAN THIS WAS GOING ON OVE! A six THE WITWESS: YES, SIR. THE COURT: THAT 1S FOR ONLY ONE MONTH? THE WITNESS: THIS 18 TWO OAYS. NS. STRESTER: TWO DAYS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS IN THERE THA GAVE YOU ANY FEAR OTHER THAW ANY ANNOYANCE? THE WETNESS: IT SAYS, “COHEN SHOULO BE TAKEN OUT AND SHOT BY A FIRING SQUAD. I AM GOING TO TAKE COHEN OOWN, NE WANT TO EXECUTE STEVE cooLEY.AA YEAR OR TWO. 18 IT ~~ YOU TOLD US THAT SHE USED 10 BE EMPLOYED BY YOU AS A BUSINESS MANAGER, CORRECT? A conrect 0 WAS THAT THE EXTEND OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP? ax STR. ARE YOU ANARE THAT HS. LYNCH IS INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF A TAX PROCEEDING WITH THE TRS? AT OMDERGTAND SHE FAILED TO FILE, YES. YOU, AS HER EMPLOYER, YOU EMPLOYED HER FOR A WUMBER OF YEARS, CORRECT? A connect HEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SAW NS. LYNCH EFORE TODAY? A THE LAST TIME WAS -~ 1 THINK TT WAS 2004 OR 2008. @ HAS SHE VANOALIZED ANY OF: YOUR PROPERTY OURING ant TIME? a no. 2 OR STOLEN anyrHrns A gUST MY PEACE OF MIND. WON, 5 LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE. 1 GOT TT AGAXH, YOU OBTAINED A RESYRAINING ORDER AGAINST MS. LYNCH SOME TIME BACK 1H 2005; 18 THAT CORRECT? A" THAT MRS THE eIAST ONE, YES, SIR HERE IW CALIFORNIA? A connect.26 2 28 9 HAT WAS ~~ THAT ONE HAS EXPIRED? aT BXPIRED, YES. YOU SUBSEQUENTL OBTAINED A RESTRAINING ORDER ‘AGATNS MS. LYNCH IN THE STATE oF COLORNOOs 18 THAT connect? A CORRECT. QMS. LYNCH WAS 18 COURT AT TRE PINE THAT [RESTRAINING ORDER IN COLORADO WAS GRANTED, CORRECT? CORRECT. g SUBSEQUEWELY YOD OBTAINED A NEW RESTRALHING ORDER OUT HERE IN CALEFORNIA AGAIN, CORRECT? A coRRECT. Now, AP THAT TIME, MS. LYNCH WAS NOT IN COURT, connect? fA 1 pow'T KNOH, SIR, T WASN'T THERE, is. stReeréR: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN evipEncs, que COURT; 17'S CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE CAN LEAD THE fqrmvess. 11'S NOT A MADTER OF AY ISSUE NOT ZN EVEDENCE, pact NOT IN EVIDENCE. E'S ASKING THE WITNESS TF HE ¥NEW 11f THE DEFENOANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE COURT SIGNED THE ORDER OR HAS IT SERVED UPON HER, ASK*THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, WILL YOU PLEASE NR. PERRONT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: GO AKERD. + excuse NE: way 1 suGGEsT IF YOU JUST ASK THE QUESTION, IHL HERR A SPECIFIC ANSWER, WHENEVER YOU WAKE A NEGATIVE2a] 2 26 2 Fa ASSERTION AND THEN SAY, "IS THAT CORRECT?" THE HITWESS SAYS, "NO," I OON"T KNOW WHAT THE FACT 1S BECRUSE HE'S ANSHERING THE QUESTION, 18 TRAT CORRECT. NOW, GHEW YOU MADE A STATENENT IN YOUR ASSERTION BEING NEGATIVE, I HAVE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, AND 1 HAVE TO ASSUME SHE WAS IN COURT. D0 YOU GET THE POINT? MR. PERRONE: T 0, YOUR HONOR, 1 APOLOGIZE. [THE COURT: NOW, ASK DIRECT QUESTIONS RATHER THAN NEGRITVE ASSERTIONS THEN THE QUESTION, REMEMBER, IS THAT CORRECT. IF HE SAYS NO, ‘YOUR ASSERTION IS INCORRECT. ALL RIGHT MR. PERRONT: SHOULD I WAIT FOR MS. STREETER TO CONE sack? ‘THE COURT: No, T PON'T KNOW WHERE SHE"S GOING. (WS, STREETER REAPPEARS.) BY UR, PERRONE: @ WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE RESTRAINING ORDER HERE IN CALIFORNIA, THE NEW ONE WAS ISSUED? AL RBCEIVeD rt @ WERE YoU PRESENT IW COURT WHEN THE COURT Issueo -. AX WAS Nor IN couRT. ‘THE COURT: THAT TS THE ANSWER. BY WR. PERRONI: @ 80 SOMEBODY TOLD YOU THAT A RESTRAINING ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED?aA ves. THEN HANDED YOU A PIECE OF PAPER? A SEVERAL PTECES OF PAPER, YES. @ THAT THEY TOLD YOU WAS A RESTRAINING ORDER? AYES, 17 SEEMED TO HAVE THE PROPER SocuMenTATTON, ‘me count:’ Boks ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER? Mg. STREETER: TT 18 IW THE COURT FILE ‘THe COURT: WELL, WHY OON'T YOU LET HE KNOW WHAT IT 18, AND I'LL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANYTHING TH THE rue. ws. stREETER: P'S 8033717 NR. PERRONT: 1 OON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A COPY OF 17 rw nH ILE, THERE'S A NUMBER, MS. STREETER: IF YOU LOOK ~~ TP 12'S IN THE POLICE REPORE, IT'S IW THE DOCUMENT WITH THE POLICE REPORT THE COURT: MA'AM, 1 OON'T AAVE A POLICE REPORT IN THE PILE, THE POLICE REPORT 0 NOT BELONG IH THE FILE. ‘THE COURT RECORDS ARE IN THE FILE, AND ALL T FIND IS AN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT HeRE'S A COPY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER TW THE FILE. ALL RIGHT: WR. PERRONT: I BELIEVE TARP IS WE ONE IN THIS case Ms. STREETER arcur, THE couRT: HAT? MR. PERRONE: IT WAS A PRETRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERes ee eS A ves, THEN HANDED YOU A PTECE OF PAPER? A SEVERAL PLECES OF PAPER, YES @ ‘THAT THEY TOLD YOU WAS A RESTRAINING ORDER? A YRS, TT SEEMED TO HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION tHe court:” DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER? MS. STREETER: IT 15 IN THE COURT FILE. AE COURT: WELL, WAY OON'T YOU LET ME KNOW WHAT IT 18, AND I'LL, TAKE JUDICEAL NOTICE OF ANYTHING IN THE ene. us. srReerer: 37'S 8039717 MR, PERRONT: T OON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A coey OF IT TW THE GEILE. THERE'S A NOWBER. Ms. STREETER: TF YOU LOOK -- IF 1n"S IN-THE porICE REPORT, I'S N THE OOCUMENT NITE THE POLICE REGORT ‘THE COURT: AIAN, T DON'T HAVE A POLICE REPORT 58 | tte FILE. THE POLICE REPORT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE FILE | THE COURT RECORDS ARE IN THE PILE, AND ALL 1 FIND IS AN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND AN AMENDED COMPLATNE. HoRE'S A COPY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER TN THE FILE. ALL RIGHT. - yg. PERRONE: T BELIEVE THAT TS THE ONE IN THIS case. MS. STREETER: RIGHT, RIGHT ‘THE couRT: WHAT? | WR, PERRONT: 17 WAS A PREPRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER10 n 2 1B u as 16 wv 1 20 a 2 2 my 25 26 2 28 ISSUED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER, IT 1S NOT THE OWES THAT MS, STREETER IS REFERENCING. ‘THE COURT: WELL, IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS \RITWESS 18 REFERRING 10, SOMETHING THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM, DOES ANYSODY HAVE A COPY OF THAT? THAT 19 WHAT SHE'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF, BUT HOW AM I GOING TO SEE ‘THE ORDER? MS, STRERTER: MY UNDERSTANDING TS TWAT PERHAPS THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT HAS THE POLICE -- COPIES OF THE POLICE REPORT, BUT THE COLORADO PROTECTIVE ORDER, RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE CALTFORWIA ORDER IS IN THE POLICE FILE AND THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IS A REGISTRATION OF THE COLORADO RECORD WHICH WAS PERMANENT, ‘THERE UAS NO HEARING PER SE THVOLVING ws. LYNCH. WR. COHEN HAS A PERMANENT RESTRALVING ORDER THAT WAS GRANTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AS PART OF ‘THE UNIFORM ACT WHEN A PERSON MOVES, THEY HAVE TO REGISTER THRE RESTRAINING ORDER IN THE NEW STATE. SO THE CALIFORNIA ORDER 1S NERELY A REGISTRATION OF THE COLORADO ORDER THAT WAS GRANTED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WAS PERMANENT. 1 HAVE AS THE COURT CAN GEE, MY FILES ARE \VOUOMINOUS ON THIS CASE. T ONLY BROUGHT THE E-MAILS AS I FIGURED THAT WOULD BE THE PART THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY LIF THE COURT NEEDS THE ACTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER FROM BOTH, T HAVE THAT, IT 15 IN DEPARTMENT 40, = ‘CAN GO REAL QUICKLY AND GET THEM FOR THE COUR. ‘THE COURT: IF THE E-VAILS THEMSELVES NAY CONSTITUTE bowv ww 5 Ee 1A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 653(H), SUBDIVISION (8) ‘THAT 18 ANNOYING COMMUNICATIONS, ANNOY, BUT VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 273.6(A) WHICH CHARGES A VIOLATION OF ‘THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, NERDS PROOF OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, ‘THAT THE DEFENDANT KNORS ABOUT. NOW ARE YOU READY TO PROVE-- YOU ARE NOT GOING 70 PROVE ~~ TN A TRIAL YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO $7, THIS HAPPENS HARDLY. MS. STRESTER: THE PEOPLE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE BASIS 1 BELIEVE IT 1S 1269 WHICH IS SAFETY TO THE COMMUNITY TH SETTING BAIL AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION ‘THAT MR. COHEN AND HES ATTORNEYS HAVE RECEIVED FROM MS. LYNCH DURING THAT TINE PERIOD =~ IF T COULD BB ALLOWED 170 HAVE A BRIEF RECESS, I CAN GO GBT THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, TAB TWO ORDERS THAT ARE MENTTONED ‘THE COURT: RATHER THEN WASTE TIME, GIVE ME AN OFFER “OF PROOF. WILL YOU BE IN A POSITION TO PROVE THAT THIS DEFENDANT HAS EVER HAD NOTICE OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER? Ms. STREETER; YES, SECAUSE SHS WAS PRESENT AT THE HEARING, HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING WHERE SHE AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE HEARING IN THE CALTEORNIA RESTRATWING ORDER THAT MR. PERRONZ 19 MENTIONING 15 HEREDY ‘A REGISTRAY 1ON OF THE COLORADO RESTRAINING ORDER, THAT 1S | rexanens: er COURT: WILL THE DOCUNENT ITSELF HAVE PROOF IN YP THAT THIS DEFENDANT KNEW ABOUT IT? us. STREETE YES, I ALSO HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR, Tr THE COURT WANTS TO SEE THE TRANSCRTOT FROM THE+ | PBRHANENT RESTRAINING ORDER. ‘pHE WITNESS: MAY I SPEAK, SIR? ‘THE COURT: NO. How LONG WELL IT TAKE YOU TO GBT THAT STUFF? 3 Ms. STREETER: FIVE MINUTES. « ‘THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 7 ‘THEN S*LL TAKE A RECESS IN THES MATTER ONTTL a | vou cer Tr, ACTUALLY THOUGH, LET ME SAY TO YOO, WE ARE «| wor snvENc THIS CASE. IT 15 NOT NUCESSARE 70 PROVE AL: OF o | rae cAiMes THAT ARE ALLEGED BBCAUSE THEY ARE REPETITIOS ai | conoucr OvER A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME, BUT IF ON THE BASIS ao | of THese E-MAILS THEMSELVES AND THE NUMBERS THAT THE aa_| wrmess Has TOLO ME HE HAS RECEIVED THAT EXHIBIT 1 FOR 1a | aoewrrercatron HE SAID ARRIVED IN TWO DAYS ~~ = 1s THE WITWESS: THAT 1S CORRECT, SIR? 16 que COURT: ~~ THAT WOULD BE KIND OF ANNOYING TO ty | save Your coMPOTER FILLED OF WITH THAT. LET'S JUST LEAVE ae | rr ar TAT, LET'S NOT MASTE ANY HORE TINE. a ow THE WIINESS HAS ALREADE TESTIFIED TO THOSE ao | portZons THAT HE READ TN HE COMPLAINT WHICH HE COWSTROED 21 | 10 88 TAREATS To AIS SAFETY? 2 wis, STREETER: ES. 2 stWe COURT: ALL RIGHT. 2 1 YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT 25_| susvect? 26 NS. STREETER: T DON'T HAVE ANY HORE QUESTIONS. 2 ‘tap COURT: THEN I'LL ASK HIM R QUESTION. - 28 MR. COHEN, 00 YOU WAVE ANY BASIS FOR BELIEVING fo2 ‘DAT TRIS LADY REALLY NEANT TO 00 YOU HARIS OR MEANS TO DO you HARA? HE WITNESS: SHE STATES $0 OVER AND OVER, STR, ves. ‘THE COURT: 00 YOU BELIEVE 177 THE WITNESS: YES. ‘aE COURT: AND YOU ACTUALLY SAY YOU HAVE LOSS PEACE oF sano. ARE YOU IN FEAR? ‘YHE WITNESS: SER, MAY T SPEAK? YES. ‘THE COURT: DO YOU NEED TO EXPLATN THAT ANSWER? ‘THE WITWESS: YES. HE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION? THE WITNESS: I HAVE GRANOCHILDREN PLAYING ON MY FRONT SAWN, RECEIVE PHONE CALLS THAT ARE CHILLING, MY AGTORNEY RECEIVES PHONE CALLS. awe COURT: DON'T TELL NE WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY RECEIVES. THAT WOULD BE HEARSAY. ‘ane WrTWEss: I RECEIVE PHONE CALLS THAT ARE SLURRED SHAT ARE INFLICTED WITH ALCOHOL, THAT ARE UGLY, THAT ARE MENACING, AN RIWOSPHIERE OVER THE PAST STK YEARS OF 18 TO 20 E-WATLS A DAY YOWING TO TAKE NE DOWN, VOWING 70 HOMTLIATE WE, VOWTNG TO BRING ME TO SOME SORT OF FICTLOUS JUSTICE SHE'S CONSTRUED I OBSERVE. YES, THAT CRERTES AN AIMOSPHERE OF FEAR. ‘THE COURT: ALL RIGHT 18 THAT ALL YOU HAVE? Ms, STREETER: YES.siac- ‘THE COURT: YOU WANT ANY MORE CROSS-EXAMINATION? ACTUALLY TRIS GENTLEMEN IS IW THE PROCESS OF CROSS-EXAIINATION. D0 YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? MR. PERRONI: I WAS ~~ I FIGURED X WOULD ~~ ‘THE COURT: I AM SORRY I INTERFERED. THAT IS ALL RIGHT IVE JUST BEEN DIVERTED FROW THE FACTS THAT ARE TO DE RESOLVED AT TAIS TIME. Move IT OW. MR. PERRONI: I AM DONE. ‘THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COHEN, YOU MAY STEP DoW {THE WETNESS: THANK YoU, STR. MS. STREETER: THANK YoU. ‘tHe COURT: ANYTHING ELSE? MS. STRESTER: NO, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS 7. ‘THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING 70 OFFER ANY DEFENSE? HR. PERRONT: NO, YOUR HONOR, WE 00 -~ I THINK WE [ARE CLEAR SHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR HER TO BE RELEASED, AND 1 DON'T KNOW TF YOU WANT A 921 MOTION? I CAN HAKE ONE AS TO SOME OF THE COUNTS. ‘TWe COURT: WHAT'S A 911 MOTION? MR. PERRONE: IT 1S LIKE A 995 FOR MISDEMEANORS AT ARRAIGNNENT, IF THEY ARE IN CUSTODY YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S REASONABLE CAUSE THAT SHE'S COMMITTED ANY NEW AMENDED COUNTS. YOU PROBABLY DON'T SEE IT MUCH IN HERE. fostecseiree 10 a 2 2B u as 16 v 1 » 20 2 2 2 2 2 26 2 28 29 {THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT WAY THE BAIL SHOULD NOT BE RAISED? I DOW'T KNOW HOM COME AFTER THE WARRANT WAS TSSUED WHICH I SAW IN THE FILE HAD A RECOMMENDED $50.000 BAIL WHY WAS I7 REDUCED TO 15,0007 aR. PRRONE: WELL, I THINK IT WAS AN ARREST WARRANT, YOUR HOWOR, AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTICE OF THE CHARGES THAT WERE FILED, THEY DION'T GIVE HER NOTICE OF (THE ACTUAL FILING OF THE CHARGES. SO THEY SENT OUT A FAIRLY HIGH ARREST WARRANT, I AN NOT SURE. 1 WASN'T PRESENT AT BADCHET WHEN SRE SET IT AT $15,000, BUT We DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE E-MAILS THAT WE HAVE ACCESS 70 ow, THE COUR UAT BINDER IN FRONT OF YOU, ARE THOSE ‘THE SAME OOCOMENTS THAT ARE IN THE EXHIBIT 17 NR. PERRONI: I'VE BEEN TOLD THEY ARE. I'VE BEEN ‘TOLD, THEY ARE. THE COURT: I DON'T EXPECT YOU MR, PERROWE: I NAVE GONE THROUGH IT PAGE BY PAGE. THE COURT: No, YOU DIDN'T. MR, PERRONI: BUT I'VE LOOKED THROUGH THEM. THEY [ARE ONE SIDED PIECES OF PAPER. OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN AWNOYING AMOUNT OF B-WAILS, BUT SHOULD SHE BE IN JAIL ~~ ALONG WITH 1A WOMAN WITH No RECORD BECAUSE SHE'S SENDING A BUNCH OF ANNOYING E-NAILS WITHOUT GOING TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE, VANDALIZING ANY PROPERTY? HE'S ANWOYED BECAUSE IT"S BEEN HAPPENING FOR A WHILE. T JUST DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CO THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF. THESE ARE MISDEMEANORS. SHE| i { q 3 8 2 4 DOESN'T HAVE: ANY RECORD. THERE HAVEN'T REEN ANY RERL LENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT CREDIBLE THREATS OF ¥! ‘opVIOUSEY HE'S UNERSY, BUT HE HASW'T SEEN ‘s1uce 2004, $0 SHE'S NOT GOING THROUGH RIS HOUSE AND PEEPING THROUGH HES WINDOWS. 1 DON'T RAOK. TE KIND OF = “Live GONE THROUGH THESE. SHE'S OBVIOUSLY ANNOYING que covRT; WELL, YOU HEARD THE WITNESS STATE THE uATORE OF THE E-MAILS. 17'S HOT JUST AN ANNOYING AKON of PAPER AND ATTENTION GETTING BOT THERE ARE POSITIVE PHYSICAL THREATS THAT HE FEARS. hun. PERRONT: 1 DIDN'T HEAR ANY POSETIVE PHYSICAL ctHREATS. 7 WAS, WE SHOULD TAKE HIM DORN, OR TAM GOTNS ‘70 TAKE YOU DMN, THEY HAD A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, AND ‘gae"S DOING NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT SHE'S GOTNG TO CARRY runout ON ANY OF THESE THREATS. lin Hag NOP SEEN HER SINCE 2008, THERE'S NO | swpurcneron THaT SHE'S GOTNG TO COME AND PHYSICALLY TAKE TnIM vowel, HE KNOWS SHE HAS A FELONY TAX CASE. HE | emexoveo HER. ME HAS THE RECORDS ‘rie couRt: I AN NOT INTERESTED IN ALL OF THAT, THE owuy THING WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT 18, MS. STREETER, wine 18 THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DEFENOANT'S ARREST AE INITIAL ARRAIGNMENT WHERE YOU SAID THE BAIL 4AS REDUCED. Now YOU HAD THAT BINDER FULL OF PAPER RT THAT ‘rave, pLD You not? ws. sTREETER: NO) ‘THE COURT: WERE YOU AT THAT ARRAZGHMENT? — __ —~ Lucreiree “4 5 16 a 9 20 a 2 23 2 2 26 2 28 21 Ms. STREETER: NO. ‘THE COURT; DID YOU -~ THEN WHAT 18 17? MS. STREETER: T KNOW WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE |ARRAIGNNEND BECAUSE I WAS TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUE BY PHONE, WE OTD NOT HAVE THESE E-MAILS. 1 JUST TOLD HER ‘THAT 1 KOEW THAT THERE WERE MORE E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT, BUT 1 DID NOT KNOW THE VOLUME OF E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT. 1 FOUND THAT OUT AFTER US. LYNCH WAS ARRAIGNED. TF THE PEOPLE HAD KNOW THAT THERE WERE TAIS VOLUME OF E-MAILS AT THE TIME OF ARRAIGNMENT, THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE PILED A MOTION 70 AMEND. WAS AMAZED BY THE VOLOME OF E-MAILS. THE PROPLE HAD WO TOEA THAT THERE WERE THIS MANY E-MAILS, AND ‘THE PERSON HANDLING THE CASE AT ARRATGNHENT WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH 17-AS MUCH AS I WAS, BOT EVEN WITH THAT, T WWaS UNAWARE THAT I7 WAS THES LEVEL OF E-MAILS IN A TWO AND A RALE MONPH PERIOD. We ARE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 900 E-MAILS XN A ‘pho AND A HALE MONTH PERIOD PLUS VOTCEMATLS THAT HE uso -~ THOSE VOICENAIL, MESSAGES THAT HE ALSO RECEIVEO ROW US. LYNCH OURING THE TIME PERIOD. PEOPLE SEB A CHANGE IN CERCUMSTANCE THAT THE SHEER VOLUME OF C-MAILS {THRE WERE SENT DURING THAT Hime BERIOD ~~ ‘the COURT: THE VOLUME OF ANNOYANCE 15 ONE THING, ‘DHE SUBSTANCE WHICH INCLUDES THREATS WHICH CAUSE MR. COHEN FEAR IS ANOTHER THING. NoW DID YOU HAVE KNOWLEOGE OF THE SUBSTANCE, ‘THE CONTENT OF THOSE -~ ANY E-NAILS THAT CONTAINED potmsiecreirey 10 a 12 a3 u a8 16 u 18 cy 20 a 22 a 28 26 a 2 2 [THREATENING LANGUAGE? WS. STREETER: NO. ‘THE PROPLE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE E-NATLS FROM DECEMBER 157H, 2011, TO FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012, NOR DID THE PEOPLE HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE VOLUME OF E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. AND THE PEOPLE DID NOF HAVE ANY TDEA ~- IN FACT, ALL THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED WAS INVOLVED WAS SHE HAD SENT SOME ADDITIONAL E-MAILS. 1 WAS WOT EVEN AWARE THAT MS, LYWCH HAD TRIED {TO CAEL MR. COHEN FROM THE TIME PERIOD OF DECENBER 15TH, 2011 TO FEBRUARY 299, 2012, SUT WHAT T WOULD SAY IF THE (COUR? 100KS AT THE WARRANT AND FROM WHERE MS. LYICH CAME [ROW THE OTHER ISSUE THE COURT NEEDS TO BE NINDEUL OF, MS. LYNCH DOES NOT LIVE INTHE AREA. SHE LIVES 1” BERKELEY. {THE CONCERN THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT DEFENSE REQUESTS ABOUT HAVING HER RELEASED O.R, X MEAN FROM WHAT T GATHER, THIS IS NOT A DEEENDANT THAT HAS WANY TIES TO THIS COMMUNITY GIVEN WHAT SHE'S FACING, WHAT IS THERE TO KEEP HER HERE AND NOT JUST FLEBING THE JURISDICTION? ‘THE COURT: AND YOU DID NoT INTEND TO PUT ON ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL? YR. PERROWT: NO. ‘THE COURT: YOU CONCEDE THAT SHE 15 NOT A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA? MR. PERRONE: LAST 1 CHECKED T BELIEVE THAT BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, RIGHT?) a le ce es A ro stucrety 10 a a a a 16 ” ae aw 20 a 22 23 ay 2s 26 a 20 3 MS. STREETER: | IT'S NOT LOS ANGELES. WR. PERRONI: SHB HAS FAMILY IN THE ARER, YOUR HowoR. T THINK HER CHILDREN AND TWO OF HER BROTHERS LIVE IN 108 ANGELES. NS. STREETER: SHE'S ESTRANGED FROM HER CHILDREN. ‘THE DEFENDANT: NO, T AN NOT, I AM NOT ESTRANGED FROM MY CHILOREN, MS. STREETER: YOUR HONOR, BAIL -- THE PEOPLE WOULD MIKE THE COURT 0 BE MINDFUL THAT BALL SCHEDULE UNDER 273.6 18 §25,000.00 THE COURT: THE SCHEDULE CALLED FOR WARE? Ms. smaeerei 425,000.00 BAIL SCHEDULE, $0 IF YOU WOULD ~~ WERE JUST TO SET BAIL ON Two OF THE 273.6" THAT WOULD BE 550.000, YOUR HONOR, {TNE COURT: HOW DID YoU DOUBLE TP? STREETER: $25,000.00 FOR EACH COUNT, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS’ MORE THAN ONE COUNT OF 273.6. ‘THERE ARE SEVERAL COUNTS OF 273.6. THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR YOUR RELEASE oR? NR. PERRONT: SHE COMES TO HER COURT DAYS. WE KNOH ‘THAT BECAUSE SHE CAME TO THE COLORADO COURT DATE. THEY HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT FOR IT. SHE WAS THERE. SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE OTHER ONES HERE. SHE'S NOY ~~ THEY PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THAT ‘SHE'S A FLIGHT RISK. SHE HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD. THERE HAS BEEW No VIOLENCE, AND THESE ARE ALL STSDEMEANORS.Leecreiree EVERYTHING HERE I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO D0 ON THE CASS. I THINK EVERYTHING HERE WARRANTS AN O.R. RELEASE. ‘TRE COURT: I DISAGREE -~ GO AHEAD. 1 SHOULO NOT HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU. ‘THE GENTLEMEN APPEARS TO BE FEARFUL. HE'S OLDER. HE MENTIONS HYS GRANDCHILDREN ON THE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, MAKE YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT. WR. PERRONT: SHE'S NEVER COME TO THE PROPERCY. THEY ARE E-MAILS. THEY OION'T BREAK HIS COMPUTER. THERE'S NOTHING SAYING WHEN HE SEES -- HE GETS AN E-MAIL FROM SUCH AND SUCH E-MAIL ADDRESS HE HAS TO OPEN TT UP AND READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. IP'S ANNOYING. SHE'S NOT COMING TO HIS HOUSE AND BREAKING AIS STUFF AND SCARING #1 'S GRANDCHILDREN. SHE'S NO? GOING 70 IS GRANOCHILOREN'S HOUSE OR HIS CHILDREN'S HOUSE. THE OWE TINE HE SAYS HE THOUGHT SHE CAME TO SOWEONE CLOSE TO HIM WAS TO HIS ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. HE HAS NOT SEEN HER SINCE 2004. T ONDERSTAND HE MAY BE AFRAID. WHETHER THAT 18 REASONABLE OR NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE ANNOYED BY B-HAILS ~ ‘THE COURT: FINISH YOUR ARGUMENT. MR. PERRONE: SUBRETTED, YOUR HONOR, ‘THE COURT: WELL —- MR. PERRONT: YOU CAN CALL ME WHATEVER YOU WANT. THE COURT: MR. PERRONT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT IN THIS POSITION WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE 10i eo styers 2 3 u 15 zen 25 26 20 MANY MANY SCTURTIONS AND RHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF COMMUNICATION HERE, ONE HAS TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE MENTAL STABILITY OF A PERSON WHO WOULD GO TO THESE LENGTHS OVER-AN ISSUE THAT APPEARS TO BE BASED ON -- £ DON'T KNOW WHAT FOR SURE. IT WAS A LONG PERSONAL OR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, AND THEY ARE AT ODDS, BUT WHEN WE HAVE: DEAL WITH SOMEHODY WHOSE MENTAL STABILITY TS SUSPECT AS T MUST TELL YOU, I HAVE SUSPICION OF SOMEBODY WHO WOULD GO 90 THESE LENGTHS TO ANNOY AND THERE COMES A MONENT WHEN THERE TS A BREAK AND SOMETHING TRRGIC CAN HAPPEN. T SEE NO GROUNDS TO RELEASE #5. LYNCH ON WE OWN RECOGNIZANCE AT ALL. ACTUALLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY REASON FOR THE ARRAIGNMENT COURT TO HAVE REOUCEO THE RECOMMENDED BATL WaxCH ONDAUNTEDLY WAS AS NS. STREETER POINTED OUT, RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AT $50,000 WHEN THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED, BUT IN BEING A REPETITION OF THE SANE KIND OF ACTIVITY, I OON"T THINK THAT T JUST HAVE TO AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME BECAUSE IT WAS DONE TWICE THAT YOU DOUBLED THE BAIL, THE BATL SCHEDULE. WILL RAISE THE BATL TO THE BAIL SCHEDULE THE ONLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MS. STREETER REFERRED ‘TO 1S NOT BEING AWARE OF THE THREATENING ASPECTS OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH CAUSED MR. COHEN THE Fear, So THE BALL, TS NOW SET IN THE SUM OF $25,000.00 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ScHEDULE.x staceeivea ao n n vn u“ 15 a6 7 Fry 19 20 a 2 23 2 25 26 an 28 v wv 36 ALL RIGHT, NOW THE MATTER GOES BACK TO ~ MR. PERRONT: FOR THE RECORD, CAN I JUST MAKE A ‘quick RECORD? ‘THE COURT: YEAH. WR. PERRONI: JUST A QUICK RECORD. T APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT TO SHE RAISING OF BATL UNOER THE STH, GTR AND LATE AMENOHENTS DUE PROCESS GUST MATERIALIZE THE OBJECTIONS. {I APPRECIASE THE COURTS TIME. ‘tHE COURT: THE OBJECTIONS ARE NOTED AND BAIL 1S NOW $25,000.00. MS. STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ‘nie CLERK: CAN THE RECORD REFLECT THAT HS. STREETER 1S MAINTAINING THE EXHIBIT NUMBER 1? ‘THE COURT: SHE VAINTAINS 17 HERSELF? ys, STREETER; YEAH. IT WAS JUST BY REFERENCE? ‘THE CLERK: SHE MARKED AN EXHIBIT. THE COURT: Of, OH, OH, T AM SORRY YOU HAVE THE oTION FOR THE EXHIBIT TO BE RECEIVED BY REFERENCE? MS. STREETER: YES. ‘tHe COURT: THE MOTION IS GRANTED. us. staEeTs! ‘THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR, PERRONE: CAN I NAKE A REQUEST TOO, YOUR HONOR? ‘HE COURT: WHAT ZS THAT? MR. PERRONE: ELL, ACTUALLY FERST OF ALL, 17 LOOKS LIKE MR, COHEN LEFT RIS NOTEBOOK UP ON THE WITNESS stano. ‘nhe COURT: I DARE SAY HE IS IN THE HALL. SOMEBODYsigereirea 2 3 u“ 15 a6 v ae 1 20 a 22 2 2ee| 25 26 2 28 a” ought 10 norzer ~~ MR. PERRONI: ON THE RECORD, THE OEFENSE WOULD BE. WAKING A REQUEST FOR THAT SINCE IT WAS USED TO REFRESH RECOLLECTION. ‘THE COURT: YOU WANT THAT MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? MS. STREETER: NO. MR, PERRONT: WE ARE MAKING AN INEORWAL REQUEST FOR SISCOVERY. SINCE HE USED I?, we cer 17. THE COURT: WELL, ALL RIGHT. THE MOTTON FOR DISCOVERY IS GRANTED. MS. STREETER, YOU'LL SPEAK WITH NR. COilEN ‘ABOUT TO WHAT EXTENT HE USED HIS NOTES, AND TF THERE'S AMY BASIS FOR IT, YOU ARE TO PROVIDE TP TO DEFENSE. MS. STREETER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ‘THE COURT: . THE MATTER IS REFERRED FORTHWITH To prvisrow 40. MS. STREETER, YOU'LL TAKE THE PILE BACK THERE DOES I HAVE A OATE SET FOR FURTHER PRoceEDINGs? MS. STREBTER: wo. THE COURT: THEN THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED 70 DIVISION 40 RIGHT NOW. THE CLERK: THEY ARE TAKING HER TO 40, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SHE'S GOING TO 407 THE CLERK: YES, SIR THE COURT: THEN YOU'LL RETURN TO 40, M9. STREETER, INMEOIATELY.v v x | siecretrea 1 1 a 2 (WHEREDEON THE MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED TO DIVISION 40 FORTENITH.)sigerseiree SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALTFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARIVENE NO, 44 HON, SAMOEL MAYERSON, JUDGE ‘HE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) marumee, | vs. wo. zeao4sa8 SELLAY Linc, ) gevoneen’s sermaoner. | Genricnte STRYE OF CALIFORNIA) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } 1, ANNETTE -T.. VAN OLDEN, OFFICIAL AS20RTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALEFORIIIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIEY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 38, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD AND TESTIMONY TAKEN IN DEZARTHENT NO, 4¢ IN THE MATTER OF ‘THS ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON MARCH 23, 2012 DARED THIS 127H ORY OF AUGUST, 2014 Gggasile Lire Ud e£le. Tate “EVAR OLDEN,” OFFTCINE REPORTERExhibit 7+ || CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney ‘Bt 2 || PARAS BLOOMQUIST, Supervising Attorney sensei |SANDRA JO STREETER, Deputy City Attorney wR 172012 2] State Bar No, 134028 || 222 South Hil Street, 2° Floor « |] Los Angeles, California 90013, Telephi Attorn « || PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL 2° || CALIFORNIA, SUSTICE CENTER 4 ama Case No.: 2CA04539 2 %s } PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTECING ‘a | KELLEY LYNCH, } MEMORANDUM Defendant. ‘apt 2012 a em "TO THE DEFENDANT HIS ATTORNEY OF 1» RECO 2s |] autho 20 || Dated come eg| yone: 13) 485-2352, for the Plaintit SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )RD AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. VANDERE: Plaintiff, the People of the Site of Califor, submits the following points an es in support of her sentencing recommendation ‘pil 17,2012 Respectalycubmited, CARMMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attomey TARA J. BLOOMQUIST, Supervising Attorney Family Violence Unit PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM1 INTRODUCTION ‘The defendant Kelley Lynch (Defendant), for more than seven years, sent vitin| Leonard Cohen (Vici) thousands of emsils and left several dozen voicemail messages During this time, Vedi fest sought and obtained a tee year rextainng order fom the Lod Angeles Supeior Couss, Viti later sought and obtained a permanent resiining order rom] the Cotordo courts, which was ltr registred with the Los Angles Superior Courts in 2012 After a one week jury til, Defendant wat convicted on to counts of making obscene andl tizetning telephone cals, #vilston of Penal Code §6S3(a), and ws convicted on counts of violating «resting order, vilton of Penal Code $273.6). Daring the tl vem spoke in dtl shot how Defeaden’s tions wee both anoying and esterng During the same time tht Defendant was haressing Vietn, aswell ab ducing tl Defendant repeatedly contacted Bruce Cues, riminal defense atomey in New Yor, va bo email eters and vole mail messages, (See Exhibit A for leters sent by Defendant to Mi caer sine Defendant hasbeen in custody) Defendant has also repentelly contacted Angeles DistrietAttomey Steve Cooley via email for several year In an email set 10 Mi cooley in January 2012, Defendant stats several ines tvoughout an email “EXECUTE Steve Cooley" (See Exhibit B for futher dei) ‘The maximum penalty for each violation of Penal Code §SS:n() is si months in tg county ji andlor «fine of $1,000.00. ‘The maxim penalty for eich violation of Penal C 8273.6) is one year inthe county ilar ine of $1,000.00, Penal Code $653 provide th ssa contton of probation «defendant may be onered to complete counseling. th ation, af Vietim would be desosibed pursuant to Family Cade §6211(c) as someone “with whom the POPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM[defendant is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship,” Penal Code §1203.097 applicable for sentencing purposes. ARGUMENT 0 SECTION 684 OF THE PENAL CODE [REQUIRES THAT SENTENCING BE PERMANENTLY ‘STAYED ON THE ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS COUNTS, BUT NOT ON THE RESTRAING ORDER COUNTS. Section 654 of the California Penal Code is applicable where multiple convictions ar based on a single criminal actor omission. Penal Code Section 654 provides in pertinent part thot “aja actor omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can i punished unde more than one.” The California Supreme Court has interpreted this section to prevent multiple punishments for different acts or omissions where the defendant entertained a principal objectivg to which other objectives, if any, were merely incidental. People vs, Miller (1997) 18 C:3d 875] 875, Beople vs. Beamon (1973) BC. 34625, 639. For example, in Beamon, whece the defendant was convicted of kidnapping and second, degree robbery, the court held that both erlmes were commited with the intent and object soley to rob the vitin of his truck. Jd. a 639, The defendant could therefore only be punish for one ofthe crimes. See also, People ws, Ratclif (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 808, cnccteend ‘held that the defendant could not be punished for both kidnapping and false imprisonment. Here, Defendant commited the act of making annoying telephone calls and violating restraining order with one objective in mind: to harass Victim. Defendant can therefore only b PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMeee ee ree, eee ae i ee rr 1 the maximum sentence on the restraining orders counts ard Miler at 286, ‘Therefor, zreater than the maximum sentence on count the annoying telephone coun, this Cou ms st te sentence on the annoying telephone counts, However, Penal Code §654 does nt apply to ts restrining order counts the convetion on tote counts ceensed on diferent dts. m1, DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE NOT VIOLATED, IF THIS COUT CONSIDERS ACTS NOT LEADING TO CONVICTIONS AS LONG AS THERE IS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR SUCH ACTS. 1 defendant, who i convicted ofa miademaner, snot efered to a probation offer the cout may conser any infomation in sentencing sch defendant whikh could have bee led ina probation repo. Pen, Code §1205(8) ‘The Unite States Supreme Court has ruled that de sre evidentiary rules which arq used in & ial to determine a defendan’s quit are aot applicable in a sentencing hesrng Bia vs. Mew York (1949) 337 US. 241, 247. A sentencing judge is ot conned to th arow iseue of uit, Rather, the sentencing judge's peimary concer is seting the appropri sentence for that particular defendant based on the falls infomation possible concerning t PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUN.defendants ie and charecterstics. If such information is aot made available tothe judge} the Supreme Court reasoned, a repeat offender could receive the same sentence as & firs} offender. ‘The court in Williams rejected the defendant’ claim that his due process rights hag [been violated where the sentencing court relied on information not obtained through « formal evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court ruled that “the due process clause should not treated as a device for feezing the evidential procedure of sentencing in the mold of trial procedure” [dat 251, ‘The California Supreme Court is in accord with the Hillioms court as long as the hearing is fundamentally fir. See, People wz, Peterson (1973) 9 Cal.d 212, Iti therefore permissible for a court to consider evidence that would not be admissible at tial such sentenci as an ares, in sentencing as long as there is substantial bass for believing the information eithey ‘contained inthe probation report or presented atthe sentencing hesring is sccurate and reliable] at 727; People vs, Calloway (1974) 37 Cal Arp 34 905, 908. Thus, the kind of information| contained ina rap sheet isnot acceptable, but supporting factual information such asa staemend by the victim, police reports, or disposition ofthe anestis acceptable. Ratelif 124 Cal App 3 808, 623. In addition, an arest not resulting in conviction must be labeled as such to preven the sentensing cour from mistaking an arest fora conviction, Calloway, 37 Col App 3d 905) Paterson, the cout bed it was permissible to allow a police officer 908. For example, testify as to uncharged bad acts by the defendant at sentencing. The defendant was allowed [present evidence to the contrary, and there was a substantial basis for believing the officer's testimony. 9 Cal 3d 717, 728. A similar result was reached by the cout in Ratliff, where th court held thatthe defendant was not denied due process ofthe law by a probation report whit included police contacts not resulting in convictions. 124 Cal App.3d 808, 822. PEOPLE'S PROFOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMHere, in addition to harassing Victim, Defendaat has also harassed Mr, Cutler end Mr (Cooley, (See Exhibit C for letere from Mt. Cutler and the Los Angeles County Distict Anorey's Office.) wv PROBATIONIIS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT AND ‘SHOULD BE DENIED INTHE PRESENT CASE UNLESS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET BY DEFENDANT. 1 i well seed that probation is «privilege, an act of clemency and not a right, granting of whichis within che sound diseretion ofthe wil cout, (People vs, Pinon (1973), 3 JCal, App. 3d 120, 123.) The California Supreme Court has stated that: ‘The paramount concem in sentencing must be the protection ‘of society. The interests ofthe defendant are legitimate by secondary concem. Granting convicted criminal the qualified liberty of probation subjects socery to Use risk that twill continue tobe vitimized during the period when he would ctherwise be confined. In determining whether to grant probation, the judge must therefore satisfy himself thatthe Fiske inherent in that disposition are outweighed by the potential benefits (Reaple ve. Wamer (1978), 20 Ca 3, 678, 689, superseded by statue on other grounds) For example, in People vs, Peterson (1973), 9 Cal3d 717, 728, where the defendant hed been convicted of possession of heroin, the cout ellowed one of the arresting officers to testify to the defendants history as a drug dealer. Based on that testimony, the California Suprems [Court reasoned that it was appropriate to deny probation in such case, and sentence thd defendant to state prison. (1) Jn the present situation, based on the testimony of Victim, as well as the information the atached exhibits itis clear that Defendant poses a serious safety risk tothe community at PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMlage in general, and to all the people mentioned in her letters, emails and voicemail i particular. What is particularly concerning isthe rent leters sent by Defendant to Mr. Cute Reading those letters, one would never conclude that along standing relationship did not exis between Defendant and Mr, Cutler, Ie seems that Defendant has an undiagnosed mental healt issue. Therefore, the People ae recommending that pursuant to Penal Code §1203a, Defendant either allow sentencing to be continued for s brief period and, in the interim, be ordered comply with a mental health evaluation by Sandra G. Bace, PsyD., LMFT of About Fac Domestic Violence Project, or the be placed on five years probation pursvant Penal Cod: §1203e, ordered to reside for atleast one year at Gacoways, ordered to take any medication thay is preseribed while housed at Gateways, be given for credit for time served, as well as credit any time in custody untl Defendant canbe transferred ether by a representative from Gateways or the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, ordered to pay a restitution fine of $100.0, a dometi violence fund fine of $400.00, erdered nat to own, possess, buy or sell any dangerous or dead weapons for the next 10 yeas, ordered not to anny, harass, molest, or otherwise disturb th peace of eny victim or witness involved inthis case, and ordered to stay 100 yards away fom] and have no contact with Michelle Rice, Robert Kory, and 9300 Wilshire Boulevard in Bevel Hills, Califomia, tn addon, puant o Pel Cote $1962 and te decumenition Indl in ba People’s attached exhibits, Defendant should also be ordered to say 100 yards eway fom, and Ihave no contact with Broce Cutler, Bq. and District Attorney Steve Cooley. (See alte, Pepl js Ponce (2009) 173 Cal App.4" 378, 382-383; People vs, Stone (2004) 123 Cal. Appa 153, 158-161.) The People ae not requesting a stay away order for Vietim as Victim already hes PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMa permanent restraining order against Defendant. Instead, People are vequesting that compliencd with the oder be mae part of the terms and conditions of Defendant's probation. Based on Dr. Bace's letter (see Exhibit D), as well as the actions of Defendant, thd People believe Defendant is not an appropriate candidate for probation if she isnot wil dress the serous issues that led her ow the path of conviction in this case. If Def probation should bf refuses to accept People’s recommended terms and conditions of probs denied and Defendant should be sentenced tothe maximum sentence of five years, v. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request the Court to impose tha recommended sentence. Dated: April 17, 2012, Respectfully submited, CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attomey LARA J. BLOOMQUIST, Supervising Attorey Family Violence Unit Deplef City Attorney PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMLalibt kSBr Pheed Me eit win leq" aereEs fo! ‘Spring2 Bent ews FP Copy Lh ftsele FZ have pene’ Se FD BehdrE tn Bing, redone CFR co odBle a 7 Lt t pbs Nas ve fe Pi : Sete we mips dal ae “Oe8, Ise. SE ne False Grnke BY, oa pet Oh. & Aes UG & wil Lame rt7 t Zins - ‘ fof Yong logue hee ee oohsfispiceos ae bis i DP ack 1fag = ae gee ee nin Cid tk es Eelenth tas hse whet. the tte tet beet! ete. Foe. Boat Or eed,pau) Seg Th WAL Ge Preneydak Mees Chetan. pes Piel Onin Cie The’ ae Dit Fe hee The.pe en aie Ca Uy sn Wel oe on hee A dk wR me aeTacs slate 1th pale a Andte,et eS ee lesal Lpauncg fe 16, He ic CmeAt es Boy pkee CUMS eee tte ena ttt whieh A Lieve $én be. «I! Eitan Oaths pitE Leyprtne Neahinge Cite, & let Sonat. Beieiece ahd Me. ope pen om igih one, oe a Se Bp med ne pode be | Permandees Fs Green iret pl eee * biz, New Bites fa Th dace net, Avon J | Fama Me valet fe feck fen PD. Cnet bdeire | egies Is fee Sek As ts Jin my ht Chee meee t 8 (ed he WAS be tt Conchrosin « ged betled od. his “upto Coto,” The Atal) Kis "mete anes spbvions' bak Sot a | Pee Fr hi he 6 cba) rrstorg Cbd lacs han foe a hood “vtll ae he in g: Talon: hat pees be ited. vripe £ ae . c Be bool 6 Se DE otsandt Pre we E Yee ws heen ale Sma Seed Stems wht, Studer Prd hte Carey Rend iEx hibt 6Print Dik Coe age 1of35 Slat Re Ou Fst Une Of Banas ~ We Wil Exeite Stove Cosey Frm Key Lych ater 20 08 eraces) Reeanseaon co nition horn a use Bbrcsiter sos HR Canines $5eBSibed gr gusto aaiasmr keh opkowepaweasgor Dougbuaset eo ‘Rrumeadybonco raceme wis: serena cr rermeneaeO nce ‘tq ithtnatunannsortricsy ins con wesenansbwaspas oo ba ovine org dleysodioshy ae pubsion go teesien user eagmaicin ‘pda noted token Sonar pasion cc SRR Tce tear Seaiwciaeyocens ree DS. Ask the Karmapa and Jigme Riopoche fo join me in my Execute Stowe Gooley Movement." After all Cooley buddy, had Gane, ‘targeted and ny fui. They dont just role this dude out for press conferences. He isthe matter mind, EXECUTE STEVE COOLEY. My moto {and polital platform. 00 1/22/12, Kelley Lyach vote: > Sharmapa, > Pray for my colleagues and pray we have fun at The Casto. 5 Love you, miss you, adore you. Pease join my Execute Steve Cooley > Movement. Iam so relieved that Thinley Norbu Rinpoche's body arrived >in Bhutan today. He spent 6 years protesting me fom Coben =the > fad ir and thief who hs dazzled the news media. The Karma. > Controversy doesnot play out in reality. Give Karmapa my love > Cant wait to meet him again in this time. S Love, > Kelley >On /22/2, Kelley Lynch wrote: >> Good Night Micha 5> Lets have fim at The Castro tomorrow. We have hada stressful week, >> Tlove you and do invite Ray. We all want t shim. >> Love youmore thin you know. >> EXECUTE Steve Cooley. Lam down with that also, Gorilla warfare. 35 Call Ross, >> Love, >> Kelley >> On 1/22/12, Kelley Cynch wrote: tps. ail yohoo.comneofunch snano1aPrint Pege20f 35 Spo unpre ty ney Spgs areeeereenc to Sites imamate sieace Sonia cotegteenem ae SE ras Spine eer terranes SCREEN Soe ce 2 Briel lp et S bietet core atneemneea et Eman br eee soarea 2 eee Scams erm, Sipe nin ee eae 2 panel geeneeae gee Sie aed Sater pra tae ee sect aes Sees Bere aera Saas Som aiLeom> wrote >>> ga 55> Love, >o>> Kelley >>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch woe: >op>> PRS, Letts get a “movement” going. XXOO. >>>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: pe>o>> PS. Love and adore you. Have egret night. Had an enlightening >e>>>> day with Ross He thought my message to Kory was great, Thinks the >e>o>> situation i "eomedi™ now. >e>>e> On 1/20/12, Kelley Lynch kelley yach201 0@gmall om wrote >eooo>> Mickel, >oeoo>> Steven Machat i running for office, Lam, a you know, interested hops. mall. yaboo oom/nee/auneh snen012Print Page 30f35 >e>5o0> runing The Wedding Party, You have youravm pty and cabinet. We So>p>>> are inareeneit Cooly sould be executed. Apert fom Gat ts 355535 jute sha, 3352535 See you at The Casto tomorow - where ery men can al about So>>>>> PERVERTS, 2>3535> who ar alin bout ox in hach SSabo> Lave, Sooo ely Sa53505 On 122/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: Sosaoo> Bree, 335>05>> 1 was thnking of running for officals. {as going to he Sosoooo> "Wedding Par” an lt Aeros vote on y Pst Man Thnk 3552525 contenders shouldbe you tnd Ron Buk. Thave my exbine in Sobovoe> pace Sopooos> es everyone at GCI knows, Robin's the head ofthe CLA. Tye?’ my Soooor> Viee Prosden. Michaela charge ofthe FB. My modes Soosoo5> depuy S35>55>5, dest Our ft ine of ngewe Sposnooe Go , 2>>>>2>> ead ny polcan who les hi as off to the American people, >3orb07> eves or blood pes up, and eis fo work fr ving Dooosoo Prmmting al eseting Coley sag ve sae of oe Sp3p33> Kelley 33555525 On 12202, Kelley Lynch wrote: >opooeoo> Steven SSSS55555 Here we go, le wason Sp Spspones> investigate S>>so3>> and fomet Chicago PD, tld me ses the mouthpiece for Chron Sovosooo> mother. 1 figured fro 9, fom the fist ial was al over Soopvozoe her Soeso500> ste, Paul confmed that forme, Your fhe told me this Soosospo> sy, SS35353>> wih cannot real acmaly right now, andi doesnot in ay 2opooo>> shape, of frm esemble what ear, ance read diferent Spoos9>5> document tome, believe. Vour father was present for this. 4 Sonsooo> Lael of the Friend of Clarkson fame Qe ona publics as Sposa well Sozsoo>>> athe publicist or Anna Nicole Smith and a mn who loves women SSS wi Sopoooo5> vend addstion and aan of "Alan ackson" tral but te Steve co's ste, Pa Heb, an Ingp/fas.mgS mail yaboo com/neoflaunch anno.Print aged of 35 >>o2>92>> a Hollywood publicist fom any stretch ofthe imagination), knows Sopsesso> the >esepo>>> valet and fold me hel talk to the press, He knows Lozz so just S525s555> mention Lozzi and the dode wil ell you back and tlic to you. Tt peponpoee sounded postvely insine fo me. T figured someone could pay him desseo05> wel. als saw Philip targeted by a woman es did atthe Sppopsoa> Carlyle >e>op20>> (and another witness was preset forthe so-called "bathtub" >ezpopo>> encounte), House of Blues and everywhere we ever went. If was Sp55a55>> wth Philip, when Clarkson targeted him (es @ down and out, out SSS of Seppoon>> work, drug addicted woman, working asa hostess in Hollywood - Speps555> teal de>oo>>> promising, Steven), I would have stood in flont of him and, SS5555555 demanded So5ao55>> thate listen to me because Ihave seen the sleazebage who have Sosooso>> targeted him. So ha Janice. They would go trough his drawers, >eppeo>>> seal fiom him, and lito the police. The criminal mind works S>>92595> beautifully, Sioven: "Twas hiding the tapes fom Avril” Sure SSSSSS555 he S5>55555> wns Steven, never once heard that. Cohen told me e owned Soepeee Bind popezoa5> On Sops>>05> The Wire.” [thought your father did, He gave the warranties and Spoeaoao represenasons, never saw any evidence bul lays ought of S5555555> the 32535555 Broadway play and my conversations with your father. Every tine Sso2509> think of him stealing from you faber, [want to seream. T S>553535> hat he did when your father was ying end it makes me ill. Soesese> Hindsight S5s5a5905 is indeed 2020 particularly when con artist is eoning you. 55>55599> [know that Phil Spector would be proud of you, Steven, and I know Speseeos> he 355555555 loved your fiber, He ete ony ast who sent mea sympathy depseoo>> note S5>o525>> when your father died, He was as confused asthe rest of ws Were >pzopeo>> and that inches Peter Gabriel and John Wait, Why woulda't we Spzoz535> bel pempepoe> There were so many lies. Cohen was scared of your family and 555555955 laws, NotT. T went tothe deposition and so many Tibetan Sosseses> lamas SSs>o5>5> were praying for me, Leo the Pitbull took the deposition and 1 Ddp>psoo>> disbelief when [read “Symbolic Trsining® (lousy court report). 55555555 What did Leo want to know? Did] FUCK Phil Spector? 1 bad to ask Sopseoo>> amy Intp:/fes.mgS ml yaboo.com/nco/tunch snano12Prt Page 5 0f35 >opppono> lower what be rules ofa deposition were. Twas recently dopoposo> manied ‘S552005> and my husband knew Iwas on the phone wi Philip and Jenioe Spbsbsbo> every Sepsmoeo> singe night of my life. Degas Kone, who live with ws (and 3o52z0>0> bere 8 Khyentse Rinpoche's SPY) also witessed quite alot of Soop5555> his 2ob2252>> in disbelief, Gesar Mokpo lived with us, Hes Douglas Penih's Ss5n2555> nephew although Steve Lindsey wants people to believe we FUCKED. >opsooo0> Thats why decided 1 say I wanted to have sex and marry Brace Spemeeso> Cutler. thought some sleesing lawyer would tempt say Sooposo5> FUCKED. 3o5z52>0> someone, Misogyny i a beautifl hing Steven. Pople cannot >oeooo27> believe ive ben called Whore and posite. Lindsey told Spppooe> te Sse5e525> court wanted fo bea whore. Courts ae insane ad ll up in our dooazoz>> vaginas, Steven, TET were runing or ofc, my paty woul be Sooseseo> the >oppoo>>> Weidng Paty an would detnand te death penalty for comupt 353595595 politicians beease they. and lying rote layers, have destroyed Sopozoa>> tis country. Myfitexequton Steve COOLFRCSOEY. dopszo>>> shoulda ts eee <7 Seppe bineconee REAL eaeresenih meee Sopopoo>> B, The 1975 Asst a the Bevery Fills Hotel poosz>20> On November 26, 1975 at about 2:00am, Kevin Brown, «valet Soppoooo> employed Sopa5555> hy the Bevery Hills Hotel, was at work when he beard « woman s>p>oeo>> “Get away from me." Brown loked over and saw Spector amin with depsooe9> woman near the font door of the hotel, Brow appronched and asked 55553555> wt was happening. Spector tured to face Brown, pointed & doovozpo> revolver Sopvonoo> ath fae, and tod Brow, "Oet the fick avy fom me." Brown Soppppop> began >opooo>>> to back away fom Spectr as Cis Dunn, another valet, approached S5s5535> the 32525>95> group Spector ponte the gn at Dunn before Spector and another >opoo>>>> got into a silver Cadillac and drove away. 55555955> Brow reported the incident othe Beverly Hills Police Sopsosoo> Department Sosvosoe> The Los Angeles County Distct Attorney charged Spectr with to So>voe>>> felony counts of assault with a frearm and two misdemeanor counts Dppopeo>> of >>psoo>>> brandishing fear, In Supeior Cou, Spector pleaded gully tps mg5 mai yahoo.com syiareor2Cylvbi+ Cces Cv Pn Corre & Parcatore, PLLC Rca Manos soy Acre @|oneszaae ee Yo Nes Iu22tesos| Po an24767 Apel 16,2012 Judge Robert Vandret Department 51 Los Angeles County Superior Cout 210 West Temple Stet [Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Kelley Lynch Dear Jodge Vanderet: ‘As acriminal defense stooey, I have never waiten a letter like this before, however, I am writing to you regarding the sentencing of Kelley Lynch, 1 to have been subjected to Ms. ‘Lynch's constant telephonic and electronic harassment forthe past five year, I have never met ‘Ms. Lynch in person, however {cam into contact with her while I was defending Philip Specter. ‘As areslt of epresenting Philip, she began calling me, ‘Me, Lynch has let me countess voicemails almost every single night forthe past five years. Part of my daily morning routine was fo go Uwough and delete upwards of 30 volcemls ‘hat she had let the night before ‘There vas atime when Ms. Lynch found the fax numberof the aw fia fom whom I sublet office space and ske would fax hundteds of pages everyday, making ic imposible forthe firm to receive legitimate faxes, until the TT people were able co blocker number. ‘Once Ms, Lynch discovered my email address, she began sending hundreds of email to sme every single day. I ried adjusting the spam Billets, but she changed ema addsesses to evade these measures. [even eet Outlook to send ber an automated response fo every single eral informing her that her emails were being auomnaticaly deleted and unresg, but this too did nothing to slow her steady barage. ‘My partner, Tun Parlatore, spoke with Ms. Lynch several times on the phone in an attempt to convine her to stop. Every time, she would agre to stop thi would ony prove me with 48-72 hour reprieve before she would recommence her campaign in eames. ‘This bombardment bas continued unabeted until resenly when Ms. Lynch wes remanded, Not having followed the news, I only Jeumed ofthis ease when I began roeiving leers fiom Ms, Lynch with ret adres atthe Lynwood Jl While Ms. Lynch never threatened physical violence against me, as she apparently did ‘with Mr. Cohen, this bas had a significantly negative impact on my life, 1 bave had ‘en GrataaPanareecon‘conversations with at Dixon ofthe Distet Attorzes'eOfies as fer back as 2008 asking them to do somhing about this woman. Tam glad to hes that se has finally been brought o justice ‘and I hoe that she will be punished accordingly an that I never have to hear fom ber again. ‘Very tly yours, Bre Cutler, Eg"ym, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ", BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DOMIIK J AVETT «Ct Gong MURLER + Anan Chet ‘Apel 17, 2012 ‘YIAHAND, ‘The Honorable Judge Robe Vanderet [Los Angeles County Courthouse 210 W Temple St, Department 1 ‘Los Angeles, California 90012 Re: Kelley Lynch Sentencing, Los Angeles City Attorney Case No, 2CA04539 Deer Honorable Judge Vander: - ‘The Los Angeles County Distict Attomey's Office Burean of Investigation who is charged with the personal security of District Attorney Steve Cooley requests Mr. Cooley's name be aed 10 thelist of persons not tobe contacted, annoyed, or harassed by Kelley Lynch, This request is basod onthe volume of annoying and theatzig communications decid st Mr. Cooley already received into evidence et this ral, coupled with an additional email received on January 21, 2012, hat dircly threatened to “exeete Steve Cooley.” Kelley Lynch began her contacts ‘wit the Disiet Atlorney’s Office in 2007, Pleas feel fee to contnt myself or my staff ifthe court has any questions concerning this request. Very tly yours, STEVECOOLEY Distt Anoraey orga the ACR FORVATH, Cetin Burnt oflnvtigtion ‘Atachment: Kelley Lyach emai, dated January 21,2012 + Srags Fale Gan ice Coot “0 Wert Temp Set ‘sae trao8 os Angelo, CA 3002 coreyhibit 3Sandra G Baca, yD, LMFT ‘About-Face: Domestic Vilence Intervention Project ‘3407 West 6” Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA'90020 213-384-7084 213-384-7653 Fax sgbaca @gmail.com poutfacedvip.com Ema ‘Apel 17,2012 RE: Kelly Lynch CASENO: — 2CA08539 ‘Ms. Sandra Jo Streter, Deputy Cty Atomney 1 read the five leters you sent me writen by Ms. Kelly, Ic appears she bas targeted her peopl for her eurent problens. The tests abou execute Cooley” sea source af concern. Any threats sade by the defendant must be taken as credible and serious. From her writings ad the barge of laters and email sho ha sent suggest seis out of contol an possibly dangerous. Having aa met with Ms, Lyach my supposition is she i suffering from 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder (Diagnostic Statistical Mansel of Mental Diorder-VI published by the American Peyehiatic ‘Assoation) Four of te fliowing must be present 1 met the eter [A pervasive disrast and suspiciousness of other such that their motives are interpreted as Imalvolent present in a variety of contexts, 2. Suspect, without sufcent basis, that others are exploig, harming, or osving him or her 3. le preoccupied with unjustified dubs about the loyalty or trustworthiness or fends or associates 4. Unwaranted fer that infermation wil be weed against him or hee 5, Reus hidden demeaning or tvestening meanings into benign remarks or events 6, Beats grudges, i unfrving or ests, jars or sighs 7. Parceives stacks on his or her character or reputation that ae aot apparent and is quick to reset angrily to counterattacks & Need to have the let word++ ResLyneh, Kelly Case No, 2CA04539 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SENTENCING CONDITIONS: Ms. Kelly would benefit being ordered to an inpatient locked paychiaviefecity such as Gateways where ‘she will benefit from a psycite evaluaon, estment and medication. My impression is se wil not comply with court orders iF he is released. Left to her own devices the fear enlists she wil stout her persived injustices. There are a couple of way o stp the bombardment of lees and emails one is 0 provide lit to che jal authorities of prope Blocked from recsiving errespondence fom Mis. Lynch ‘would be helpful. Another would be asking the court issue an order addressed to the al authoites that Ms. Lynch is prohibited from using the telephone. Ms. Lynch revels ina false belie ofeniement "if people are bothered bythe leer she sends, its nother problem ad they should change their addresses. If canbe of further assstanes, you can reach me on my cell 213.500.5574 or at my office of 213-384- 084 Respetlysubmiged, Sandan G. Buco, Poy ®, LT 2IPageExhibit 8SUPERIOR COURT OF THR STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS APRIL 11, 12, 17, 2012 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CARMEN TRUTANICH, CITY ATTORNEY BY: SANDRA JO STREETER, DEPUTY 500 CITY HALL EAST 200 NORTH MAIN STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 FOR THE DEFENDANT: RONALD L. BROWN, PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: MICHAEL KELLY, DEPUTY. NIKETL RAMNANEY, DEPUTY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 COPY CYNTHIA A. ROMERO, CSR NO.. 7861 OFFICIAL REPORTER VOLUME 3 OF 3 PAGES 380 THROUGH 645VU a a2 a3 14 4s 16 uv 18 1s 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 623 CASE NUMBER: 2cn04s39 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VERSUS KELLEY LYNCH OS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012 DEPARTMENT NO. 51 HON. ROBERT VANDERET, JUOGE REPORTER: CYNTATA A, ROMERO, CSR NO. 7862 TIME: P.M, SESSION APPEARANCES: ‘THE DEFENDANT ITH HER COUNSEL, MICHAEL KELLY AND NIKHTL RAMNANEY, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF LOS ANGELES couNTY; SANDRA JO STREETER, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ‘TRE COURT: G00D AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WS'RE HERE ON CASE NUMBER 2CA04539, PEOPLE VERSUS KELLEY LYNCH. THIS 18 THE TIME SET FOR SENTENCING. APPEARANCES, PLEASE. MR. KELLY: MICHAEL KELLY, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER. MR. RAMNANE: DEFENDER, ON BEHALF OF MS. LYNCH WHO IS PRESENT IN NIKHIL RAMWANEY, DEPUTY PUBLIC cusToDY BEFORE THE couRT. MS. STREETER: SANDRA STREETER FOR THE PEOPLE. THE COURT: OKAY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF MATTERSa 12 13 4 1s 16 wv 18 as 20 au 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 624 TO TAKE UP. ONG, DEFENDANTS HAVE FILED A MOTION, NOTICE OF MOTTON FOR A NEW TRIAL DUE TO NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THAT AND I'M GOING TO DENY THE MOTION WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENT. THE MOTION ITSELF CONTAINS NO NEW EVIDENCE, MERELY THE PROMISE OF SOME NEW EVIDENCE, BUT EVEN IF IT MERE HERE AND AS DESCRIBED, THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THE DESCRIPTION FAILS TO MEET EVEN THE FIRST TEST, THE FIRST PRONG OF THE TEST SET FORTA IN PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS IN THAT THE BVIDENCE ITSELF 13 NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED, THE DEFENDANT HERSELF, FROM THE DESCRIPTION, WAS CLEARLY AWARE OF ALL OF THE PACTS LAID OUP. WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THEM DURING THE TRIAL WITH COUNSEL, SO 1 00 NOT FIND THE EVIDENCE TO BE NEWLY Drscovereo. SECONDLY, THE COURT TS CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD NOT RENDER A OTEFERENT RESULT, PROBABLE, SVEN IF ADMITTED ON RETRIAL. IN THE FIRST PLACE, I? COULD HAVE No EFFECT ON THE FIVE 273.6(A) COUNTS, WAICH ARE VIOLATIONS OF COURT ORDERS. SECONDLY, WHILE THE THO 653M COUNTS OF WHICH THE OBFENDANT WAS CONVICTED DO HAVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON EXCEPTION, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE CONTACTS DEFENDANT HAD BOTH IN TERMS OF E-MAILS AND TELEPHONE CALLS WERE REPLETE WITH MATTERS THAT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TAX ISSUES, SO THAT BVEN IF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED SUCH BASIS, I7 WOULD NOT PROVIDEua a2 aa ua as 16 7 18 1s 20 a1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 625 ANY EXCUSE WHATSOEVER FOR THE VIOLATIONS THAT DEALT WITH THINGS AS FAR-FETCHED AS THE PHILLIP SPECTOR TRIAL AND JUST SCURRILOUS COMMENTS ABOUT DEFENDANT -- ABOUT DEFENDANT'S vrcrTM. 30 THE MOTION, TT SEEMS T0 THE COURT, IS NOT WELL TAKEN AND IS DENIED. LET'S TURN TO SENTENCING. I HAVE READ ‘THE PEOPLE'S MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING, AND I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS ON IT IN AWHILE, BUT AT THIS TIME DOES DEFENSE COUNSEL WANT TO HAKE A PRESENTATION? MR. KELLY: I AM LOOKING OVER THE BVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE, TT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF EXTRA EXHIBITS THAT T HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE 70 LOOK OVER THE conreNr. I WILL NOTE THAT MS. LYNCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL RECORD, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL AND TO TRE EXTENT THERE IS ANYTHING, THERE'S BEEN NO INDICATION THAT THERE'S BEEN ANY OFFENSE IN MS. LYNCH'S HISTORY THAT INDICATES ANY PROPENSITY TOWARDS VIOLENCE OR ANY VIOLENT CONDUCT IN HER PAST, HIS ITSELF WAS A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE. THERE WERE, AS THE COURT MENTIONED, MULTIPLE E-MAILS, BUT THAT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF VroLENcE. ALSO, AS WAS NOTED DURING THE TRIAL, MUCH OR ACTUALLY, OF THIS TIME, THIS PERIOD, MS. LYNCH WAS AS FAR AS I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM THE ENTIRE PERTOD, MS. LYNCH WAS NOT EVEN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SO THERE DOBSN'T SEEM TO BE ANY LEGITIMATE THREAT THROUGH THISa 12 13 14 as 16 av ae 1s 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 a 28 626 ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE LAST YEAR. WHILE THERE WAS 1101 EVIDENCE OF SIMIZAR E-MATLS, T DO BELIEVE THE CONDUCT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE E-MAILS WAS ACTUALLY IMPROVED IN THE LAST YEAR IN TERMS OF NHAT THE ACTUAL CONTENT SIGNIFTES. DEFENSE WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT THIS WAS A CONTINGOUS ACT. THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY, THE DELINEATION BETWEEN COUNT TO COUNT. THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY ONE CONTINUOUS AGT WITH THESE E-MAILS THAT HAD BEEN ONGOING FROM FEBRUARY OF 2011 TO JANUARY 2012 AND SO BASED ON THAT, WE D0 BELIEVE PROBATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MS. LYNCH, WITH ANGER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS PERHAPS, COMMUNITY SERVICE. OBVIOUSLY A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND A STRONG ADHONITION TO MS. LYNCH TO NOT INCLUDE OR CONTACT BY PHONE OR E-MAIL MR. COHEN, AND ~~ AS WELL AS HIS REPRESENTATIVES. THERE IS STILL A MECHANISM PERHAPS OF WHICH, TP THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT SHE DOES NEED, THERE COULD BE A MECHANISM TO OBTAIN THOSE RECORDS NOT DIRECTLY THROUGH MS. LYNCH AND BETWEEN MS. LYNCH AND ANY REERESENTATIVE OF MR. coREN. THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE WOULD LIKE 70 MAKE A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT. MS. STREETER: Yes. THE COURT: MR. COHEN, DO YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD? Ms. STREETE! COURT, THE PEOPLE RAVE SOME COMMENTS. AND AFTER MR. COHEN ADDRESSES THEn 2 3 aa as 16 uw 18 1s 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 627 ThE couRT: YES. PLRASE COME FORWARD. MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE FINE THE WETNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. 1 WANT TO THANK THE COURT AND THE PERSON OF YOUR HONOR FOR THE CORDIAL, EVEN-HANDED AND ELEGANT MANNER IN WHICH THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE UNFOLOED. IT WAS A PRIVILEGE AND AN EDUCATION TO TESTIFY IN THIS courTRooM. I WANT TO THANK THE CITY PROSECUTOR, MS. SANDRA JO STREETER FOR HER UNFLINCHING COMMITMENT TO ‘THE CASE, FOR HER WISE, HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD METHODS OF UNCOVERING THE TRUTH, AND FOR HER LIFELONG DEVOTION TO THE PEOPLE'S CAUSE. I WANT TO THANK TRE MEMBERS OF THE JURY FOR THEIR PATIENCE AND THEIR DISCERNMENT, AND FOR THEIR GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE OF THE INTERRUPTION TO THEIR LIVES. IT IS MUCH APPRECIATED. I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS FOR THEIR RESTRAINT IN PRESENTING ONLY A PORTION OF THE MATERIAL THAT THEY KNEW RAS UNTRUE. I WANT TO THANK THE DEFENDANT, MS. KELLEY LYNCH, POR INSTSTING ON A JURY TRIAL, THUS EXPOSING TO THE LIGHT OF DAY HER MASSIVE DEPLETION OF MY RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND YEARLY EARNINGS, AND ALLOWING THE COURT 70 OBSERVE HER PROFOUNDLY UNWHOLESOME, OBSCENE ANDan a2 13 a4 4s 16 " 18 as 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 628 RELENTLESS STRATEGIES TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER wRONGDOING. THIS EIGHT-YEAR ORDEAL OF HARASSMENT OF MY FAMILY, MY FRIENDS, MY ASSOCIATES AND MYSELE WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO AVOTD OR POSTPONE THE INEVITABLE DAY OF RECKONING WITH THE IRS, THE DAY WAEN SHE WILL BE BOUND TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TAXES SHE HAS NEGLECTED TO PAY ON THE STOLEN MONEY THAT SHE RECEIVED AND FAILED TO REPORT. TMMEDIATELY UPON A FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE THEFT BY MOSS ADAMS, A HIGHLY RESPECTED FIRM IN THIS CITY, WE SUBHITTED A THEFT LOSS AMENDMENT TO THE TRS, AND THIS WAS THE CONSIDERED BASIS OF THEIR REFUND TO ME, A REFUND FOR THE TAXES I HAD PAID ON THE STOLEN MONEYS ‘THAT I DID NOT RECEIVE. MS. LYNCH HERSELF, KER FORMER TAX ATTORNEYS (WHOM SHE FIRED), HER ACCOUNTANT WKO RESIGNED, THE TRS, AND TWO COURTS OF LAW, ONE IN CALIFORNIA, A FEDERAL COURT IN COLORADO, HAVE LONG BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THESE VERY SAME AND VERY PUBLIC FORENSIC REPORTS WHICH THE PUBLIC DBFENDERS DARED TO ASSERT WE WITHIELD, AND OFFERED THIS FICTIONAL WITHHOLDING AS JUSTIFICATION FOR MS. LYNCH'S DAILY OBSCENITIES, DEATH THREATS AND MENACING FANTASIES OF REVENGE. MS. LYNCK IS IN FULT POSSESSION OF THE FORENSIC ANALYSIS. SHE JUST DORSN'T LIKE IT AND SHE HAS GONE TO UNACCEPTABLE -- UNACCEPTABLE LENGTHS 70 IGNORE, DISCREDIT, THREATEN AND VILTFY ANY PERSON WHO, OR INSTITUTION, THAT HAS AFFIRMED IT.a a 43 uM as 16 wv 1s 1s 20 aa 2 23 24 25 26 an 20 629 THIS IS, AS PROSECUTOR SANDRA JO STREETER SHARPLY OBSERVED, NOTHING BUT THE UNRAVELING OF A CON. I GIVES ME NO PLEASURE 70 SEE MY ONE-TIME FRIEND SHACKLED TO A CHAIR IN A COURT OF TAR HER CONSIDERABLE GIFTS BENT 70 THE SERVICE OF DARKNESS, DECEIT AND REVENGE. 1 FEAR THAT HER OBSESSIVE COMMITMENT TO THESE ACTIVITIES WILL RESUNE AS SOON AS MS. LYNCH IS RELEASED. THEREFORE, I @ILL BE GRATEFUL FOR WHATEVER RESPITE THE COURT WILL ALLOW MY CRILDREN, NY GRANDCHILDREN, MY FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES AND MYSELF. 1 MUST CONFESS, STR, THAT MS. LYNCH'S CONTEMPT FOR EVERY COURT ORDER AND EVERY LEGAL RESTRAINT THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED IN THE PAST, HER DEFIANCE OF THE TAW AND HBR PLEOGE OF UNRELENTING WARFARE, 00 NOT PRODUCE CONFIDENT FEELINGS OF RELIEF OR OPTIMISM. FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD MY GRATITUDE TO MY ATTORNEY, MS. LYNCH -- MS, MICHELLE RICE. WITHOUT HER METICULOUS ATTENTION TO A STAGGERING VOLUME OF MATERIAL (THOUSANDS OF E-MAILS, DOZENS AND DOZENS OF VILE VOICE MESSAGES), WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY, AND THE FULL EXTENT OF MS. LYNCH'S DELIBERATE CRUSLTIES AND EVASTONS WOULD NOT BE KNOWN, IT TS THROUGH MS. RICE'S PAINSTAKING MANAGEMENT OF THESE TOXIC DETATLS THROUGH MULTIPLE COURTS, BEFORE EMINENT JUDGES, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PRESENT THIS CASE 70 OUR ESTEEMED CITY PROSECUTOR, NS. SANDRA JO STREETER, WHO THEN SO SKILLFULLY AND STEADFASTLY ARGUED IT IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE BEFORE THISa 12 a3 a4 as 16 ar 18 as 20 au 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 630 COURT AND THIS JURY. YOUR HONOR, T AM DEEPLY GRATEFUL TO ALL WHO HELPED ME END THIS VICIOUS INTRUSION INTO MY LIFE AND THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY, FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES, EVEN IP IT BE TEMPORARY. I AN GRATEFUL TO THE TAXPAYERS WHO HAVE FUNDED THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND I AM GRATEFUL TO THE LAPD AND THE PERSON OF DETECTIVE JOSE VIRAMONTES WHO ARRANGED AND EXECUTED THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT, AND I WANT TO THANK WR, STEVE STEVENS FOR HIS INVALUABLE consunrarrons. IT 18 MY PRAYER THAT MS. LYNCH WILL TAKE REFUGE IN THE WISDOM OF HER RELIGION, THAT A SPIRIT OF ONDERSTANDING WILL CONVERT HER HEART FROM HATRED 70 REMORSE, FROM ANGER TO KINDNESS, FROM THE DEADLY INTOXICATION OF REVENGE TO THE LOWLY PRACTICES OF SELF-REFORM. MANY THANKS, YOUR HONOR, FOR THIS HOSPITALITY YOU'VE SHOWN ME AND FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY 70 ADDRESS THE COURT. THANK YOU, SIR. THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. COHEN. Ms. STREETER. MS, STREETER: I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE TWO POINTS THE PEOPLE MADE IN THEIR MOVING PAPERS. THE PIRST ONE IS THAT TT 18 THE PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT THE ANNOYING PHONE CALL COUNTS DO MERGE WITH THE RESTRAINING ORDER COUNTS, HOWEVER, THE PEOPLE ARE OF THE POSITION THAT THE RESTRAINING ORDER DOES NOT -- THE COUNTS DO NOT MERGE.ie a 12 23 as as 26 vv 18 a9 20 2 22 23 24 25. 26 an 28 631, COUNSEL IS OF THE OPINTON THAT IT'S SOME ARBITRARY MANNER WITH WHICH THE PEOPLE PLED THE CASE. THE PROBLEM THE PEOPLE WERE FACED WITH IS BACH E-MAIL OR EACH VOICE MAIL ON A CLEAR READING OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER TS A VIOLATION, AND THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE THE PEOPLE SAW WOULD BE TO D0 A VIOLATION FOR EACH RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATION AND THAT DIDN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE, SO THE PEOPLE PLED IT AS A CONTINUING COURSE, ALLOWING THE JURY TO PICK WHAT E-MAIL, WHAT VOICE MATL THEY SAW WERE A VIOLATION. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THE PEOPLE FEEL THAT STILL SEE THAT 654 DOES NOT APPLY ON THOSE COUNTS IN THAT THEY DON'T MERGE, AND THE SENTENCE ~~ THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE WOULD BE FIVE YEARS. THE SECOND THING THE PEOPLE WANT TO EMPHASIZE IN PARTICULAR IS TRE LETTER FROM DR. BACA. THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THIS SITUATION, THE PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH WE CAN'T FORCE MS. LYNCH TO SUBNIT TO A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION, THAT'S SOMETHING ABR ATTORNEYS WOULD HAVE TO DO OR THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO DO. BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY CONCERNED BY SOME OF THE ACTIONS BY MS. LYNCH. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MR. COHEN SAID, GIVING HIM A RESPITE. 17'S NoT JUST THE CONDUCT TOWARD MR. COHEN THE PEOPLE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT THE REASON THE PEOPLE FIRST ATTACHED LETTERS, AND THE PEOPLE MUST STATE EXPLAIN 70 THE COURT HOW THE PEOPLE CAME UPON THEua 22 13 u4 4s 16 uv 18 1s 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 632 LETTERS FROM MR. CUTLER'S OFFICE IN NEW YORK. MR. CUTLER'S OFFICE, UPON HEARING ABOUT THIS CASE, CONTACTED THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES AND VOLUNTARILY SENT THE LETTERS TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCERN. AND SO IT'S NOT guST THE E-MAIL -- AND IN ADDITION, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONTACTED THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES OUT OF CONCERN BY WHAT MS. LYNCH 18 DOING. BUT OF THE TWO, WHAT THE PEOPLE FIND MOST CONCERNING ARE THE LETTERS THAT ARE SENT TO MR. CUTLER. BECAUSE IF ONE WERE TO READ THOSE LETTERS, ONE WOULD waar: HAVE NO IDEA THAT THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP, NO ONE WOULD VIEW AS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MS. LYNCH AND MR. CUTLER, BUT SHE WRITES AS IF THE TWO OF THEM ARE LONG-LOST FRIENDS. THIS TS A CONCERN THE PEOPLE HAVE, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF SHOWING THOSE 70 DR. BACA, TS ‘THE PACT THAT IT APPEARS PART OF WHAT IS DRIVING THIS 1S THAT MS. LYNCH RAS SOME UNDIAGNOSED MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, AND THE DANGER THAT SHE POSES 70 MR. COHEN, MR. CUTLER AND MR. COOLEY, AND SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR. $0 THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WITH JUST POTTING KER ON PROBATION, LETTING HER GO ON HER MERRY WAY BECAUSE WE SEE THAT SHE WOULD BE BACK HERE AND PERHAPS FOR SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT SHE'S FACING Now. 50 THE PEOPLE WOULD TRULY LIKE TO URGE THAT WHAT IS -- IS DONE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ORDEREDaa 22 13 a4 as 16 a7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 633 70 GO 70 A LOCKED MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY. IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN THE PEOPLE SEE THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS FOR THE COURT TO GIVE MS. LYNCH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE. TO 00 AS MR. COHEN IS ASKING, TO GIVE HIM A BIT OF RESPITE. THE COURT: DEFENSE WANTS TO BE FURTHER HEARD? MR. KELLY: YES, T D0. WHILE THERE TS A RISTORY BETWEEN TRE PARTIES HERE, MS. LYNCH AND MR. COHEN, THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT ANY INCIDENTS THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2004, 2005, OR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT. TWILL NOTE THAT -- AGAIN, AS THE COURT MENTIONED, A LOT OF THESE E-MAILS ARE REALLY NOTHING IN GENERAL AND ARE NOT THREATENING IN NATURE. T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE DID POINT OUT THOSE E-MATLS THAT THEY BELIEVED WERE OF THE THREATENING NATURE, AND EVEN THEN IT WAS, AGAIN, VERY AMBIGUOUS. AS FAR AS THE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT, ‘THE PEOPLE, WHAT THEY PROPOSE TS TO PUT OFF SENTENCING FOR ONE YEAR. FOR A ONE-YEAR MENTAL HEALTH. AT TATS POINT, THAT DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE, CONSIDERING WE OW'T KNOW IF THERE IS A CONDITION OR IF THERE IS, WHAT CONDITION IT WOULD BE. THAT MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, OR AT LEAST A DIAGNOSIS OR SOME KIND OF EVALUATION, COULD BE A TERM OF THE PROBATION IF PROBATION IS GIVEN. SUT TO PUT OVER SENTENCING ALTOGETHER FOR THAT PERIOD OF TINE, I DON'T BELIEVE AT THIS TIME IS APPROPRIATE634 BUT AGAIN, WE ARE -- IF IT 18 SOMETHING THAT IS A TERM OF THE PROBATION, I'M SURE MS. LYNCH WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT TERM AND AT LEAST SPEAK 70 SOMEONE AND SEE IF THERE IS AN EVALUATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN AND A DIAGNOSIS, TF ANY, THAT CAN BE GIVEN BASED UPON THAT. THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER? OULD YOUR CLIENT LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? 9 THE DEFENDANT: 1 DO WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT. 10 THE COURT: WELL, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO. a THE DEPENDANT: I WANT TO MAKE A SHORT a2 | starener. 13 IT IS MY IMPRESSION THAT WHAT T DID HERE 14] WAS T ACTUALLY WENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 15 | I'VE AAD AGENTS FROM THE TREASURY FLY IN FROM WASHINGTON 16] THAT ARE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE, THE FBI'S INVOLVED AND 17 | tHe Fer TOLD ME TO LET THE IRS TAKE THE LEAD. 7 WILL 16] BE BROUGHY IW FOR CRIMINAL WITWESS AND EVIDENCE 19] TAMPERING WITH RESPECT TO LEONARD COHEN. THAT 18, 20 | FACTUAL, THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE RECORDED. a AND SO I DO BELIEVE THAT I HAVE ENGAGED 22] IN EXCESSIVE, UNAUTHORIZED RAMBLING, AND THAT MY 23 | BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN EXCESSIVE. BUT WHAT T HAVE 24] EXPERIENCED, REGARDLESS OF MS, STREETER'S vrcroUuS, 1 28 | THINK, ATTACK ON MB, AND WHAT NY CHILDREN HAVE GONE 26 | THROUGH, HAS BEEN EXTREME. 27 I'VE PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO THE IRS THAT 1 28 | HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED BY LEONARD COHEN, STEVEN MACHAT, WHOaa 12 13 4 43 16 W 18 38 20 an 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 635 TS ABOUT 70 SUB HIM FOR THEFT FOR THE SAME REASON AND I FEEL THAT I CAN STAY AWAY FROM MR. COHEN. I'M WILLING TO GO TO ANGER MANAGEMENT. 1° WILLING TO TAKE ANYTHING THE JUDGE SUGGESTS, AND MY -- I DID HAVE MY WAGES GARNISHED ALSO, YOUR HONOR. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 25 PERCENT OF MY INCOM, AND THE STATE DID TELL ME 70 GO AND GET THE INFORMATION I NEEDED FOR MY TAX RETURNS. MR. COHEN IS SAYING THIS FORENSIC ACCOUNTING. HIS OWN ACCOUNTANT, KEVIN PRINS, TOLD MINE IT 1 NOP, HE DIDN'T HAVE THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION. SO 1 DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYONE BLSE IN MY POSITION WOULD Do, BUT I THINK THAT YOU'RE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE WHEN THE IRS AND THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD ARE DEMANDING INFORMATION. YOU HAVE K-19 THAT ARE ILLEGAL. I'M NOT A PARTNER IN LC INVESTMENTS AND IT'S ALL CONFUSING. I'M NOT REPRESENTED. ONE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO SAY TO YOU, YOUR HONOR, IS THAY I CALLED THE STATE BAR AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION MANY TIMES, AND WAS TOLD THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL MUST TALK TO ME, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ROBERT KORY AND MICHELLE RICE, SCOTT EDELWAN. NO ONE WOULD EVER TALK TOME, EVER. So I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE 70 SETTLE ANYTHING. AND THEN T WAS GIVEN LEGAL ADVICE THAT 1 COULD CONTACT MR. COWEN FOR TAX INFORMATION. THE COURT: OKAY, ANY LEGAL CAUSE WHY SENTENCE SHOULD NOT NOW BE IMPOSED?an 2 13 M4 a5 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 24 28 26 2 20 WR. KELLY: No, YOUR HONOR. MR. RAMNANEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME JUST -- PRONOUNCE SENTENCE, TELL YOU WHAT HAS GONE INTO MY BEFORE 1 CONSIDERATION. FIRST, I THINK THE EVIDENCE, IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED IN THIS CASE A LONG ONRELENTING BARRAGE OF HARASSING BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT THAT SPANNED A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WAS REALLY VILE. AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WIT WHETHER TP WAS LEONARD COHEN OR JOSEPH SMITH OM THE END OF THOSE. No PERSON SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TRAT KIND OF TARGETING BY ANYONE, AND THAT'S WEY WE HAVE STATUTES IN PLACE THAT PREVENT THAT. THE DEFENDANT HAS ALSO THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING, CONTINUING UP TO THE PAST MONTH, AS T READ FROM THE LETTERS, DISPLAYED AN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND FOR JUDICIAL ORDERS. THIS BEHAVIOR WAS ALL DONE IN CONTEMPT OF REPEATED ORDERS BY THE CIVIL COURTS THAT SHE NOT CONTACT MR. COHEN, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS IN FACT -- WHOEVER HAS THAT PHONE, WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN IT OFF, SHE WAS INDICATED EXPRESSLY HER BELIEF THAT RESTRAINING ORDERS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON HER BEMAVIOR. HAS SATO SO A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE EVIDENCE WE HEARD, SHE'S ALSO SHOWN NO REMORSE NOR GLINMER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HRONGDOING FOR HER BEHAVIOR, EVEN UP TO THIS MOMENT.un 12 a3 a4 as 16 a7 18 1s 20 an 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 637 AND IN LIGHT OF ALL THOSE FACTORS, THE COURT HAS VERY FEW TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL IN THIS CASE. IN OTHER CASES I WOULD OPTEN GRANT PROBATION FOR A FIRST-TIME MISDEMEANOR, WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT A PROTECTIVE ORDER WOULD BE ABIDED WITH. I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT A PROTECTIVE ORDER WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE PAST PROTECTIVE ORDERS RAVE DONE. NOTHING. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CAUSED MS. LYNCH TO CEASE HER BEHAVIOR IS AN INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR, AND WHEN SHE WAS INCARCERATED THE BEHAVIOR sTopeED. THERE IS MUCH MERIT TO MS. STREETER'S SUGGESTION OF A NENTAL HEALTH FACILITY, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED AT THIS POINT THAT THE DEFENOANT IS AMENABLE TO TREATMENT AND COOPERATIVE ENOUGH TO ENGAGE IN ‘TREATMENT. AS MS. STREETER HAS INDICATED, THE couLD FACE IN MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WOULD FACE THIS CASE IS A JATL TERM OF FIVE YEARS FOR THE FIVE COUNTS OF 273.6(A). I AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS THAT THE 653M COUNTS WOULD RE MERGED BECAUSE THE CONDUCT THAT FORMS THE BASTS FOR THOSE IS THE SAME CONDUCT THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS 80 THE COURT'S SENTENCE, THE COURT'S INDICATED SENTENCE, IF MS. LYNCH CHOOSES TO ACCEPT IT, WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANT WOULD BE PLACED ON SUMMARY PROBATION 70 THE COURT FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.na a2 13 as 45 16 a a8 as 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 638 THAT'S 60 MONTHS, DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, SHE WILL SERVE A TERN OF 18 MONTHS IN THE COUNTY JAIL WITH CREDIT FOR THE TIME SHE'S SERVED. WHILE SHE IS IN SERVING THAT 18-MONTH SENTENCE, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT SHE UNDERGO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING. MS. STREETER: OR PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELING. THE COURT: 1 DON'T THINK THE TRADITIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING IS THE KIND OF COUNSELING WE NEED HERE. WHAT I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE JATL AUTHORITIES TO DO IS 70 PUT TOGETHER A PROGRAM FOR MS. LYNCH WHILE SHE TS TN CUSTODY THAT WILL INCLUDE ON A WEEKLY BASIS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: ANGER MANAGEMENT, ALCOHOL COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC counsezine, THERE WILL BE TRREE-MONTH REPORTS TO THE COURT ON HER PROGRESS AND COOPERATION IN THAT EDUCATION PROGRAM. AND AT THE END OF HER 18-MONTH SERVICE, SHE WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PROBATION TO UNDERGO A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION AT THAT POINT, AT WHICH TIME THE COURT WILL CONSIDER WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS THE COUNSELOR HAS FOR FURTHER PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELING AS PART OF THE PROBATION. IN ADDITION, NS. LYNCH TS BARRED BY STATUTE FROM OWNING OR POSSESSING ANY FIREARMS FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS DOES DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION? MR. KELLY: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD HAVE 70 orscuss10 n 12 43 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THAT WITH HER AND IT WILL REQUIRE SOME TIME. WILL saY tars THE COURT: WELL, THE TIME IT. I WILL TAKE A RECESS TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. You CAN orscuss MR. KELLY: YES, YOUR HONOR. IRILL NOTE, IF 1 MAY. T KNOW THE DEFENSE DID MAKE AN 1118.1 MOTION, AND AS THE COURT MENTIONED, THE REQUIREMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THIS CASE, IT 18 THE DEFENSE'S CONTENTION NOW, AS IT WAS THEN WHEN WE MADE THE MOTION, THAT A 273.6 1S NOT TRE PROPER CHARGE FOR THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, IN FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A 166, NHICH DOES SPECIFICALLY SAY UNDER 166(A) (4), VIOLATION OF A COURT OUT OF STATE ORDER. THE ORDERS THAT WERE GIVEN IN THIS CASE, THE COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA ORDERS, WERE NOT OF THE TYPE THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER 273.6. 1 DO THINK THAT 18 SOMETHING THE COURT SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, GIVEN THE REQUIREMENT, THE STRICT REQUIREMENT UNDER 273.6, AND THERE 1S A DIFFERENCE IN MAXIMUM SENTENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CHARGES. WHICH 18, I PROPOSE -- I -- I ASSUME THIS IS WHY THE PEOPLE WENT UNDER THIS COUNT AND NOT THE 166, BUT I DO BELIEVE TT WAS AN ERROR AND THAT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE 1118.1 ON THAT. BUT WE WOULD REOUEST A RECESS. THE COURT: WELL, I WILL RECESS FOR 15 NINUTES. IN ADDITION, THE OTHER CONDITION IS A STAY-AWAY PROTECTIVE ORDER. MS. STREETER: FROM NR. KORY AND MS. RICE, AND THEN JUST TO INCLUDE THE COLORADO ORDER AS A TERM ANDconprrron? THE couRT: YES. MS, STREETER: WHAT ABOUT HR. COTLER AND MR. COOLEY? THE COURT: WELL, T'M NOT GOTNG TO PRORTAIT ANY CITIZEN FROM CONTACTING A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MS. STREETER: MR. CUTLER? THE COURT: MR. CUTER T MOULD, IN LIGHT OF THE RECORDS BEFORE THE COURT THAT MR. CUTLER SAYS THAT HE HAS -- "MS. LYNCH HAS LEE'T ME COUNTLESS VOICE MAILS ALMOST EVERY SINGLE NIGHT FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. PART OF MY DAILY MORNING ROUTINE WAS TO GO THROUGH AND DELETE UPWARD OF 30 VOICE MAILS THAT SHE HAD LEFT THE NIGHT BEFORE.” I WILL INCLUDE MR. CUTLER IN THE PROTECTIVE onneR. MS. STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: BUT ANYWAY, LET'S TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS. IF MS. LYNCH CAN DECIOE IF SHE WANTS TO ACCEPT THESE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION. IF NOT, WE WILL SIMPLY DO A JAIL SENTENCE MR. KELLY: MAY WE APPROACH OPP THE RECORD? MS. STREETER: ‘THANK You. (REcEss.) THE COURT: OKAY. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. MR. KELLY, MR. RAMNANEY. MR. KELLY: YES, YOUR HONOR. WHILE THE -~20 n a2 a3 uM 1s 16 ar 18 1s 20 aa 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 MR. RANNANEY AND T BELIEVE THAT IT MIGHT BE IN MS. LYNCH'S BEST INTEREST TO REJECT PROBATION IN THIS CASE, MS. “LYNCH DOES WISH TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S PROBATION, HOWEVER, WE WOULD ASK AND WOULD OBJECT TO INCLUDING PROTECTIVE ORDERS ON INDIVIDUALS WHERE THERE'S BEEN NO TESTIMONY REGARDING, I DON'T BELTEVE MR. CUTLER. THERE'S BEEN NOTHING, NO SWORN TESTINONY AS TO ANYTHING REGARDING MR. CUTLER. WELL, UNDER PROBATION THIS WOULD BE TAB couRt A VOLUNTARY PART OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND IT'S, IN MY VIEW, APPROPRIATE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT. WR. CUTLER WILL BE -- AS T SAID, T'm No? GOING TO INCLUDE ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S PROPER 70 ENJOIN PEOPLE FROM COMMUNICATING WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. WR. KELLY: MS. LYNCH WOULD REQUEST THAT SHE BE ALLOWED, TO THE EXTEN? POSSIBLE, TO CHOOSE HER OWN COURSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT. ‘THE DEFENDANT: I DIDN'T ASK THAT. THE COURT: WELL, WE WILL TAKE THAT UP AT THE APPROPRIATE POINT. IN CUSTODY THE CHOICES WILL PROBABLY Be LIMTED,-IN ANY EVENT. ‘THE DRFRNDANT: I ASKED IF 1 COULD HAVE A TIBETAN LANA, BECAUSE THEY COUNSEL IN PSYCHOLOGY. THE COURT: WELL, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP THE DEFENDANT: BECAUSE MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DO NOT BELIEVE IN PSYCHIATRY. THE COURT: 1 UNDERSTAND.