Ce aan 10 ut 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 26 27 28 MICHELLE L. RICE, SBN 235189 KORY & RICE, LLP 9300 Wilshire Bivd., Suite 200 CONFORMED COPY Beverly Hills, California 90212 Suparier Court of Catfernia Telephone: (310) 285-1630 Bounty ottos anguios Email: mrice@koryrice.com a AUG 17 2015 Attomey for PLAINTIFF LEONARD NORMAN COHEN Sher 8, Carter Executive otteer/ clerk By: Michael Rodriguez, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -CENTRAL DISTRICT "ASE NO.: BQO33717 ssigned to the Hon. B, Scott Silverman; pt. 7 LEONARD NORMAN COHEN Plaintifi/Petitioner v, 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 KELLEY ANN LYNCH Deffndant/Respondent. ing Date: September 1, 2015 ime: 8:30 A.M. ept.: 7 (Colorado Order Registered: May 25, 2011 ‘TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND DEFENDANT IN PRO PER: Pursuant to Sections 451, 452 and 453 of the California Evidence Code, California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1113(1) and 3.1306(c) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §273(a), Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents, attached as Exhibits 1 — 15 hereto, in ruling on Plaintif’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.”Cea an eww 10 n 12 13 44 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Exhibit No. ‘Authority aaa Judicial Council Forn DV-600, revised July 1, 2015 2 Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order, Boulder County Court, State of Colorado, Case Number 2008C776, Filed August 19, 2008 3 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 of the Boulder County Court. 4 | Clerk’s Certificate of Copy, Register of Action, Permanent Civil Protection Order, Leonard Norman Cohen v. Kelley Ann Lynch, Case Number: 2008C776, County Court, County of Boulder, State of Colorado 3 May 25, 2011 Order of the Los Angeles Superior Court Registering Colorado PPO 6 Reporter's Transcript of Hearing, March 23, 2012, The People of the State of California v. Kelley Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number, 2CA04539 People's Proposed Sentencing Memorandum, People of the State of California v. Kelley Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No, 2CA04539, filed April 17, 2012 Certified Reporter's Transcript of hearing April 12, 2012 before the Honorable Robert C. Vanderet, People v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Criminal Case Number 2CA0¢539 10 ‘Appellant's Opening Brief, The People of the State of Califomia v. Kelley Lyneh, Appeal from the Honorable Robert C, Vanderet, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 2CA04539, Appellate Division of the Superior Court, Case No. BR 050096, filed November 17, 2012. Respondent’s Opening Brief, The People of the State of California v. Kelley Lynch, Appeal from Los Angeles Superior Court No. 2CA04539, filed February 14, 2013. int 12 Opinion of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, People of the State of California v. Kelley Lynch, Case Number BR050096, Central Trial Court No. 2CA04539, filed May 29,2013. it Order of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, In Re Kelley Lynch on Habeas Corpus, Case Number BX 001309, Central Trial Court Case Number 2CA04539, filed May 29, 2013. 1B Colorado Revised Stetates (2008) §13-14-102 iw Colorado Revised Statutes (2008) §18-9-11T 18 US.C. §2265, Ful, Faith and Credit Given to Protection OrdersAan ean ad 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Judicial notice may not be taker. 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 permissive. Section 451 of the Evidence Code provides that mandatory judicial notice shall be taken of the “decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States.” Cal. Evid. Code §451(2). Section 452(d)(1) of the Evidence Code provides that it is appropriate for a court to take judicial notice of “[rJecords of.,.any court in this state” and “as well as “[flacts and propositions that are not reasonably subect to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reesonably indisputable accuracy.” Cal, Evid. Code §452(@) and (h). Section 425(d)((2) provides that it is appropriate for a court to take judicial notice of “records of...any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” Cal Evid. Code §452(4)(2). Judicial notice is mandated for matters that comport with the 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 take judicial notice. See Cal. Evid. Code §§452, 453. Only relevant material may be noticed. Ketchum y, Moses, 24 Cal. 4 1122, 1135 fa. 1 (Cal. 2001); Mangini v. RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 7 Cal. 4" 1057, 1063 (Cal. 1994) overruled on other grounds by In Re Tobaceo Cases II, 41 Cal. 4" 1257 (Cal. 2007)(*judicial notice, since it is a substitute for proof, is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issues at hand.”). California Rules of Court 3.1113(l) provides that “any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with rule 3.1306(0).” Rule 3.1306 provides that a party requesting judicial notice of ‘material under Evidence Code 452 or 453 must provide the court with and each party with a copy of the materialwoe won ee ae 10 u 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 24 25 26 27 28 1. 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 Court Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS-OOS).” Judicial notice is properly taken of this form because it is the mandatory form adopted by the Judicial Council for use in all California courts to register an out-of-state protection order under Family Code §6404 as noted in the lower left-hand corner of the first page of the form, Exh. 1. Family Code $§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 registration in California “shall” be registered and entered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) established under Section 6380. Fam. Code §6380, §6404(a)(1). Section 6401(5) of the Uniform Act defines a “protection order” that may be registered pursuant to Section 6404 as “en injunction or other order, issued by a tribunal under the domestic violence, family violence, or antistalking laws of the issuing state, to prevent an individual from engaging in violent or threatening acts against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proxim ty to, another individual.” Fam. Code §6401(5). Form DV-600 was revised effective July 1, 2015 and is now a two-page form. On the second page of the form it clearly states: “no court hearing is required to register the foreign protection order.” Exh. 1, p. 2. ‘This document is relevant because Lynch argues in her Motion that the Colorado PPO, which Lynch acknowledges was issued under the antistalking laws of Colorado, was improperly 4-15. Lynch further argues registered in California on Form DV-600. Motion, p. 2, lines 5: that such registration “wrongfully modified and tansformed the Colorado order into a domestic violence order.” Id. Lynch also argues that the California Registration is “void” and “unenforceable” because there was no hearing held on the California Registration of the Colorado PPO in California. Id. at pp. 2-5. Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of Form DV-600 for two purposes: (1) that Form DY-600 clearly states that no hearing is required to register a foreign protectionee AS Eig He peer nae ms sHtRS see Ce ngtitr ug Hee eee as en eee ee eeseser a ehtete UU ee eS Fe eres mt mst ty texte tesa pee order; and (2) that the use of this form is mandatory when registering an out-of-state order that has been issued under the antistalking laws of the issuing state, JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPERLY TAKEN OF THE COURT RECORDS OF BOULDER COUNTY COURT IN LEONARD COHEN V. KELLEY LYNCH, ‘CIVIL CASE NUMBER 2008776 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 of the United States.” Cal Evid. Code §452(d)(2). Plaintiff requests the Court notice the following documents from the 2008 civil protection order proceedings agsinst Lynch in Boulder County Court in the matter of Leonard Cohen v. Kelley Lynch, Civil Case Number 2008C776 in the state of Colorado: 1) Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order filed August 19, 2008; 2) the certified ‘tanscript of the permanent protection order hearing held on September 2, 2008 before the Honorable Carolyn Enichen, Judge of the Boulder County Court; (3) Boulder County Court Clerk's Certificate of Copy, Register of Action and Permanent Civil Protection Order Exhibit 2 is Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order filed on August 19, 2008. This document is relevant to these proceedings because it shows thet Cohen applied for an under C.R.S. §18-9-111(4) to (6) and order of protection in Colorado against Lynch for stal “physical assault, threat or other situation.” Exh. 2. Exhibit 3 is the certified transcript of the permanent restraining order hearing held on September 2, 2008 in Boulder County Court, State of Colorado, in Civil Case Number 2008C776, before the Honorable Carolyn Enichen, “The report of the official reporter, or official reporter pro tempore, of any court, duly appointed and swom, when transcribed and certified as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie evidence of that testimony ‘and proceedings.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §273(a). The certified transcript of the September 2, 2008 hearing is relevant to this action in that it demonstrates that Lynch had notice of the Colorado protection order by making a personal appearance at the permanent protection order hearing and assenting to the no-contact and stay-away terms and conditions of that order. Exh. 3, p. 27, linesCea ane worn 10 iW 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 of the 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 Plaintifi’s Permanent Civil Protection Order issued on September 2, 2008, The Register of Action is relevant in that it reflects that the “Motion to Quash” the Colorado PPO filed by Lynch on December 2, 2008 was denied by order of the Boulder County Court on January 12, 2009. Exh. 4. The entry on the Register states: “The Motion to dismiss the PPO is denied. ‘The CT reminds the DEF that she agreed fo the entry of the PPO on 9-2-08." Id. The January 12, 2009 Order denying Lynch’s Motion to Dismiss the permanent protection order is the “last event” listed on the Register. Id, The Register of Action also shows that the temporary protection order was vacated on September 2, 2008 and was replaced by the Permanent Protection Order issued at the permanent restraining order hearing held ‘on September 2, 2008. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the court records from the Boulder County Court, State of Colorado in Exhibits 2-4. UI. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS 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 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS California courts may take judicial notice of “[rlecords of...any court in this state.” Cal Evid. Code §452(d)(1). “It is settled that a court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records.” Dwan v. Dixon, 216 Cal. App. 2d 260, 265 (Cal. 1963). A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each documert in a court file, but can 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 Ass'n v. Safeco Ins. Co., 221 Cal. App. 3d 1049, 1056 (Cal. Ct. App. 6” 1990). When courts take judicial notice of the existence of court documents,Ce aan ean 10 ul 12 2B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a 22 24 25 26 27 28 the legal effect of the results reached ia orders and judgments may be established. Linda Vista Village San Diego Homeowners Ass'n. Inc. v. Tecolote Investors, LLC, 234 Cal. App. 4" 166, 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 4" 2015); Williams v. Wraxall; 33 Cal. App. 4” 120, 130, fn 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1* 1995)(udicial notice of the truth cf results reached in orders, statements of decision, and judgments allowed). Exhibit 7 is People’s Proposed Sentencing Memorandum filed by the City Attorney's Office on April 17, 2012 in People v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 2CA04539. 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 [sic, 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 tial court in Lynch’s criminal trial. In the People’s Proposed Sentencing Memorandum, the prosecution argued that “victim [Cohen] would be described pursuant to Family Code §6211(e) as someone ‘with whom [defendant} is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.’” Exh. 7, pp. 2-3. The People argued that Penal Code §1203.097 was applicable for sentencing purposes. 1d, Exhibits 6 and 8 attached hereto are certified transcripts of court proceedings held in People v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number 2CA04539: 1) the bail hearing held on March 23, 2012 before the Honorable Samuel Mayerson, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court; and 2) the sentencing hearing held on April 17, 2012 before the Honorable Robert Vanderet, Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The transcript of Lynch's sentencing hearing is relevant to these proceedings because Lynch’s public defenders argued that “the orders that were given in this case, the Colorado and the California orders, were not of the type that are required under [Penal Code] 273.6” bezause of the “requirement of domestic violence in this case.” Exh. 8, pp. 639, lines 6-23. The trial court rejected the defense’s argument and Lynch was convicted by the jury of five counts of Penal Code §273.6(a). Id. at p. 642, lines 6-11. Exhibits 9 and 10 are Appellant’s and Respondent’s opening briefs, respectively, filed in Lynch’s appeal from her criminal conviction, Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate DivisionSe eran ew nn BRYP Pep preewean 7 era RP SRRESSRERTR RE RR EE Case Number BR050096, Exhibit 11 is the May 29, 2013 Opinion of the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court affrming Lynch’s conviction, in Appellate Case Number BR050096, Exhibit 12 is the May 29, 2013 Order of the Appellate Division denying Lynch’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case Number BX 001309. The appellate court records are relevant to these proceedings because Lynch raised in her appeal issues that she now seeks to relitigate in her Motion, As in her current Motion, Lynch argued on appeal that the lack of service of the California Registration of the Colorado PPO renders the California Registration “void” and “unenforceable” and violated her due process rights. Motion, pp. 3+5; Exh. 9, pp. 13- 14, The Appellate Court rejected this argument in affirming her conviction and in denying her petition for writ of habeas corpus. Exh. 11, p. 4, lines 21-25; Exh. 12, p, 2, lines 22-27. Lynch’s Appellant's Opening bref is relevant because Lynch did not challenge the validity of the California Registration of the Cclorado PPO, her conviction of five counts of Penal Code §273.6(a) and her sentencing under California’s domestie violenee laws on appeal. Exh. 9, In her 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 California Registration of the Colorado PPO on that basis. Motion, p. 2, lines 23-24; p. 7, lines 10-12; p. 9, lines 24-25; Lynch Decl. $6. ‘The Los Angeles Superior Court records in Exhibits 6-12 are relevant to this proceeding because the issues Lynch now raises in ker Motion to attempt to vacate the California Registration of the Colorado PPO have been determired in the prior criminal proceeding for Lynch's violations of Plaintiff's Colorado PPO. The documents show the issues that were raised in Lynch’s criminal trial and considered on appeal. When courts take judicial notice of the existence of court documents, the legal effect of the resulls 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 from seeking to relitigate issuesaa eww oo 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 qT 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 26 27 28 conclusively determined by the criminal judgment. See 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 California Evidence Code §452(a) provides that judicial notice may be taken of “the decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States.” Cal. Evid, Code §452(@). Judicial notice is therefore properly taken of Colorado Revised Statutes §13-14-102 and §18-9-I11, attached as Exhibits 13 and 14 hereto. ‘These statutes are relevant because Cohen’s Colorado Permanent Protection Order was issued under C.R.S, §13-14-102, Exh. 5. Section 13- 14-102(1.5) authorizes any Colorado court to issue civil protection orders: “(a) to prevent assaults and threatened bodily harm; (b) fo prevent domestic abuse; (c) to prevent emotional abuse of the elderly or of an at-risk adult; and (d) to prevent stalking.” C.R.S. §13-14-102(1.5)(a)-(d). Exhibit ssued by the 13 is the archival version of the statute cs it existed in 2008 when Cohen’s PPO was Boulder County Court on September 2, 2008. In Cohen’s Verified Petition for Civil Protection Order, Exhibit 2, Cohen applied for the Protection Order against Lynch on the basis of stalking under §18-9-111(4) to (6), C.R.S. and “physical assault, threat or other situation.” Exh. 2, Colorado Revised Statute §18-9-111 is the statute governing stalking. CRS. §18-9- 111@)(@) discusses the legislative intent of its antistalking statute: Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim. Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim’s personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate 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 and adopts the provisions in this subsection (4) and subsections (5) and (6) of this section with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences. Because stalking is “an extraordinary tisk crime”, section 5(a) of the antistalking statute provides for a first offense to be charged as a felony under Colorado law. C.R.S. §18-9-111(5)(a).eon Cera Aan 10 Bat 2 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, judicial notice is properly taken of the Colorado Revised Statutes in Exhibits 13 and 14. V. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPERLY TAKEN OF FEDERAL LAW PROVIDING FOR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO PROTECTION ORDERS BY THE STATES, 18 U.S.C. §2265 California Evidence Code §451(a) requires mandatory judicial notice be taken of the “decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state and of the United States.” Cal. Evid. Code §451(a). Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit 15 documents obtained from the United States 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 full faith and credit given to protection orders, and Section 2266, which contains definitions for the statute. 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 credit and be enforced in every civil or criminal court of the United States, Indian Tribe or United States Tertitory pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2265.” Exh. 5, p. 3. Section 2265(a) provides that “any protection order issued consistent with subsection (b) of this section...shall be accorded full faith and credit by the court of another State.” Section 2265(b) provides that “a protection order issued by @ 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 Coldrado PPO is not entitled to full faith and credit in California under 18 U.S.C, §2265 because it was not issued under the domestic violence statute of Colorado, which is a misceading 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 of the party against whom a Protection order has been issued that the protection order has been registered or filed in thata a 10 uw 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 enforcing State.” 18 U.S.C. §2265(4). Lynch argues in her Motion that lack of Proof of Service of the May 25, 2011 California Registretion makes the Order on the California Registration void and unenforceable and continues to assert, as she did unsuccessfully in her 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 that “no proof of service dated May 25, 2011 is attached to the registration of the Colorado order in California.”). Section 2265(4) clearly provides that notification of the act of registration of the foreign order in the enforcing state is not, required, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of 18 U.S.C. §2265(4) the Notification and Registration provision of the statute and the “definitions” section of 18 U.S.C. §2266(5)(B) which defines “protection order” under the statute to include “(B) any....orders, remedies or relief issued as part of a protection order, restraining order, or injunction pursuant to State...law 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) VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice of the documents attached hereto in Exhibi's 1-15. DATED: August !7 2015 Respectfully submitted, Byz MICHELLE L. RICE KORY & RICE, LLP 9300 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90212 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF -10-Exhibit 1LEA MEE Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal |=” semps date here whan omnis Hed Court Protective/Restraining Order @® Name of Protected Person: Your lawyer in this case (if you have one): ‘Name: State Bar No. Firm Name: Address (I/ you have a lawyer for this case, give your lawyer's information. Ifyou do not have a lawyer and want to keep your home re address private, give a different matling address instead. You do not Fula snutname and aves adss——__ have to give your telephone, fax, or e-mail.) se eee Address: City: Stat Telephone: Fax: E-Mail Address: Fl ncave rambor (2) Name of Restrained Person: Case Number: Sex: OM OF Height: Weight: Hair Color: Eye Color: Race: ‘Age: Date of Birth: Address (if known) City: State: Tip: Relationship to protected person: Tam protected by the attached protectivelrestraining order. The order was made by (name and address of court) The attached order: * Isa true and correct copy * Is currently valid and in full force and effect ‘+ Has not been changed, canceled, or replaced by any other order * Was made in a different state, U.S. territory, Indian tribal court, the District of Cohumbia, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, or in a military court * Expires on (date) (© {sk tha the attached order be registered with this court for entry into the California Law Enforcement and ‘Telecommunication System (CLETS). My request is voluntary. I understand that registration of the order is not necessary for enforcement. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above information is true and Go correct. Date: Type or print your name Sign your name Bee KEES" Order to Registor Out-of-State or Tribal Court DV-600, Pago of2 ‘Famiy Cod, § 8208. Approved ty DOS Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS-OOS) ae (Domestic Violence Prevention)[Case Number: ‘The attached out-of-state restraining order is registered, valid, and enforceable in California, and can be entered into CLETS, unless it ends or is changed by the court that made it. Date: Judge (or Judicial Officer) “ROK Court Clerk Must Seal This Form and Attached Foreign Protection Order ‘This form sets forth the procedure to register a foreign protection order under Family Code section 6404[No court hearing is required to register the foreign protection order}This form and the attached foreign protection Grder must be sealed pursuant to Family Code section \ecess to the foreign protection order is allowed only to Jaw enforcement, the person who registered the order upon written request with proof of identification, the defense after arraignment on criminal charges involving an alleged violation of the order, or upon further order of the court (Clerk will lout this part.) —Clerk’s Certificate— Clerk's Certificate I certify that this Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court Protective/Restraining, freal} Order is a true and correct copy of the original on file in the court. Date: Clerk, by Deputy oer akor Serer eee Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court DV-600, Pape ofz Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS-OOS) (Domestic Violence Prevention)Exhibit 2‘County Court, Boulder County, State of Colorado 1777 6" Street - Boulder, Colorado 80302 zo fw JUDICIAL Blo BAUG 19 At B01 Plaintiff/Petitioner: LEONARD NORMAN COHEN ‘DOB: 09/21/1934 Defendan/Respondent: KELLEY ANN LYNCH DOB: 01/29/1957 lbeie it oat Phone Number: 303-861-2800 FAX Number: 303-832-7116 Atty. Reg, #: 9196 Division Attorneys for Plainsiff/Petitioner COURT USE ONLY Harvey A. Steinberg. ‘Case Number: Springer and Steinberg, P.C. 1600 Broadway, Suite 1200 Morbi Rc aH Courtroom VERIFIED MOTION FOR CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER I, LEONARD NORMAN COHEN request this Court to issue a Civil Protection Order, and in support of this request states the following; 1, Tam seeking this Civil Protection Order asa victim of the following: Domestic Abuse (§13-14-101(2), CRS.) Stalking (§18-9-111(4) to (6), CRS.) CG Sexual Assault (§18-3-402(1), C.R.S.) O Unlawful Sexual Contact (§18-3-404, C.R.8.) 1 Abuse of the Elderly or an At-Risk Adalt (§26-3,1-101(1), CRS.) Physical Assault, Threat or other situation, 2. reside or am employed in the County of LOS ANGELES State of CALIFORNIA, and KELLEY ANN LYNCH is believed to reside in the County of BOULDER, State of COLORADO, I know KELLEY ANN LYNCH becauso: Ms. Lynch was a former employee. a) b) 9 The most recent incident that causes me to ask for a Civil Protection Order oceurted on or about See, EXHIBIT “A” atta ‘The most serious incident that causes me to ask for a Civil Protection Order occurred on or about See, EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto. Any other past i dents of violence or threats? The threat of violence, stalking, slander, and harassment has been ongoing since approximately April, 2005,3 4 subsequent to Ms. Lyttch being terminated from &. for cause, Additionally, there isa outstanding judgment against Ms, Lynch of approximately $7.3 million as a result of the lawsuit fied against her in the State of California by Mr. Cohen. @) Are you aware of any other Protection Orders currently in effect against you or ‘the other person? 1 Yes, there is a Civil Protection Order in place in the State of California against Kelley Ann Lynch. I believe that I am in imminent danger from KELLEY ANN LYNCH. © Herm to my life or health if she is not restrained as requested, @ Physical or emotional harm to my emotional health or welfare if she is not excluded from the family home, the home of another, sending emails to myself, the protected persons or third parties associated to me, if she is not restrained from having third parties contact me, and if she is not restrained from placing phone calls tome, or protected persons listed in the Civil Protection Order, and other third parties associated with me, request the following relief from the Court that KELLEY ANN LYNCH: 8) & Be ordered to refrain from attacking, beating, molesting, intimidating, and verbally harassing me, following me, threatening my life, or threatening me or any other protected person listed on the Civil Protection Order with serious bodily injury. b) _& Be ordered to have no contact at all with me or the other Protected Persons. 2 & Be excluded from my home, work, and other. @_@ Beexcluded from making callsto me or anyone associated with me, ©) @ Beexcluded from emailing me or anyone associated with me. 1) BF Be excluded ftom malking pubic statements about me to any public entity (i newspapers, websites, blogs, any form of press, etc.) 2) @ Beexcluded from making contact to third parties associated with me, b) _& Beexcluded from having third party individuals make contact with me or any person associated with me. 1) Beordered to stay atleast $00 yards from the following places: Home: Work: Other: 5, I request that I be permitted to omit my address from this Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order, because I am a public figure and including my address may endanger me further.o o {swear ot affirm under penalty of perjury thatthe information contained in this Verified Motion for Civil Protection Order is true and correct. understand that once a Civil Protection Order is issued it cannot be modified or dispuissed by me or the other person without permission of the Court. Wel A. Steinberg Leonard Norman Cohen ‘Subscribed and affirmed, or sworn to before me in the County of, Denver State of Colorado, this__[4 _day of August, 2008. ae ee ON My Commission Expires: _/ /{ {20/0 Notice: Colorado Revised Statutes §13-14-102 identifies that a temporery injunction may be issued by ‘the Court and that upon personal service or upan waiver and acceptance of service by the Restrained Person, isto be in effect against the Restrained Person for a period determined to be appropriate by the Court. ‘This injunction restrains the Restrained Person froma: 4. Ceasing to make payments for mortgage or rent, insuranee, utilities or related services, transportation, medical care, or child esre when the Restrained Person bas a prior existing ‘duty or legal obligation for making suck paynrents. 2, Transferring, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing of personal effects or real property, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life. ‘The Restrained Person shall be required to account to the Court forall extraordinary expenditures made after the injunction is in effect. ‘Any injunction issued shall not exceed 120 days after the issuance of the Permanent Civil Protection Order.Exhibit 32 c COUNTY COURT BOULDER COUNTY COLORADO 1777 6" Street Boulder, CO 80306 LEONARD COHEN, Plaintitt, ve KELLEY LYNCH, Defendant. Case No. 08 C 176 Division 8 For Plaintiff: Harvey Sleinbery, Esq. For Defendant: Pro Se The matter came on for hearing on September 2, 2008, before the HONORABLE CAROLYN ENICHEN, Judge of the County Court, and the following proceedings were had. Transcript Prepared By: CTS West, Inc. 6121 South Quail Way Littleton, Co 80127 720-922-3581INDEX KELLEY LYNCH Direct Examination by Mr. ‘TRANSCRIBER’ S CERTIFICATION Steinberg PAGE 2910 N 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 2B 24 25 SEPTEMBER 2, 2008, (Whereupon the Court convened and the following proceedings were entered of record.) THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. Good afternoon. MR. STEINBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'd like to call Case Number 2008 C 776, Leonard Cohen v. Kelley Lynch. MR. STEINBERG: Your Honor, my name is Harvey Steinberg, I’m here on behalf of Mr. Cohen. We're prepared to proceed. THE COURT: Where’s your client? MR. STEINBERG: He is in California unable to make it, but we have witnesses and are prepared to proceed without him being here. THE COURT: Okay. Is Ms. Lynch in the courtroom? Okay. You need to have a seat up here at this courtroom. MS. LYNCH: Oh, at that table. Also, I thought he was in tour in Europe. THE COURT: It’s irrelevant to me that he’s not here. MS. LYNCH: Okay. I don’t think there’s any witnesses to the emails to the IRS. THE COURT: qWhat?aa wk wow 10 ul 12 13 4 15 16 aw 18 19 20 2 2 23 25 MS, LYNCH: Like they say. THE COURT: What did you say? MS. LYNCH: I said I don’t think there was any witnesses to the email to the IRS Commissioner’s staff. THE COURT: Okay. First of all, I’m going to tell you the rules of the road here. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: I am the judge who is presiding over this case, and we don’t have the money in Colorado to have court reporters, we have tape recorders. So -~ MS. LYNCH: Is this taped? THE COURT: Pardon? MS. IYNCH: Is this taped? THE COURT: Yes. MS. LYNCH: Can I subpoena it later? THE COUR hat? MS. LYNCH: THE COURT: You can apply for a transcript and pay a filing fee or a transcript fee, sure. So the reason I’m bringing this up is because it is very important that everyone understand that we can’t talk at the same time. MS. LYNCI Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: x example, when I talk, no one else can talk. When Mr. Steinberg has the floor, he has10 ML 12 1B Is 16 17 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 the floor. When it’s your turn to talk, Ill let you know as well. MS. LYNCH: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: The reason that we are here is because the Plaintiff appeared on August 19, 2008, requesting a temporary protection order, and upon sworn testimony review of the attached affidavits the Court granted that. ‘The purpose of today’s hearing is for the Court to determine whether or not that temporary order should become permanent. MS. LYNCH: Could I just ask one question at this point? ‘THE COURT: Yeah. MS. LYNCH: Who gave that sworn testimony? Was it Leonard Cohen himsel£? THE couRT: It was. MS. LYNCH: He came into this courtroom? THE COURT: He did. MS. LYNCH: kay. Thank you. THE COURT: Now, with regard to today’s hearing, Mr. Steinberg has indicated that he wishes to go forward on behalf of his client. And you have a decision to make. Your decision is either one -- MS. LYNCH: Right. THE COURT: -- to agree to this and to agree toBee 10 u R 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 2s 4 not ever have any contact with him, or secondly to object to it and to request an-evidentiary hearing. MS. LYNCH: I'd like to request an evidentiary hearing. THE COURT: Okay. So that’s what we/re going to do and we're going to start right now. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: And it’s Mr. Steinberg’s burden, so to speak, to go forward and show the Court why if this is not issued Mr. Cohen continues to be at risk. MS. LYNCH: And could you -~ and will he also be explaining why Robert Corey’s Law Firm is protected? There are serious issues here with my being defrauded ~~ THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. MS, LYNCH: -- and that kind of thing. THE COURT: There are ~~ there are a lot of affidavits in the file indicating that you have a long history with Mr. Cohen, and there’s perhaps some financial issues. You went to the IRS. T want this to be xeally important for you to hear. MS. LYNCH: Yeah, I'm Listening. THE COURT: This hearing -- MS. LYNCH: Yeah. THE COUR -- is only about the safety of the Plaintiff. It isn’t about the IRS for example. And Iew aw 10 N 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 at 2 23 24 25 don’t mean financial -- MS. LYNCH: Well, I understand that. THE COURT: Okay. S80 that’s the subject, the topic, and the heart of the matter. MS. LYNCH: But at -~ THE COURT: Safety of the Plaintiff. MS. LYNCH: But there is evidence here that this man has tried to silence and terrorize me, crush and destroy me -~ THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: -- so 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: Mm-hnum. about whether you are at risk THE COURT: 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 mtual restraining orders -- MS, LYNCH: You don’t? I couldn't get a reciprocal one?Pre) 10: n 12 13 4 is 16 v7 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 25 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. But right now this moment -~ MS. LYNCH: Min-hmm. THE COURT: -- we are proceeding only on the issue of whether or nct you pose a risk to his safety. MS. LYNCH: And in the future can I attack this if 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: But if there’s a 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 time. THE COURT: You're welcome. Mr. Steinberg, you may proceed. MR. STEINBERG: {I call Kelley Lynch to the stand, THE COURT: Okay. Please come right up here. MS. LYNCH: Okay. Can I just leave my bag here? THE COURT: Whatever's more comfortable.10 u 12 13 “4 15 16 17 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 MS. LYNCH: kay. KELLEY LYNCH called as an adverse witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: MS. LYNCH: I do. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: Thank you. THE COURT: Please be seated. Just make sure that microphone is turned right towards you which it looks like it is. MS. 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 I don’t know who that is or what this is about - MS. LYNCH: Uh-huh, THE COURT: -- is simply to make a sequestration order, and I order any potential witnesses to be seated in the hall and order them not to discuss testimony with any other person. MS. LYNCH: So would that include Mr. Ronald Mitchell sitting right there? THE COURT: I have no idea if he’s a witness. MS. LYNCH: He -~ I don’t know how he could be a witness.2 3 4 8 THE COURT: Well, I just -~ my ruling has to do with potential witnesses. And you also have the right to call witnesses. MS. LYNCH: I -- I don’t want to call witnesses. I have plenty for later. THE COURT: Okay. MS, LYNCH: But I thought perhaps Ronald Mitchell was contacted by Leonard Cohen and it’s —- THE COURT: TI don’t known anything -~ MS. LYNCH: -- an orchestrated campaign -- THE COURT: Let’s focus here. Tt’s about Mr. Cohen and you. MS, LYNCH: Torturing me. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: Okay. That’s fine. THE COURT: No editorial comments, please. MR. STETNBER THE COURT: You may proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STEINBERG: @ Can I get you to state your full name and spell your last name for the court record, ma’ am? A Kelley Ann Lynch, L-y-n-c-h. Q And you -- your address? A My address is care of Liz Craig, 7432 Brockway10 iT 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 2 2B 4 25 Drive, Boulder, Colorado, 80303. 1 don’t have a residence any longer. My rent was only paid through yesterday. Q Okay. A So 1/11 probably be staying with the Craigs @ And you know who Mr. Leonard Cohen is? A Obviously. Q And is it correct that you were served a restraining order from California, and you received that restraining order in person? A When? Q Did you ever receive one? A Are you asking me about this one or one years ago? When the sherifi’s department was there grabbing documents for the IRS? Q tes. 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10 u 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 an 22, 23 24 25 10 Mr. Cohen, correct? A So that meant Mr. Robert Cory about being defrauded in huge financial issues? THE COURT: &xcuse me. Excuse me, Excuse me. MS. LYNC! Yeah. THE COURT: when I start talking no more talking. You only answer the question asked. MS. 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. LYNCK: ALI right. THE COURT: I know it’s hard. MS. LYNCH: Okay. I/11 try. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: All right. RE COURT: ‘Thanks. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) Am I correct that you were aware of the restraining order, yes? A We've already been through that, yes. Q And that it prohibited you from having either contact -- A We've gotten there, yes. I understand that.10 uw 2 13 4 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 u THE COURT: Okay. He hasn’t finished the question. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) Either directly or indirectly with Mr. Cohen, correct? AI understood directly. I don’t really know what indirectly means to answer the question. Q Okay. Did you read a copy of the restraining order? A I don’t know what indirectly means at this point. Q I don’t think that was my question. Let me ask you again. A I just answered my question. THE COURT: Excuse me. MS. LYNCH =~ but I don’t know what indirectly means, can you tell me? THE COURT: You have to stop talking the minute I start talking. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: Always stop. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: He didn’t get the chance to ask the question -- MS. LYNCH: Okay. ‘THE CouRT; -- before you began to answer.10 u 12 13 14 15 16 n 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 Okay? MS. THE Ms. THE THE Ms. HE us. THE Ms. THE us. THE 12 LYNCH: Okay. COURT: Plus. your answer was nonresponsive. LYNCH: All right couRT: He’d asked a different question. LYNCH: All right. COURT: And ~~ and I’m just trying -~ LYNCH: But how cen I answer a question -~ COURT: -- to -~ because -~ LYNCH; -- if T don’t know what it means? COURT: Okay. You can ask him to explain. LYNCH: Okay. . Fine. COURT: Okay? LYNCH: All right. COURT: And I just want to let you know that I deal with lots of pro se people who don’t have lawyers -- us. TRE LYNCH: Right. courT: -- and so I -- I know it can be tough sometimes and I'm trying to give you some help. 2 Ms THE Ms. (By LYNCH: Yeah. COURT: Okay. LYNCH: Thank you very much. Mr. Ste:nberg) Now, what I had asked you is did you have an option to actually read theBen 10 u 12 13 4 15 16 "7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 restraining order that was served on you? A I believe 3 read-through it, yes. Q. And would you agree that it prohibited you from having contact, either directly or indirectly, send messages, mail or email to Mr. Cohen? A I just said I don’t know what direct -- indirectly means. Could you explain it? Q Let me ask you this first. Do you agree that the restraining order that you received and read said the following, “That you are not to contact either directly or indirectly via telephone, or send messages, or mail, or emails to Mr. Cohen?” A L understand what you're saying. I’m saying I don’t understand indirectly means so I can’t answer the question. THE COURT: Let me help you out. MR. STEINBERG: Okay THE COURT: He’s not asking if you understood the language, he’s asking if you recall reading the language. MS. LYNCH: TI don’t know if I recall reading directly or indirectly. For the record. MR. STEINBERG: May I approach? THE COURT: Sure. MR, STEINBERG: And do I have an exhibit,10 1 12 13, 14 15 16 “7 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 sticker that I can use at the table? THE COURT: There should be and they’re -- and Plaintiffs are numbers, please. MR. STBINBERG: It says People’s, that was my only concern. TE COURT: We'll go with it. MR. STEINBERG: That’s fine. I used to be a mathematician years ago. THE COURT: Let’s see. I can check for you. Let’s go with the People. MR, STBINBERG: That’s fine. THE COURT: Okay. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) I’m going to hand you - MR, STEINBERG: And I think you said numbers, correct? iE COURT: Yeah "Twa SteryauKG: Tf T might approach, Judge? THE COURT: Sure. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) I’m going to hand you what I’ve marked as People’s Exhibit 1. There's the exhibit sticker on the back. Could you just take a look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection? A I didn’t say it could refresh it because can’t remember distinctly reading it so that would be hard. But I/11 read it now.Rew wee aan 10 n 12 13 4 15 16 W 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 Q A All right. Do 1s you see that -- Is that -- is that what you're asking me to do? Which section. , you had said that -~ Hold on. First off you had said that you had Q = Well first off, A which section? Q read this -- AX don’t know i TRE couRT: Ex £ I read it and understood it -~ cuse me. MS. LYNCH: You know, it’s —~ THE COURT: wh en I start talking, you stop. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: He didn’t finish the question. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: And before he asks it again, I’m going to ask him a question. MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: Could you please help the Court and determining the date of MR. STEINBERG: THE COURT: -~ of Plaintiff's 1? 2005; Q MR. STEINBERG: the restraining order -~ Sure. that’s the subject of People -~ Yes. (By Mr. Steinberg) It was filed in October of is that correct? ‘There should be a stamp on it.16 1 Do you see that Ms. Lynch? 2 A November, I see, 3". 2005. 3 @ All right. Do you recall now having 4 A I don’t recall -- 5 Q -- read that document? 6 A => having read it. 7 THE COURT; He hasn’t -- 8 MS. LYNCH: I recall -~ 9 THE COURT: -- finished -- 10 MS. LYNCH: I thought he just asked me. ul THE COURT: I -- I -- did you finish asking? 12 MR. STEINBERG: No, but that’s all right. But 13 that’s okey. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 Q (By Mr. Steinberg) Are you now saying you 16 never recall reading the document? WA Wo, F dian’t say that. 1’m going to -- can t 18 answer-my question -- your question now? I recall being 19 served this. 20 Q Okay. 21 A I recall a lot of insanity going on at that 22 time, and I don’t know if I specitically read all of it 23 like that. 24 Q All right. Take a -- 25 A That‘s as henest as I can be.10 u 12 B 4 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 7 Because you nad earlier said you didn’t know what indirectly meant. A Q A Q 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, I don’t understand it in both. I'd have to read it right now. Is that what you’re asking me to do? Q Because my -- no. My question was if you didn’t understand indirectly did that mean that you had read the restraining order because it does use the word indirectly? A I was responding to your question actually at that point. Q A Q checked. about ~~ A Q Okay. Because you had the paper. Take a look at page 2, and there’s a box that’s And it’s in that phraseology that talks I have to get my glasses -- -- contact -- -- is that all right? THE COURT: No problem. MS. LYNCH: TI don’t think you're going to stand10 M1 12 B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 au 22 23 24 25 18 a chance to prove -- THE COURT; I don’t want you talking when you're not under the -- in the witness stand, please. MS. LYNCH: ‘This is just -- you know, my child’s life has been destroyed here, Your Honor. It’s very difficult for me. ‘This man’s lawyer has a declaration of my son’s custody matter. THE COURT: Okay. ‘Try to compose yourself. We’ re having a hearing on one issue -~ MS. LYNCH: But it’s very serious on all issues. THE COURT: TI respect that. Take a moment to compose yourself. Wovld you like a glass of water? MS. LYNCH: Yeah, please. THE COURT: I think there’s a cup right next to you. in “Ss. GYNcH: AlN right. Thank you. THE COURT: Would you like a tissue? MS. LYNCH: No, I have one. Thank you very much THE COURT: You're welcome. MS. LYNCH: What do you want me to read. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) Sure. May I approach? A Please don’t be nice tome. This is really serious. My life has been destroyed.19 1 Q | I try to be nice to everyone, so -~ 2 A Not to me, please. 3 Q Okay. 4 MR, STSINBERG: May I approach? 5 THE COURT: Sure. 6 (By Mr. Steinberg) Do you see where ~~ 7 A Please don’t ~ 8 Q == that box is? 9 A -- come near me, I/11 hand it to you there. 10 Q Okay. Do you see where the box is where it n says you stay away and then it also has -- 2 A dust show me where you want me to read and I'11 13 do it. 14 Q Sure. Right here. If you could read paragraph 15 six and paragraph seven. 16 THE COURT: Do you wish the witness to read Fe ane poo eerste eae MT isi 18 MR, STEINBERG: Sure. Please. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MS. LYNCH: Personal. conduct orders. You must 2 not do the following things to the people listed in 1 and 22. ll. A, check, harass, attack, strike, threaten, assault 23 sexually or otherwise, hit, follow, stop, destroy ~~ 4 destroy personal property, keep under surveillance or 25 block movements. B, check, contact directly or10 u 2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 20 indixectly, telephone, send messages, mail, or email. Peaceful written contact through a lawyer or a process server or other person for service of legal papers related to a court case does not violate these orders. Now, when I read that I thought I was representing myself, also and there’s got to be a way to communicate with someone about serious issues. THE COURT: Excuse me, you haven't been asked a question. MS. LYNCH: Okay. But I’m just saying it. Q (By Mr. Steinberg) So when you read this -- so you did read it now. You would agree that ~~ A You know what? Q -+ this has refreshed your recollection -- A What did I just say? THE COURT: First of all, you don’t get to ~~ MS. LWCH: I can’t have this hearing. Just go ahead and make the restraining order permanent, okay? THE COURT: Okay. MS, LYNCH: I really can’t. THE COURT: Okay. MS, LYNCH: These people are insane. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: Okay? They’ve destroyed my life, they’ve silenced me, they’ve terrorized me. Robert Corya has a declaration of my son’s custody matter. Can I ask one question? To whom can I communicate about very serious issues? Legal issues? THE COURT: A lawyer. MS. LYNCH: No. 1 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 recommend that people get attorneys, and if you/re having money issues, you can seek out legal services. MS. LYNCH: Right. 1/m waiting for Liz Cutler. THE COURT: Right now -- excuse me, Ms. Lynch. MS. LYNCH: Yeah. THE COURT: Do you wish to give up your to have a hearing and do you want to agree that the temporary order should become permanent? MS. LYNCH: Well, I’d 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 I sue later if it is fraud and perjury? THE COURT: No. I’m not giving you legal1 advice, I’m just asking you the question of whether or 2 not you agree that the temporary order that was 3 previously issued today -- 4 MS. LYNCH: Right. 3 THE COURT: -- this moment become permanent? 6 MS. LYNCH: Yes, 1 would like that very much. 7 THE COURT: Granted. 8 Ms. Thank you very much. 9 THE You’ re welcome. 10 MR, STEINBERG: I do have one additional u request: 2 THE COURT: What is it? 13 MR, STEINBERG: Since being served Ms. Lynch 4 has sent me literally -- I’m going to say 20 to 30 15 different emails -- HE COURT: Has sent you? 7 MR. STEINBERG: Yes. About matters completely 18 irrelevant regarding this situation, IRS, Bruce Cutler, 19 you know, the meanderings of matters that aren’t relevant 20 to me. a THE COURT: m-hmm. 2 MR. STEINBERG: I have sent her a cease and 2B desist request -- 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MS. LYNCH: This morning.10 ML 12 18, 19 20 2 22 23 24 2s 2B MR, STRINBERG: This morning and shortly after that I got another email. MS, LYNCH: Saying I would -~ I would stop and keep you in the dark, MR. STBINBERG: I prefer to be in the dark and I would just ask that this Court advise Ms. Lynch that 1 am not interested in receiving any emails, don’t want to be on her list and ask that she remove me. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: The Court can do that? THE COURT: Well, it -- there are various ways that the Court can do that. MS. LYNCH: | m-hmm. THE COURT: One way is to look at you and politely ask you -~ MS. LYNCH: Right. stop having any contact’ with THE CouRT: Harvey Steinberg. MS. LYNCH: I will for certain. THE COURT: Thanks. MS. LYNCH: I'd be more than happy. But who should I communicate with about Leonard Cohen’s matters and the monies he owes me? MR. STEINBERS: There is nobody that is interested in communicating with you.24 1 MS. LYNCH: I am aware of that but to whom, 2 because I was never served the lawsuit in California. 3 THE COURT: Excuse me. Just now he said no 4 one. You may get out of the witness stand, go to the s table -- 6 MS. LYNCH: Mm-hmm, 7 THE COURT: -- and I/11 give you your 8 paperwork. 9 MS, LYNCH: ‘hank you very siuch. 10 THE COURT: You’re welcome. What I’m going to a do is go over the paperwork with you and then if you have 2 any questions please ask them. 1B MS. LYNCH: Okay. Thank you. 14 THE COURT: You're welcome. Is your name 4s spelled K-e-1-1-e-y? Yes, it is. 7 TSE COURT: All right. Ns. Lynch, Thave 18 written the following. What's going to happen next is my 19 clerk’s going to enter it inte the computer -- 20 MS. LYNCH: Okay. a THE COURT: -- so it’s typed —- 22 MS. LYNCH: Okay. 23 THE COURT: and then she’ll give it to me 4 for my signature off the bench. ‘ 25 MS, LYNCH: Al1 right.10 u 12 1B 4 15 16 18 19) 20 21 23 24 25 25 THE COURT: And she’11 bring it in and give each side a copy. So 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 away from him, So if you just randomly run into nim you can’t approach him within 100 yards. MS. LYNCH: Is that including in a courtroom? THE COURT: No. MS. LYNCH: 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? THE 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 him in the grocery store ~~ MS. LYNCH: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: -- but there -- MS. LYNCH: And then what happens at that point if you did just bump into someone inadvertently? THE COURT: Well the police would be in charge of determining whether or not there was a violation.Ce aan ew u 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: Typically inadvertent contact would not be a violation but that would be up to the police to decide, and the Prosecutor to decide whether or not they could prove that -~ MS, LYNCH: Okay. THE COURT: -- it was not inadvertent. In addition, you're not to have any contact with the law office that’s located at 9300 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 80212. And finally you may not contact the Plaintiff by phone, mail, email, text messaging or through 2 third party. As an example if you contact Mr. Steinberg about Leonard Cohen -- MS. LYNCH: | Mm-hmm. THE COURT: -- that would be @ violation of this protection’order. If you violate the protection oxder in any way - MS. LYNCH: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: -~ then you will be charged with a Class I misdemeanor punishable with up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine, or both. MS. LYNCH: I have no interest in contacting them, May I just ask is 9300 West Olympic Boulevard the Law Office of Robert Cory? THE COURT: I just said Wilshire Boulevard.22 23 24 a7 fo that MS. LYNCH: I know, but can we name is? THE COURT: You said Olympic Boulevard. MS. LYNCH: No, T said Law Offices of Robert Cory. Oh, Olympic. It’s Wilshire? ‘THE COURT: It's Wilshire. MS. LYNCH: And is that Robert Cory? THE COURT: Mr. Steinberg can answer that, I have no idea. MR. STEINBERG: It is. THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions about the meaning of the protection order? MS. LYNCH: The actual meaning of it for the purposes of the Court right now on their side? THE COURT: Do you understand what this means? MS. LYNCH: I understand deadly seriously what it means. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: I do. THE COURT: Okay. MS. LYNCH: On every perspective. TRE COUR’ All right. The protection order is made permanent. MS. LYNCH: Thank you. THE COURT: And my clerk will enter the10 i 12 2 22 23 24 25 28 information into the computer and bring it to me for my signature and return to the courtroom. MS. LYNCH: Thank you very much. THE COURT You're welcome. It will take about two to three minutes. MR. STEINBERG: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: You're welcome. ‘The Court’s in recess. (Whereupon these proceedings were concluded.)29 TRANSCRIBER! S$ CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO) ) gs. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) I, Maureen 0’ Tools, do hereby certify that I have listened to the electronic recording of the foregoing; further that the foregoing transcript pages 1 through 28, were reduced to typewritten form from an electronic recording of the proceedings held September 2, 2008, in the Boulder County Court, in the matter of Leonard Cohen Lynch; 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 Novimbgr, Ut bi. Maureen O'TooleDaily Dockets Page 1 of | This docket search ONLY shows data for 09/01/2008 & 09/02/2008 between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Data is updated weekdays at 6:30PM Ifyou did not find your case and the appeararce date is on 09/01/2008 or 09/02/2008, please contact your local court for verification. First Case yn fee Nene Name: Number: County Selected; Boulder Cour Boulder County Combined Court Jick on a column's title, click a second time to reverse the order. : Case mame Firstname iN Date Time Division keuey zuoucr7s oanazo0e 920000 Courroome Page: O2 Showing Tron http://www .courts.state.co.us/Courts/Docket.cfin/Location_ID/73/Lastname/lynch 8/29/2008Exhibit 4COUNTY COURT, COUNTY OF BOULDER, STATE OF COLORADO. CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF COPY ‘STATE OF COLORADO) ss ‘COUNTY OF BOULDER) 1, DEBRA 1. CROSSER, Clexk of the COUNTY COURT of the 2¢M Judicial District of the state of Colorado within and for the County of Boulder, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a truz, perfect, and complete copy of: Case Number: 20080776 CHEN, LEONARD NORMAN, PARTI, TYNCH, KELLEY ANN, DEFENDANT. REGISTER OF ACTION, MOTION TO QUASH FLAINTIFES PROTECTION ORDER, PERMANENT CIVIL. PROTECTION ORDER. 1, NORMA SIERRA, Judge of the COUNTY COURT of the 20" Judicial District of the state of Colorado within and for the County of Boulder, do hereby certify that DEBRA 1,. CROSSER whose rame is subscribed to the foregoing Certificate of Attestation, now is, and was, at the time of signing and sealing the same, Clerk of the COUNTY COURT of Boulder County aforesaid, ancl Keeper of the recotds and seal thereof, duly appointed and quelified'o office; that full faith and oreait are of right ana ought to be COUNTY OF BOULDER) 1, DEBRA L. CROSSER, Cletk of the COUNTY COURT of the 20" Judicial District of the state of Colorado, within and for Boulder County, do hereby certify that NORMA SIERRA, whose gemuine signature is appended to the foregoing certificate, was at the time of signing the same, Judge of the COUNTY COURT of Boulder, ofthe siate of Colorado, duly commissioned and qualified that full faith and credit are of right and ought to be given to all her official acts as such, and all Courts of Record and elsewhere. In the testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my Fand and affixed the seal of saicl Court at my office in BouldersKileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page 1 of 1 ea a Oo on ETON CToewttoTwrraa QB SY amt Cou Baa Cay ian , [Coun Adress! Soler nes Cnr . Wr sun stP, Bauer CO, 208429 Praraveeutonsr: OREN LEONARD NORMAN adarons ‘CONFIDENTIAL DetenoniRorpenden LYNCH ELLEY ANN cise: 90 ARAPAHOE [ese Numer: ©00720080 000775 BOULDER, CO. soso on_8__gutioom: PERMANENT Civil PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT 10 $13-14-102, CLAS. Fail ama of ectraned Poreon | Oatwo'] Sex ] Face] Weigh] Height] Fair | Eve vrotcta Person agen Wanroninvlved | Bick coter | _coor oF men enter ane wemose| mel _w_| zo | se | ono} ow Fuwane ofraecid Forsan | Osea [Sex] face | Fullioe cfPiciciodPraoo | Defect Bex]faoe Sum, 2 Sane eo N Baise pa] Ww “The Court tnd shat thas jaleton ave the patie nd th subject ata thatthe Resrsned Porson wae panna naned and gvonroaconabia cise and opportnay to ba beard: at tho said Parson constes a creda foal th ane Death of tie Prolected Persons eamed inthis action: and slant couse ot forth Issuanes ot ac Protecton Ore ‘The Cour finds ths the Resained Persor) if i ol governed the Gracy Handgun VilencoProvenin At, 18 USC. 5222 (8) ana (a). ‘This Protection Order DOES NOT EXPIRE and only the Court can change this Ordor. “The Court Orders that you, the Restrained Person, shal nt contac, aras, sak nj, ktm, treat, or moos the PreestedPeteont or ofennee visa this ida, You shal no use, allen vse. or theaten to use physio! oreo ‘gala the Protected Porson thal woud reazonely be aepetedio cause bay inry. You shal net ongage any conde\ that woul place tho Protectod Parsons In reasoneble ear ali {CIA Temporary Inction herby ented by ti Cour and is ee! un. {dso} ro lo exceed 120 ys str the ieavonco ofthis dar, Thi inonsion rsa the Retained Person rom ceasing Yo make payments fr mage fr rent insurance, bie oF relied renee taneponaon, medial ox, o chit care when the Restaiad Person has prior exeing dy or legal obigalon to mak sich pay nants o om nstarng,enourburiog, concealing ori any Way ‘epoeing of peronal lice ot rool propa, excop the usual couse al Business o or he necosstls of. ‘You must keep a gistonce ofa feast__100 yards forthe Protect Persons, ‘contac. ts erdoed thst you the Resrened Personal have no contest any kind with the Protected Persons anyou shat ‘ot atta o conc! a6 Proce Persone tough a hid person, excep your strney, except as TollOWs: None! ‘vino oo protean ode Tea eaa sid may Dopod aso desea, Rovio paetanes aR, ‘ra delinquent et (comeing by fei) pues te 1858205 C.S and munispal ordinas, 4s0F209 R707 PERMANENT CML PROTECTONORDERISSUED FURGUANTTO SIS-6102.0RS. Pago cl3 6/4/2015 https://www jbits.courts.state,co.us/filebound/Inline Viewer/InlinePrintPreview.aspx?docid=,ileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page | of 1 Cana ame cose, OMA Was _v. nc KcLLcy a _@y. Coso mane: zan80 m7, 2, Exclusion trom Places. “tls orate that you be excuad frm th efowing paces an shall stay af fas 100__ yards anny rom ta otoing pleco: (Ponsa spac tho adresse} vhoo the Potated Potcné reve, work or aon zee) [he Pretacad Person hat requested that he aceassbe cmd from the wren order of the Cou, nding tha Register of Actions. BlHome: WHEREVER pLUNTIEE Lives (Work: Nam: WHEREVER PLANTIEF WORKS Adgress: WHEREVER PLANTIFE WORKS __ Dischoo: Name: ‘cores (Other: ga00 vi SHIRE Bivp, LOS ANGELES, GAD 2 LAW OFFICE DEscoptions: 3, Caro.and Gontrol Provisions, {lt inthe best rest ofthe sbove-namad mar citren that car and conto ofthese citron be awarded to ——_______ nar pore) This temporary care and conrl odor axpros 0m (to & imum oF 130 days Tm ls Cdr a cher prosions of is Orr rain nll Terca and lect pormanerty This Ordr governs any har Orders concerning tho cor and contol sa chikren, However, rovons In othr Ordar concerning tha chen tha do alco wi this Ordo rust be olowad. 4. Issues Concorning Children. (Parenting Time and Decision Making responsibites) {GResened Pecos rnd paren tine wie or hen, [EParerang uneC Torres on. (ete) ooh ret ep uat fra oor fh Caan sat be asta: eke eee [ate parts shad jority are caclion Taig responses. [lotr as st ton nth “Otter Provisions” soctn bel. (CaParoating ine and docion making reponse ets boas previous ordered by ha rae Cour, oe 5. Other Provisions, [CT Court waives al ess and n eas for sence shold be assaceedposuanl a §1244-102/2(6), CRS. [Foot sabe paid tho[] Pls Pettioner [] Debndantosponsont (ies ther ordered iat errs wr OF THROUGH THIRD 2 [itis Pasmanort Potecion Orders istics i he Tava Protsalon Oder end dovs ne aguke seiVEn onthe Restrained Porte, {D1This Pemanent Protect Order is teront em to Temporary Potion Ore and vaques serve onthe Fostainod Pereor bolero ks provisions become eecve [Bh Served Rasainod Person Open Cour on 02/2002” (DATE). £y signing | ackocwiadge receipt otis CxdororC]Recratnd Petsn isnot pratant in courtroom. Ahiny torvey fh icy a 7 if ae PrinttPoifoner F0/ Lesue Che 0° Bioudge Ci Li Pant ar of al Otosr ary ot isi tue ad cerpe copy tb eget, elena egsMdant Oate Sone Law Enforcement shall use all reasonable means to entorce this Protection Order. JF S99 R707 PEAUALENT CVI. PROTECTONORDER ISSUED PURSUANTTOSIB1C2.CRS Page dol2 https://www jbits.courts.state.co.us/filebound/Inline Viewer/InlinePrintPreview.aspx?docid=.. 6/4/2015‘FileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page | of | coveName C004 EEN LUCA AGLLEV ANN cose onber atc IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION ORDERS GENERAL INFORMATION "side vision ae edd ih anna betaine cl nd at Un Sites ob Tie sed Sas Tet ena PUB 628 Il Coon oh gan eto abel al Parana B.SC fergie A una any pee poses otra eumos sat acon ok ass sch pare haan ning regs ie pec rn er wc eNnea pe eN ce eroarg oes contalvedé perianal ny eon, NOTICE TO RESTRAINED PERSON 4 Aslutenat Pomien Oy nantecontr sunt nace iain ea eng o cont be a Isacepote ctr yore er tegel pasties ns rw maybe st elu sUAN0 rdep oso not Vine Ora enone la ne ns aegal WOES ‘Generate aeerdnea ope Dpsineic ura ance krup OPE ‘Yovoy towne hn bce ste ls cer oerhs pate tase sktoe tyson is Oe, \jocvlon te Or aig tbe puedes anerceselasghen pers you wen, al cnbe eid poo ‘lami ui eetntena yaar Dap One Cartan chang is Od oven cam is Para econ Clic aso er Fel, BUS Sz Yury eGo aotsesncroniralcla piclon ec tf yeus ante a sete Foz! Peal Can pr een CAS. NOTICE To PROTECTED PERSON ‘Yaya heey erm te rae os a ecm 4 Teunay ni connp cyt Resin Orsini ton mt tm patty tote ang rote ty ots eed nein. Jest gate snared aon pensen crag ge On ay my. ny Cea ea cana is rd YYermey soy ba Gti seedlenine cot fe Pcie ea em, er ISCO oA, NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 1 buen etn perl ove nieces be poeg ee ase shone oops oyeteanOxr ands senatesna Te sto dnb aah aoomvetereeseveom 2440201 -Y2.ORSS J “Yarsselz mymnanstanen one Hs Prete et Y Youstal erste ey at mare abba dr conse eo ran aan ee usta Povn weno ana eos tal saad Pen wieder va tay pono eels ees prin REELS CAS. crunch SOU ‘asad Pov en pop ead ec lO Retin Pass hinge ae ol vod EA ‘Yoel On enn Dewi onlin Pecan Ce Cor Roa, Ysa arestted Pests axes resi. ‘Yeomoy rept our ngraan i dh a Poss Paes, JOF 399.9797 PERMANENT IL PROTECTION ORDERISCUED PURSUANT TOSID-402,CRS. Page 20f9 hitps://www jbits.courts.state.co.us/filebound/Inline Viewer/InlinePrintPreview.aspx?docid=... 6/4/2015+ BileBound » Boulder County Archived Case Files Page 1 of L Defendant. ery Lyn cent, 08.6296 i NE PORKSHEET fol governed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, The Court Finds that the defendant i 8G 18 USC, §92200}(8) and (@(8)- (Keep adisance oft fxst__[OO _ yards tom proected pares andthe cilren i a ace tigen sees 1D) The protecte party has requsted that the adds be omitted fromthe writen order of he court, including the Register of Actions. c XM Home _Ubsrver TT lies GB Work Name Cuberevir fT eles Address School ane, es 2 @ Other 7300" Lankinize Riva Lae Aapelar Ce Bipie (ate 274 & Brccg : C1 Careand Con avaydod se G Rest party is granted parenting time with the minor children, * Gi Pavoing tine considered rect hog, : © Parenting time expires on ee ening, esta gga sees 0. inten vision tng sponses exp a hs se dition king nesponbicy- 2 Pardes hae join decision ang respon (2 Other see below Q Parenting ime covered in, Kcour)__—(cese mmbe), (2 The Restrained Paty shall not possess and/or purchase a firearm, emmcnitioa, or other weapon. Court waives all fees. O Plints7Petioner 2 DefeadawRespandest G Fees paid by: x tistuerenerotihn Def sae vt Contcot MT br phere Teil Comeil fect aeralte tet On theotesh thhd perfy if enna A eprslf ates oy 1 PRO denial to TRO-— no service rue, PRO different fromTRO ~ service requied. G RST served incoon. Couto Inder b nee on Beige (edewatoed o O10 for s = Aveta ovo my et ct waar Scwntee ¢ Sasagee Ec ie Daee Fete pagans Bhat hse Goats Shecieteeties Sea Some _—— Bee gam Veen Soeieeeg: | “Gaal Grcercoin 1 Vi eve QO. b eae 92 08 apa ae : cons 5 ‘hutps:// www. jbits.courts.state.co.us/filebound/InlireViewer/InlinePrintPreview.aspx?docid=... 6/4/2015ENTEGRATED COLORADO ONLINE NETWORK (ICON) Status: RSTD PROG CLSD County Court, Boulder County Case #: 2008 C 000776 Div/Room: 8 Type: Protection Order COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN vs. LYNCH, KELLEY ANN Dv STATUS: Case File Date: 8/19/2008 Case Close Date: 9/02/2008 Appealed: N Confidential Intermediary....... Bar # Name Judicial off 018693 DAVID ANTHONY ARCHULETA Alt Jud Officer: 000000 Desexiption Stat Date trial... Next Schd’ vent: Last Schd Event: Permanent Restraining Ord Hr HELD 9/02/2008 Last Bvent.....: order n/a 1/12/2009 Attorney(s)....: Judgements. .... 2... Motions Filed... 1.1 1liv Amount Prayed for.....: +00 Jury Fee Paid.........:8 ----+ PARTIES - PARTY ROL STS NAME ‘ATTORNEY ROL DEF 1 RST LYNCH, KELLEY ANN Date of Birth.. : 3/27/1957 Sex..... : ili: Female Race... 7 iit Caucasian Business Phone.......1..: (973) 983-9293 Height......... Lil: sos Weightr se sees scimesetniti20: Hadr Color... 1000200) Brown, Bye Color.. 2.2 .....2 Blue Home Address. DIDI: 32. Manor DRIVE 2 ANDOVER, NJ 07821 PIP 1 PRA COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN Date of Birth......., 9/21/1934 Sex.... male Race... Caucasian Height | 507 Weight ee espiiiceestcet 14s Hair Color. .)1 2222021101: Grey Bye Color... : Brown Home Address. CONFIDENTIAL x FILE DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION 8/19/2008 Complaint Event ID: 000001 #-Filed: N CMPL RS AND INFO SHEET (AME 8/19/2008 Temp Protection Ord-Granted Event ID: 000002 E-Filed: N DEF/RST LYNCH, KELLEY ANNFILE DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION PIE/PRA COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN Expiration Date: 02/15/2009 Keep a distance at least 100 yards fron protected parties Excluded from 100 yards Work Name WHEREVER PLAINTIFF WORKS Work Address WHEREVER PLAINTIFF WORKS Other 9300 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 80212 (LAW OFFICE) Exceptions NONE Fees paid by Plaintiff/petitioner It is Further Ordered DEFENDANT MAY NOT CONTACT PLAINTIFP BY TELEPHONE, M AIL, EMAIL, TEST MESSAGBS, OR THROUGH 3RD PARTIES OTHER Related Event TROV Temp Protection Order Vacated 9/02/2008 FILE DATE SCHEDULED EVENT DESCRIPTION SCHD DATE TIME ROOM PRE 8/19/2008 Tempozary Restraining Ord arg 8/19/2008 09:00 AM E Officer: CARE HOYE ENICHEN Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 9/02/2008 ‘Permanent Restraining Ord irg 9/02/2008 02:00 PM E Officer: CARE HOYE ENICHEN Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 9/02/2008 ‘Perm Protection Order-Granzed Event ID: 000003 E-Filed: N DEF/RST LYNCH, KELLEY ANN PTF/PRA COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN The Court finds that the defendant is act governed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.3.C. §922(D) (8) and (g) (8) Keep a distance at least 100 yards from protected parties No Contact except NONE Excluded from 100 yards Home WHEREVER PLAINTIFF LIVES Work Name WHEREVER PLAINTIFF WORKS Work Address WHEREVER PLANTIFF WORKS Other 9300 WILSHIRE BLVD; LOS ANGELES, CA 80212 (LAW OPPICE) It is Further Ordered DEF MAY NOT CONTACT PLAINTIFF BY PHONE, MAIL, E-MAIL, EXT MESSAGE OR THROUGH THIRD PARTIES. RST served in court 9/02/2008 Return of Service Protect ord Event ID: 000004 E-Filed: N : Related Event PROG Perm Protection Order-Granted 9/02/2008 9/02/2008 Case Closed Event ID: 000005 -Filed: N 9/02/2008 ‘Temp Protection Order Vacazed Bvent ID: 000008 E-Filed: W Related Event TROG Temp Protection Ord-Granted 8/19/2008 12/02/2008 Motion Event ID: 000006 -Filed: N DEF/RST LYNCH, KELLEY ANN TO QUASH PTFS PROTECTIVE ORDER /BME 12/04/2008 Minute Order (No Print) vent ID: 000007 B-Filed: N HOLD FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE 7x0 1/12/2009 Order Event ID: 000009 _E-Filed: W THE MOTION TO DISMISS TRE PPO IS DENISD. THE CT REMINDS THE DEF THAT SHE AGREED TO ENTRY OP THE PPO ON 9-2-08. /oMM End of Case: 2008 C 000776Exhibit 5ae e ! i Register Out-of-State le OWI CE i Restraining Order @ our hae (protected person: ach {LED ‘Leonard Norman Cohen’ ~ | LOSANGELES SUPERIOR CouRT Your address (Ship this ifyou have a lawyer) (if you want your addres to be Pan private give a mailing addves instead) mar XC 201i : OHNA. CLARKE, CLERK City, —___ Srarer _ i Your phone # (optional: (—__-.) | _ BY MG. ALMENDRAS, DEPUTY Yous ee feeb on eam, as pane en Ste Bar aad ret ai Be Michelle L, Rice, Eso. SBN 235189 Superior Court of California, County of Kory & Rice LLP, 9300 Wilshire Bivd., Ste 200, Los Angeles Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Telephone: 310-285-1530 Stanley Mosk Courthouse 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 © [ Nome of person you want prowetion from (restrained person): Kelley Ann Lynch Description of that person: Sex: 1M MF Hrz__5'06" ‘We: 120 _ Races __White__ Hair Color: Brown __ “"BQ0337 1 7 Bye Color: Blue Age: 54. Date of Binh: 120/57 © 1 em proceed by the atached resuaining order. The order was madé by (nome and adres of ur ulder County Court. Boulder Justice Center, 1 i 31.. P.O. Boul ido 0306-424: © Me arached order: + Isa crucand correct copy + Is currently valid and in fll force and effect + Has noc been changed, canceled, or replaced by aay other order + Wes made in a different state, U.S. tersitory, iba land, the District of Columbia, or in a military court + Expires on (date): Permanent Order © « F tested for the original protesive order or b. Cl The person in © asked for the original order, But I also asked the court in writing fora protective order. ‘The court said both people in © and @ have che right co a protective order. oe I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California thar che above information is true and conrect Date: May 24, 2011 w Attorney Michelle L. Rice for Leonard Né@She Type or print yo name S- ‘The attached out-of-state restraining order is’ into CLETS, unless it ends or is changed by the'es DareftAt_2. 52011 _ ‘col Coancl of Catfoma, wwncourniacagy Register Out-of-State Restraining Order Foy in 00 ope by OO; {CLETS) «Domestic sence Prevention)x ‘Court Address: Boulder Justice Center : 1777 Sixth St PO. Boulder, CO. 809064249 Plaintit/Petitioner: COHEN, LEONARD NORMAN Address: CONFIDENTIAL . DofendantRespondent: LYNCH, KELLEY ANN Address: 90 ARAPAHOE ‘BOULDER, CO. 80302 OUNTY, COLORADO Un [Case Number: C0072008¢ 000776 isin: 8 Courtrooni: PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO $13-14-102, C.F-S. Full Name of lestrained Person Date of | Sex | Race] Weight] Height | Hair | Eye protected Person alleges Weapon involved} Birth Color | Color ra LYNCH, KELLEY ANN ~ [vemssr] Be] w | 120 | soe | sro | ww FullName of Protected Pereon | Dateot | Sex| Date of Race Birth Birth [ECHEN, LEONARD NOPIEN 21884 | J —-— ‘The Court finds that it has jurisciction over the parties andthe subject matter: that the Restrained Person was personally served and given reasonable notice and opportunly to be heard; that the Restrained Person constitutes a credible threat to the life and health of the Protected Persons named in this action; and sulticent cause exists for the issuance of a chil Protection Order. The Court finds that the Restrained Person] isfi] is not governed by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. ‘The Court Orders that you, the Restrained Person, shallot contact, harass, stalk, injure, intimidate, threaten, or molest the Protected Persons or otherwise violate this Order. You shall not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force ‘against the Protected Persons that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. You shall not engage: that would place the Protected Persons in reasonable fear of bodily injury. TA Temporary Injunction is hereby entered by this Court end isin effect unt after the issuance of this Order. This injunction restrains the Restr ed Person from cea any conduct (Cate) not to exceed 120 days 9 t0 make payments for mortgage or rent, insurance, utities oF related services, transportation, medical care, or child care when the Restrained Person has a prior existing duty oF legal obligation to make such payments or from transferring, encumbering, coricealing or in any way disposing of personal effects or real property, except in tte usual course of business or for the necessities of life. ‘You must keep a distance of at least__100 yards from the Protected Persons. Contact. itis ordered that you, the Restrained Person,shall have no contact of any kind with the Protecied Persons and you shall ‘not attempt to contact said Protected Persons through any third person, except your attorney, except as follows: NONE JDF999R7i07 PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO §19-14-102, CRS. ‘A Violaion ofa protection order is a crime and may Be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, municipal ‘oF a delingwont act (if committed by a juvenlie) pursuan! o §18-6-803.5, C.R.S, and municipal ordinance. finance violalion, Page 1 of* otto name cohew LEONARD wN__v LNKeLLev wy GQ case Humber: 2anee anor. 2. Exclusion from Places. - Itis ordered thet you be excluded from the following pleces and shall stay at least 100_ yards away from “the following places: (Please spacity'the address(es) where the Protected Persons reside, work or altend school.) Li The Protected Person has requested that the address be omitted from the written order of the Court, including the Register of Actions. (iHome: WHEREVER PLAINTIFF LIVES [al Work: Name: WHEREVER PLAINTIFF WORKS ‘Address: WHEREVER PLANTIFF WORKS (School: Name:_" J Other: 930 WD: ES, CA 80212 (LAW OFFI Exceptions: 3. Care and Control Provisions. ~ "DNs i tie’ best interest ot the above-named’ mindr childen that esre and control of thosa children be awarcied to (name of person). This temporary care and control order expires on (ate « maximurn of 120 days fom tis Order; al other provisions of his Order remain nfl ~~ —7"fores-and effect permanently: —- ‘This Order governs any other Orders concerning the care and control of said children. However, provisions in ‘another Order concerning the chitiren that do not conflet with this Order misst be followed. 4, Issues Concerning Children. (Parenting Time and Decision-Making responsibilities) D Restrained Person is granted parenting time with the minor children D Parenting time D1» (Gate) or [does not expire until further order of the Court and shell be as follows: [Cnterim decision-making responsibilities expire on. (Gate of next hearing) and shall be as folows: oo. (iatre of person) shall have sole dec'sion-making responsibities. Lhe panies shall jointly share dectelon-making responsibiltes. Dlother aa 2et forth in the “Other Provisions" section bebw. [Parenting time and decision-making responsibites shallbe as previously ordered by the District Coun, Case 5, Other Provisions. : [The Court waives all foes and no fees for service shouldbe asséssed persuant to §13-14-102(21)(b), CALS. Fees shallbe pad by tho] Plantt/Pettioner [] Defendant Respondent Bits turther ordered that: DEF MAY NOT CONTAGT PLAINTIFF BY PHONE, MAIL, E-MAILT. EXT MESSAGE OR THROUGH THIRD PARTIES. iThis Permanent Protection Order is identical to the Temporary Protection Order and does not require service on the Restrained Porson. This Permanent Protection Order Is diferent from the Temporary Protection Order and requires servcs on the Restrained Person betore its provisions become effective. [Served Restrained Person in Open Court on_/02/2008 (DATE). By signing, | acknowledge recsipt of this Order or Z] Restrained Person Is not present in courtroom. Bluudge C1 Mash : ENICHEN, CAROLYN HOVE Print Name of Judicial Offcar | cortfy that this tsa tre and completa cépy of tha eriginal order. Sierk Law Enforcement shall use all reasonable means to enforce this-Protection Order. 4uDF998 7/07 PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO §13-14-102,C..S, Page 203GENERAL INFORMATION J "This Order or yuraion shal be acceded ith and ret and be elorcad never chlor rina court ofthe United State, Ian Tribe or Unites Stats Trin purssrtto 18 US. §2265, This Court has ust cur the pares end the subject male Pursuant o 18.8.0, §022()0), ie arian fr any persn opocetec or traneterafrearo wots subject to acoutrcer talons, such poraon fom harassing, sling or thesterng an inimse pare of uch person or hd f such inmate patna rparon, cor engaging in oar cerdvet tal woud placa animate panera ezscrabe far of body Injury othe partner cx hid, NOTICE TO RESTRAINED: PERSON __Avilaion ol Pr‘ceton Order may bea misdemesncy, municipal ortnence volaon cra delinquent! ct (commited ty. jen) end 's adeporstoolense, Anyone over he age of eghieen who vistas his reer may be subject fines of up 10 $5,000.00 supe hati Von ois re corse coisa cout Anyone arte eel 1B tts Order may be sbjet to commitment tore Deparment of Human Senvces fcr up to wo yea! ‘Youaye arastosr en cay vita ae aon ensuamart he pba cove ta eos youhare led is Ore v 4 Ayu et ta tte rot rc eye at hen you pin, youn wg, nda ent ete \/__ Fosancta era ie Prana ronan rien ln cvsn a Faby ce Feel aw 18 US 928. You may soy tothe Cert fora medication or cemisse os prctctin ord alr four year rn te de issvénewo the Parma Protection Over, per §13-14102117 a0), CRS, NOTICE TO PROTECTED PERSON ‘J. You se eve Info that his Order i ited you may callow rtercement. J) Youmay inate contempt proseedings agent the Restrained Peson ithe Orders Isued {o{nklate contempt proceedings if the order is issued ina erminal action. J You cant give the Restainéd Parson permission ‘o change or Ina tis Orrin ay way, Only the Court ean chan Y-__You may apy to the Court fr 2 macteaon or emissa ola Proecon Order atary ime, per §19-14102(17-lae), CAS. action or request the prosecuting attorney thie Order. NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS: J hoe Onder has no been personally served, the law enfrcemen’ fcr responding os cal of atistance cl serve copy of sided ‘on the parson named Rastined Person than ai hel wie te tne dat, and manner ol service onthe Protected Persons, copy of such Ordar and shal sign such statement, The oer eal prvi fhe Court with a eorpletd return of save lem. (6114-10211 - 12), ORS) You shell uss every reasonable means 1 enferee ts Protostion Orda {1 You shall anresto ake no cusidy, oi anartest wou be neacca under the cicumslances, seek a warrent for he arestol Be ‘Roevaned Person when yeu have nlrmston amoung oprcbele caus ha the Restsined Persc as viclated cr atterplc 0 ville ‘any provision otis Order subjet to criminal eanclonepureuant to §1-5 803.5, C'S. cr municipal ordnance athe Pestrained Person has been topely served witha copy ol his Ordr ert Restalned Peroon has received acualretice othe atance an substance of suoh Order. ‘You shallenerca is Order sven if rere sno record ol itn the ProtectonOnor Cent Regis. ‘You sal tke the Resvaned Pereon tothe neaest lo deteion fc. “You are authorized louse every reasnable ater to pote! te Protected Pesons ta provet trhervclnee. ‘You may ranspnt, or stange tansporaionto a sheterfor the Protected Persons. Keke DF 999 7107 PERMANENT CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO §18-14-102,C.R.S. Page SolExhibit 6SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DIVISION NO. 44 HON. SAMUEL MAYERSON, JUDGE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) PLAINTIEF-RESPONDENT, —) } vs. ) } NO. 2CA04539 KELLEY LYNCH ) ) DEPENDANT-APPELLANT. —) ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012 APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIEF: SANDRA JO STREETER DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT: JOHN 8. PERRONT, IZT DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ANNETTE L. VAN OLDEN, CSR #7514 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER CORYCHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES VOIR + | DerenpaNt’s VOIR __ | SEPNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE VOL (NONE CALLED) REBUTTAL: fe LEGEND:2ca04539 PEOPLE VS. KELLEY LYNCH SNGELES, CALIFORNIA MARCH 23, 2012 TMENT NO. 44 HON, SAMUEL MAYERSON, JUDGE ANNETTE VAN OLDEN, CSR NO.7514 10:00 A.M. : (THE DEFENOANT, KELLEY LYNCH, PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, JOHN PERRONI, IIT DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER; SANDRA JO STREETER, DEPUTY 1 CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.) THE COURT: PEOELE VERSUS KELLEY LYNCH. 1s THAT YCUR NAME? RE DEFENDANT: YES, IT 1S. THE COURT: THE CASE TS NUMBER 2CA04539 WILL COUNSEL STATE YOUR APPEARANCES? IR. PERRONT: JOHN PERRONI, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ON BEHALF OF MS. LYNCH. 2 it MS. STREETER: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, SANDRA a. 22 | smReerer FoR THe PEOPLE. = 2B THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. c 2a I GOT THIS FILE A SHORT TIME AGO, AND I SEE 25 | rHar We HAD A COMPLAINT FILED ON JANUARY 25TH, THIS YEAR a 26 | AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED THIS MORNING, AND THE wl 27 | ‘TRANSFER MENO SAYS WE ARE HERE FOR A BATL HEARING. 28 IT THINK IN THE COMPLAINT I SAN AN ARRESTLu@ere trea S RRANT ISSUED. THE BAIL WAS SET ON THAT WARRANT AT 39.000. MS. STREETER: I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT. I DON'T KNOW TF COURT AND COUNSEL WANT ME TO MAKE MY MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES NOW? IF THE COURT AND COUNSEL DOES, I CAN. THE COURT: ARE WE GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT? MS. STREETER: YES. THE PEOPLE MAKE A MOTION TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES THE COURT: PEOPLE -~ LET'S SEE THE MOVING PARTY IS THE DEFENSE IS THAT YOUR REQUEST? MR, PERRONI:; I BELIEVE BOTH PARTIES ARE THE MOVING PARTY IN THIS SITUATION. THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING TO INCREASE BAIL AND THE DEFENSE IS SEEKINS TO HAVE WS. LYNCH RELEASED ON HER OWN RECOGNIZANCE. THE COURT: IS THAT THE SITUATION, WS. STREETER? NS. STREETER: YES. ‘HE COURT: THEN YOU ARE ASKING TO INCREASE IT? MS. STREETER: BUT IF I COULD EXPLAIN? IF MY WITNESS COULD STEP OUTSIDE, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT I HAVE 70 FIX -- MS. STREETER, IN THE ORDER OF PROCEEDING, THERE'S TWO MOTIONS BUT WHO IS GOING TO CARRY THE BURDEN? THERE IS A BAIL. I UNDERSTAND IT IS $50,000STREETER: NO. COURT: WHAT IS THE BALL? REETER: 15,000. COURT: OH. STREETER: IT WAS REDUCED. SINCE IT'S BEEN REDUCED, THE PEOPLE HAVE 1) INFORMATION THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT COURT WASN'T OF AND WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE PEOPLE'S AMENDMENT BASIS OF THE NEW INEORMATION, AND THE PEOPLE'S ON TO AMEND, THE 2E0PLE ARE SEEKING TO AT A MINIMUM 2 THE BAIL GO BACK UP TO WHAT THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED TRE COURT: IN THE FILE, YOU DID SET FORTH A COMPLETE BRIEF TO JUSTIFY PILING THE AMENDMENT, AND T ESUME THAT YOU WERE GIVEN THE PERMISSION TO FILE 17? MS. STREETER: WE JUST NOTICED. THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T ENTER A PLEA IN THE MOTION. THE COURT: WELL, I LOOKED OVER THE AMENDMENT, ALL IT DID WAS ADD THREE COUNTS OF THE SAME TYPE OF CONDUCT. MS. STREETER: THAT IS CORRECT, BUT OVER THREE ADDITIONAL MONTHS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THEN YOU MEAN THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT -~ WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE PERMITTED TO FILE THE COMPLAINT, IT HAS A FILE STAMP ON IT -~ I MEAN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT MS. STRESTER: RIGHT. ‘THE COURT: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO ARRAIGN THE DEFENDANT 28 | ON THE ADDITIONAL COUNTS IN THE COURT NHERE YOU FILED THE2 w 2 y 2 a | 27 28 . STREETER: THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO DO THAT 's BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHENEVER PEOPLE FILE A TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENSE ASKS FOR MORE ‘> RESPOND TO THE AMENDMENT. [SE COURT: THAT IS THE SENSE OF YOUR BRIBF? MS, STREETER: ‘THAT IS TRUE. THE COURT: ‘THAT NO TIME TS WARRANTED TO DELAY? MR. PERRONT, DID I SAY YOUR NAME RIGHT? MR. PERRONI: Y00 DID, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: HAVE YOU OBJECTED TO THE ARRAIGNMENT OF CLIENT ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT? MR. PERRONI: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COUR THEN LET'S DO THAT FIRST. MS. STREETER: OKAY. THE COURT: ‘THEN THE PEOPLE, MAKING A MOTION TO CREASE BAIL, I WILL CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE INITIAL MOTION. ‘THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO FIRST IN THE PRESENTING OF EVIDENCE. I AM ADDRESSING, MS, STREETER. MS. STREETER: BUT I GUESS BEFORE I GET TO INCREASE BAIL, PEOPLE MAKE A NOTION TO AMEND TO ADD THREE ADDITONAL COUNTS WE NOTICED, HAVE THE DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED ON THEM IN THE COMPLAINT. THE COURT: I SATD WE'LL GO AHEAD ANO ARRAIGN HER NOW ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. MS. STREETER: OKAY. OKAY. THE COURT: ARE YOU GOING TO AMEND ~~ ARRAIGN HER? MS. STREETER: DOES THE DEFENDANT WAIVE -—ERRONI: YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE ACKNOWLEDGES THE AMENDED MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT. DEFENDANT WAIVES ARRAIGNMENT, FORMAL READING TSE COMPLAINT. WE WAIVE FURTHER READING OF THE TONAL RIGHTS. WE DENY THE ALLEGATIONS. WE ENTER Sf NOT GUILTY, WE MAKE AN INFORMAL REQUEST FOR ERY AND WE RESERVE MOTIONS. THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PERRONI. MR, PERRONT: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. STREETER: ON THE BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT, THE PLE ARE NOW SEEKING TO HAVE THE BAIL INCREASED. THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE UP SO I'LL HEAR YOU CLEARLY. 1 HAVE TO MAKE MY NOTES AS THIS GOES ALONG. ALL RIGHT. Now, THE [SSUES ARE ORAWN, BUT THE DEFENDANT'S ENTERING A NOT GUILTY PLEA ON THE ANENDEO COMPLAINS, THE PEOPLE HAVE A MOTION TO RAISE THE BAIL. IS THAT 17? MS. STREETER: CORRECT, BASED ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, THAT IS CCRRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OBVIOUSLY THE DEFENSE IS GOING -- THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO OFFER WITNESSES AND MADE A WOTTON TO EXCLUDE. HOW MANY WETNESSES 00 YOU HAVE, MS. STREETER? 28 MS. STREETER: YES, ONS.ToURT: WELL, THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE IN THE ARE ANY OF THEM DEFENSE WITNESSES? PERRONI: NO, YOUR HONOR. STREETER: NO, THEY ARE NOT WITNESSES, YOUR ONE 18 AN INVESTIGATOR WITH MR. COHEN'S LAW FIRM. ‘HE LADY SITTING IN THE BACK IS AN RIOR WITH THE CISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND T 2 THE OTHER GENTLENEN TS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, oT? HE IS A DEPENSE ATTORNEY THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT WITNESSES, THEY ARE RTAINLY ENTITLED TO REMAIN IN THE COURTROOM. MS. STREETER: TMB REASON WHY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HOW MANY E-MAILS YOU RECEIVED EACH MONTH FROM 2. LYNCH? a I orp Q AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECORDED THE NUMBER, THAT INFORMATION FRESH IN YOUR MEMORY? A YES, IT @AS. Q OKAY. THE COURT: DON'T EMBELLISH, JUST ANSWER EACH ESTION AS BRIEFLY AS YOU CAN, AND IF IT REQUIRES A YES, 22 NO, GIVE THAT ANSWER. IF YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT, I'LL ow 17. AbL RIGHT. BY MS. STREETER: @ 00 YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT -- THE COURT: NOT INDEPENDENT. BY NS. STREBTER: Q DID YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THOSE EVENTS AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECORDED THEM? A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) @ AP THE TINE YOU RECORDED THE INFORMATION, WAS IT FRESH IN YOUR MIND? A YES. DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION NOW WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE NOTES OF WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE THAT YoU HROTE COWN? A WELL, IT'S ABOUT 800. Q OKAY.BUT YOU DON'T HAVE IT -~ DO YOU HAVE AN FHDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EACH, THE NUMBER FOR EACH NONTH WITHOUT LOOKING, READING YOUR NOTES? a TAM SORRY, I DON'T, THE COURT: THAT'S WHY PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, SE CAN SIMPLY READ WHAT HE WROTE DOWN WHEN IT WAS FRESH IN AIS MIND APTER THE COUNT. HB SAID HE REREAD OVER A THOUSAND PAGES OF E-MAILS., MS. STREETER: THAT IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO LAY THE FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. BY MS. STREETER: Q SO FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, HOW MANY E-MAILS DID YOU RECEIVE? A 486. Q AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MS. LYNCH CALLED YOU DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY? aA I BELIEVE SHE DID, BUT IT'S -- I DON'T RECALL. I BELIEVE SHE DID, BUT I DON'T RECALL THE NUMBER OF ‘TIMES Q OKAY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE TIME PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1ST THROUGH FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012, DID YOU RECEIVE E-MAILS FROM MS. LYNCH? a yes, I DID. 2 HOW MANY E-MAILS DID YOU RECEIVE FROM MS. LYNCH DURING THAT TIME PERIOD? A aia. Q OKAY.eG sroceeie Now DID YOU PRINT OUT ANY OF THE E-MAILS THAT vOU' RECEIVED FROM MS. LYNCH DURING THE DECENBER 15TH OUGH THE FEBRUARY 20 -- DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 THROUGH FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012 PERIOD? AT DIDN'T PERSONALLY, MY ATTORNEYS DIO. Q OKAY. : WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN YOUR ATTORNEYS PRINTED OUT THOSE E-MAILS, UR. COHEN? A NO. DID YOU LOOK AT THE E-MAILS THAT WERE PRINTED OUT, ANY OF THE E-NAILS THAT WERE PRINTED OUT DURING THAT ‘TIME PERIOD? A YES, T LOOKED AP THEM. Q OKAY. AND WAS THAT -- DLO TRAT TIME PERIOD COVER JANUARY 19TH, 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 218T, 20127 A YES, I STUCIED THOSE LAST NIGHT. MS. STREETER: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR T HAVE A BCUND VOLUME OF E-MAILS. 1 WOULD LIKE 70 HAVE THAT MARKED FOR PEOPLE'S 1 FOR REFERENCE. 1 PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED A COPY TO THE DEFENSE. ‘THE COURT: YOU FAVE A BINDER WITH ABOUT A FIVE INCH STACK OF PAPER. MS. STREETER: THAT IS CORRECT. THE COURT: WELL, ARE ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT 1? MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: YES. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PAGES THERE ARE THERE?MS. STREETER: NO, THOUSANDS, ‘THE CLERK: WE CAN MARK IT AS A BINDER? ‘HE COURT: A BINDER PLUS A LO? OF PAPER IN THE BINDER, PLUS CONTENTS WILL BE EXHIBIT 1. MS, STREETER: FOR REFERENCE, YOUR HONOR. ‘THE COURT: BY REFERENCE, EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION. NOW YOU'LL OFFER THEM BY REFERENCE? (PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 1 IS MARKED FOR IDENTIFI \TTON BY REFERENCE.) MS. STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IF 1 COULD APPROACH? THE court: YES BY MS.” STREETER: Q SHOWING YOU WHAT Is PEOPLE'S 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, MR. COHEN? rN YES, MA'AM, Q WHAT IS THAT? A THESE ARE THE E-MAILS THAT WERE RECEIVED BETWEEN JANUARY 199H AND JANUARY 2187. I SELTEVE THERE ARE 32 E-MAILS WITH RBCUP 50 PAGES EACH. @ BASED ON THE G-MALS AND VOICEMAILS THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM DECEMBER LSTA THROUGH FEBRUARY 29TH OF 2022, DO YOU HAVE AWY CONCERN ABOUT YOUR SAFETY, MR. COHEN? MR. PERRONI: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED.18 THE WITNESS: YES. BY MS, STREETER: Q WHAT IS THAT, SIR? A GIVEN THE SENSE OF MENACE AND THREAT OFFERED BY ALL THESE PAGES, ANY MAN WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE THE SENSE OF FEAR. Q HAS -- MR. COHEN, SINCE YOU'VE GOTTEN A RESTRAINING OROER I$ T2E NUMBER OF E-MAILS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW, IS THAT TYPICAL OF THE NUMBER OF E-MAILS THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM MS. LYNCH SINCE YOU RECEIVED THE RESTRAINING ORDER? MR. PERRONI: OBJECTION, VAGUE. THE COURT: WELL, IF THE WITNESS UNDERSTANDS IT, HE CAN ANSWER. THE WITNESS: YES, THESE ARE SIMILAR TO THE ONES I RECEIVED’ FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS. THE COURT: YOU MEAN THIS WAS GOING ON OVER A SIX YEAR PERIOD? THE WITNESS: YES, SIR, THE COURT: THAT IS FOR ONLY ONE MONTH? THE WITNESS: THIS TS TWO DAYS. MS. STREETER: WO DAYS, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS IN THERE THAT GAVE YOU ANY FEAR OTHER THAN ANY ANNOYANCE? THE WITNESS; IT SAYS, "COHEN SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT AND SHOT BY A FIRING SQUAD. I AM GOING TO TAKE COHEN DOWN. WE WANT TO EXECUTE STEVE COOLEY.18 20 aa 22 23 200 25 26 27 28 A YEAR OR THO. Q IS IT -- YGU TOLD US THAT SHE USED TO BE EMPLOYED BY YOU AS A BUSINESS MANAGER, CORRECT? A CORRECT. Q WAS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP? A YES, SIR. Q ARE YOU AWARE THAT MS. LYNCH IS INVOLVED IN SOME SORT OF A TAX PROCEEDING WITH THE IRS? A I UNDERSTAND SHE FAILED TO FILE, YES. Q YOU, AS HER EMPLOYER, YOU EMPLOYED HER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, CORRECT? a CORRECT. Q WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SAW MS. LYNCH BEFORE TODAY? A THE LAST TIME WAS -- I THINK IT WAS 2004 OR 2008. Q HAS SHE VANDALIZED ANY OF- YOUR PROPERTY DURING THAT TIME? aA No. © OR STOLEN ANYTHING -- A GUST MY PEACE OF MIND. Q NOW, X LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE. 1 GOT IT AGAIN. YOU OBTAINED A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST MS. LYNCH SOME TIME BACK IN 2005; IS THAT CORRECT? A THAT WAS THE EIRST ONE, YES, SIR. Q HERE IN CALIFORNIA? a CORRECT.a . 2 Q THAT WAS -- THAT ONE HAS EXPIRED? A IT EXPIRED, YES. Q You SORSEQUEWTLY OBTAINED A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST MS. LYNCH IN THE STATE OF COLORADO: TS ‘THAT CORRECT? aA CORRECT. Q Ms. LYNCH WAS IN COURT AT THE TINE THAT RESTRAINING ORDER IN COLORADO WAS GRANTED, CORRECT? A CORRECT. Q SUBSEQUENTLY YOU OBTAINED A NEW RESTRAINING ORDER OUT HERE IN CALIFORNIA AGAIN, CORRECT? A CORRECT. Now, AT THAD TIME, MS. LYNCH WAS NOT IN COURT, conaect? AT DON'T KNGH, SIR, I WASN'T THERE, bs, STREETER: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. HE COURT: IT'S CROSS-EXAMINATION. KE CAN LERD THE riage, 17'S NOP A VATTER OF AN 1SSUB NOT TN EVEDENOE, B enc? Non IN BVIDENCE. HE'S ASKING THE WITWESS TF HE KNEW TE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE COURT SIGHED THE ORDER OR WAS IT SERVEC OPON HER. ASK“THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, WILL YOU PLEASE. wR. PERRONT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: GO AHEAD. EXCUSE ME: AY 1 SUGGEST IF YOU JUST ASK THE QUESTION, TLL HEAR A SPECIFIC ANSWER, WHENEVER YOU MAKE A NEGATIVE2a— 25 26 27 28 ASSERTION AND THEN SAY, "IS THAT CORRECT?" THE WITNESS SAYS, "NO," I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FACT IS BECAUSE HE'S ANSWERING THE QUESTION, IS THAT CORRECT. NOW, WHEN YOU MADE A STATEMENT IN YOUR ASSERTION BEING NEGATIVE, I HAVE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, AND T HAVE TO ASSUME SHE WAS IN COURT. DO YOU GET THE POINT? MR. PERRONI: I DC, YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE. THE COURT: NOW, SK DIRECT QUESTIONS RATHER THAN NEGATIVE ASSERTIONS THEN THE QUESTION, REMEMBER, IS THAT CORRECT. IF HE SAYS NO, ‘YOUR ASSERTION IS INCORRECT. ALL RIGHT. NR. PERRONI: SHOULD I WAIT FOR MS. STREETER TO COME BACK? THE COURT: No, T DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE'S GOING, (WS. STREETER REAPPEARS.) BY MR. PERRONT: Q ‘WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE RESTRAINING ORDER HERE IN CALIFORNIA, THE NEW ONE WAS ISSUED? A -RECEIVED IT, WERE YOU PRESENT IN COURT WHEN THE COURT ISSUED -- Af WAS NOT IN COURT. ‘THE COURT: THAT IS THE ANSWER. BY WR. PERRONI: 80 SOMEBODY TOLD YOU THAT A RESTRAINING ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED? ‘a YES. Q THEN HANDED YOU A PIECE OF PAPER? A SEVERAL PIECES OF PAPER, YES. Q THAT THEY TOLD YOU WAS A RESTRAINING ORDER? A YES, IT SEEMED TO HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION. THE COURT: DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER? MS. STREETER: TT 1S IN THE COURT FILE. THE COURT: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU LET Me KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND I'LL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANYTHING IN THE PILE. MS. STREETER: IT'S 8033717. MR, PERRONT: 1 DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A COPY OF IT IN THE FILE, THERE'S A NONBER. MS. STREETER: If YOU LOOK -- IF IT'S IN THE POLICE REPORT, IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT WITH THE POLICE REPORT. * COURT: MA’AM, I DON'T HAVE A POLICE REPORT IN THE ETLE. ‘THE POLICE REPORT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE FILE. THE COURT RECORDS ARE IN THE FILE, AND ALL T PIND IS AN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. HERE'S A COPY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER TN THE FILE. ALL RIGHT. wR. PERRONE: I BELIEVE THAT 1S THE ONE IN THIS case. MS. STREETER: RIGHT, RIGHT. THE COURT: @HAT? MR. PERRONE: IT WAS A PRETRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERA YES. Q ‘THEN HANDED YOU A PIECE OF PAPER? A SEVERAL PIECES OF PAPER, YES. Q THAT THEY TOLD YOU WAS A RESTRAINING) ORDER? A YES, IT SEEMED T0 HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION. THE COURT:” DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER? MS. STREETER: IT IS IN THE COURT FILE. THE COURT: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU LET ME KNOW WHAT IT 18, AND I'LL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANYTHING IN THE FILE MS. STREETER: IT'S BQ33717. WR, PERRONT: 1 DON'T SELISVE THERE'S A COPY OF IT IN THE FILE, THERE'S A NOMBER. MS. STREETER: IF YOU LOOK -~ IF IT'S IN-THE POLICE REPORT, IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT WITH THE POLICE REPORT. HE COURT: MA‘AN, T DON'T HAVE A POLICE REPORT IN THE FILE, THE POLICE REPORT DOES NOT BELONG IN THE FILE. THE COURT RECORDS ARE IN THE FILE, AND ALL I FIND IS AN ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. HERE'S A COPY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE FILE. ALL RIGHT. uR, PERRONT: T BELIEVE THAT TS THE ONE IN THIS case. MS. STREETER: RIGHT, RIGHT. THE COURT: HAT? MR, PERRONE: IT WAS A PRETRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDERSOc sa sa we 10 12 B 14 1s 16 v 18 19 20 21 22 23 2h 25 26 27 28 ISSUED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER. IT IS NOT THE ONES THAT MS, STREETER IS REFERENCING. THE COURT: WELL, IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS WITNESS IS REFERRING TO, SOMBTHING THAT WAS GIVEN TO RIM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THAT? THAT IS WHAT SHE'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF, BUT HOW AM I GOING TO SEE THE ORDER? MS. STREETER: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PERHAPS THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT HAS THE POLICE -~ COPIES OF THE POLICE REPORT, BUT THE COLORADO PROTECTIVE ORDER, RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IS IN THE POLICE FILE AND THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IS A REGISTRATION OF THE COLORADO RECORD WHICH WAS PERMANENT. THERE WAS NC HEARING PER SE INVOLVING MS. LYNCH. MR. COHEN WAS A PERMANENT RESTRATNING ORDER THAT WAS GRANTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AS PART OF ‘DHE UNIFORM ACT WHEN A PERSON MOVES, THEY HAVE TO REGISTER THAT RESTRAINING ORDER =) ‘THE NEW STATE. SO THE CALIFORNIA ORDER IS NERELY A REGISTRATION OF THE COLORADO ORDER THAT WAS GRANTED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WAS PERMANENT. 1 HAVE AS THE COURT CAN SEE, MY FILES ARE VOLUMINOUS ON THIS CASE. I ONLY BROUGHT THE E-MAILS AS I FIGURED THAT WOULD BE THE PART THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. IE THE COURT NEEDS THE ACTUAL ‘RESTRAINING ORDER FROM BOTH, I HAVE THAT. IT IS IN DEPARTMENT 40. 1 CAN GO REAL QUICKLY AND GET THEM FOR THE COURT. THE COURT: IF THE E-MAILS THEMSELVES MAY CONSTITUTE25 awn worwr)s]|a4 24 25 26 27 28 A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 653(), SUBDIVISION (B) THAT 1S ANNOYING COMMUNICATIONS, ANNOY, BUT VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION 273.6(A) WHICH CHARGES A VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, NEEDS PROOF OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, ‘THAT THE DEFENDANT KNOWS ABOUT. NOW ARE YOU READY TO PROVE-~ YOU ARE NOT GOING 20 PROVE -- IN A TRIAL YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT, THIS HAPPENS HARDLY. MS. STRESTER: THE PEOPLE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE BASIS I BELIEVE IT IS 1268 WHICH IS SAFETY 70 THE COMMUNITY IN SETTING Bi AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT MR. COHEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE RECEIVED FROM TO HAVE A BRIEF RECESS, I CAN GO GET THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, THE TWO ORDERS THAT ARE MENTIONED ‘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? AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE HEARING IN THE ‘CALIFORNIA RESTRAINING ORDER THAT MR. PERRONI 1S MENTIONING IS MERELY PERMANENT. IT THAT THIS DEFENDANT KNEW ABOUT IT? [Sere ees eeee ee eee ee eee eee10 un 12 43 14 1s 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25, 26 PERMANENT RESTRAINING ORDER. ‘THE WITNESS: MAY I SPEAK, STR? THE COURT: NO. How LONG WELL IT TAKE YOU TO GBT THAT STUFF? MS. STREETER: FIVE MINUTES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I'LL TAKE A RECESS IN THIS MATTER UNTIL You Gey TT, ACTUALLY THOUGH, LET ME SAY TO YOUr WE ARE hor TRYING THIS CASE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY 70 PROVE ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT ARE ALLEGED BECAUSE THEY ARE REPETITIOUS CONDUCT OVER A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME, BUT TF ON ‘THE BASIS OF THESE E-MAILS THEMSELVES AND THE NUMBERS THAT THE wITNESS HAS TOLD ME HE HAS RECEIVED THAT EXHISTT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION HE SAID ARRIVED IN TWO DAYS ~~ (THE WITNESS: HAE TS CORRECT, SIR? HE COURT: ~~ THAT WOULD BE KIND OF ANNOYING ‘0 HAVE YOUR COMPUTER FILLED UP WITH THAT, LET'S JUST LEAVE [7 AT THAT. LET'S NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME- Now THE WETNESS HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED 70 ‘THOSE PORTIONS THAT HE READ IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH HE CONSTROED 70 BE THREATS TO HIS SAFETY? MS. STREETER: YES. que COURT: ALL RIGHT. po YOU HAVE ANY NORE QUESTIONS ON THAT SUBJECT? hs. STREETER: 1 DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. HE COURT: THEN I'LL ASK HIM A QUESTION. {R. COHEN, D0 YOU HAVE ANY BASIS FOR BELIEVINGaa oso 10 ul 42 13 1a 45 16 ru) 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 THAT THIS LADY REALLY MEANT TO DO YOU HARM OR MEANS 70 DO YOU HARM? THE WITNESS: SHE STATES SO OVER AND OVER, SIR, YES. THE COURT: DO YOU BELIEVE iT? THE WITNESS: YES. qHE COURT: AND YOU ACTUALLY SAY YOU HAVE LOSS PEACE OF MIND. ARE YOU IN FEAR? QE WITNESS: STR, MAY T SPEAK? YES. THE COURT: DO ¥CU NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT ANSWER? THE WITNESS: YES. qHR COURT: WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION? HE WITNESS: I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN PLAYING ON IY FRONT LAWN. I RECEIVE PHONE CALLS THAT ARE CHILLING. MY ATTORNEY RECEIVES PHONE CALLS. DHE COURT: DON'T TELL MB WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY RECEIVES. ‘THAT WOULD SE HEARSAY. THE WITNESS: I RECEIVE PHONE CALLS THAT ARE SLURRED QHAT ARE TWELICTED WITH ALCOHOL, THAT ARE UGLY, THAT ARE HENACING, AN ATMOSPHERE OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS OF 18 70 20 E-MAILS A DAY VOWING TO TAKE HE OWN, VOWING TO HUMILIATE ME, VORENG TO BRING ME TO SOME SORT OF FICTIOUS JUSTICE SHE'S CONSTRUED I DESERVE, YES, THAT CREATES AN AINOSPHERE OF FEAR THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 18 THAT ALL YOU HAVE? MS. STREETER: ¢BS.FH sGivere: 18 19 20 a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: YOU WANT ANY MORE CROSS-EXAMINATION? CTUALLY THIS GENTLEMEN IS IN THE PROCESS OF CROSS-EXANINATION.. DQ YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? MR, PERRONI: I WAS ~~ I FIGURED I WOULD -~ THE COURT: I AM SORRY I INTERFERED. THAT IS ALL RIGHT. I'VE JUST BEEN DIVERTED FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE TO BE RESOLVED AT THIS TIME. Move IT ON. MR. PERRONI: I AM DONE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COHEN, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR. MS. STREETER: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE? MS. STREETER: NO, YOUR HONOR. ‘HAT IS IT. THE COURT: ARE YGU GOING TO OFFER ANY DEFENSE? MR. PERRONI: NO, YOUR HONOR, WE DO -~ I THINK WE ARE CLEAR THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR HER TO BE RELEASED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT 4 911 MOTION? I CAN MAKE ONE AS TO SOME OF THE COUNTS. THE COURT: WHAT'S A 911 MOTION? LIKE A 995 FOR MISDEMEANORS AT UR. PERRONI: IT 7 ARRAIGNMENT. 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 SEB IT MUCH INsigersir eg s wn 10 a 12 13 4 15 16 wy 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 w wv 29 >> THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT WHY THE BAIL SHOULD NOT BE RAISED? I DON'T KNOW HOW COME AFTER THE. WARRANT WAS ISSUED WHICH I SAW IN THE FILE HAD A RECOMMENDED $50.000 BAIL WHY WAS IT REDUCED TO 15,000? MR. PERRONI: WELL, I THINK IT WAS AN ARREST WARRANT, YOUR HONOR, ANC SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NOTICE OF THE - CHARGES THAT WERE FILED. THEY DIDN'T GIVE HER NOTICE OF THE ACTUAL FILING OF THE CHARGES. SO THEY SENT OUT A FAIRLY HIGH ARREST WARRANT. I AM NOT SURE. I WASN'T PRESENT AT BAUCHET WHEN SHE SET IT AT $15,000, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE E-MAILS THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO NOW. THE COURT: THAT EINDER IN FRONT OF YOU, ARE THOSE THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT ARE IN THE EXHIBIT 1? WR. PERRONT: I'VE BEEN TOLD THEY ARE. 1'VE BEEN rou 1Hiey ARB. THE COURT: 1 DON'T EXPECT YOU TO ~~ MR. PERRONT: T HPVE GONE THROUGH IT PAGE BY PACE. 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 ANNOYING AWOUNT OF E-MAILS, BUT SHOULD SHE BE IN JATL ~~ ALONG WITH A WOMAN WITH NO RECORD EECAUSE SHE'S SENDING A BUNCH OF ANNOYING E-MAILS WITHOUT GOING TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE, VANDALIZING ANY PROPERTY? ‘HE'S ANNOYEL BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR A WHILE. 1 JUST DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF. THESE ARE ISDEMEANORS. SHELa AD apenas ' DOESN'T HAVE ANY RECORD, THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY REAL CREDIBLE THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR ANYTHING DIKE THAT- OBVIOUSLY HB'S UNEASY, BUT HE HASW'T SEEN HER SINCE 2004. SO SHE'S NOT GOING THROUGR HIS HOUSE AND PREPING THROUGH HIS WINDOWS, I DON'T KNOW. IT KIND OF ~~ I'VE GONE THROUGH THESE. SHE'S OBVIOUSLY ANNOYING. QHE COURT: WELL, YOU HEARD THE WITNESS STATE THE NATORE OF THE E-MAILS. IT'S NOT JUST AN ANNOYING AMOUNT OF PAPER AND ATTENTION GETTING BUT THERE ARE POSTTIVE PHYSICAL THREATS THAT HE FEARS. wR. PERRONT: T DION'T HEAR ANY POSITIVE PHYSICAL THREATS. IT WAS, HE SHOULD TAKE HIN DOWN, OR T AM GOING no TAKE YOU DOWN, THEY KAD A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, AND SHE'S DOING NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT SHu'S GOTNG TO ‘CARRY ‘THROUGH ON ANY OF THESE THREATS - hE HAS NOT SEEN HER SINCE 2004. THERE'S NO IMPLICATION THAT SHE'S GOING TO COME AND PHYSICALLY ‘TAKE GEM DORN, HE KNOWS SHE HAS A FELONY TAX CASE. HE EMPLOYED HER. HB HAS THE RECORDS THE COURT: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ALL OF THAT. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT 1S, MS. STREETER, WHAT IS THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DEFENDANT'S ARREST AT INTTIAL ARRAIGNMENT WHERE YOU SAID THE BATE WAS REDUGED. No# You HAD ‘THAT BINDER FULL OF PAPER AT THAT TIME, DID YoU NOT? MS. STREETER: NO. ‘THE COURT: WERE YOU AT THAT ARRAIGNMENT?slocresleea 10 a 12 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 MS. STREETER: NO. THE COURT: DID YCU -~ THEN WHAT IS 17? MS. STREETER: I KNOW WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE ARRAIGNMENT BECAUSE I WAS TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUE BY PHONE. WE DID NOT HAVE THESE E-MAILS. I JUST TOLD HER THAT 1 KNEW THAT THERE WERE MORE E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT, BUT I DID NOT KNOW THE VOLUME OF E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT. 1 FOUND THAT OUT AFTER MS. LYNCH WAS ARRAIGNED. IF THE PEOPLE HAD KNOWN THAT THERE WERE THIS VOLUME OF E-MAILS AT THE TIME OF ARRAIGNMENT, THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE FILED A MOTION TO AMEND. 1 WAS AMAZED BY THE VOLUME OF E-MAILS. THE PEOPLE HAD NO IDEA THAT THERE WERE THIS MANY E-MAILS, AND THE PERSON HANDLING THE CASE AT ARRAIGNMENT WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH IT-AS MUCH AS I WAS, BUT BVEN WITH THAT, T WAS UNAWARE THAT TT WAS THIS LEVEL OF E-MAILS IN A TWO AND A HALE MONTH PERZOD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 900 E-MAILS IN A QO AND A HALF MONTH PERIOD PLUS VOICEMAILS THAT HE ALSO ~~ THOSE VOICEMAIL MESSAGES THAT HE ALSO RECEIVED FROM MS. LYNCH DURING THE TIME PERIOD. PEOPLE SBE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE SHEER VOLUME OF E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD ~~ THE COURT: THE VOLUME OF ANNOYANCE 1S ONE THING, ‘THE SUBSTANCE WHICH INCLUDES THREATS WHICH CAUSE NR. COHEN FBAR IS ANOTHER THING. Now DID YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBSTANCE, THE CONTENT OF THOSE -- ANY E-MAILS THAT CONTAINEDLeey ~ slurs 10 FEY 32 13 u 1s 16 uw 18 1g 20 2a 22 23 2am 25 26 2 28 LTHREATENING LANGUAGE? MS. STREETER: NO. THE PEOPLE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF ‘THE E-MAILS FROM DECEMBER 15TH, 2011, TO FEBRUARY 29°H, 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 NOT HAVE ANY IDER ~- IN FACT, ALL THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED WAS INVOLVED WAS SHE HAD SENT SOME ADDITIONAL E-MAILS. I WAS NOT EVEN AWARE THAT MS. LYNCH HAD TRIED 70 CALL MR. COHEN FROM THE TINE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 TO FEBRUARY 29TH, 2012, BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IF THE COURT LOOKS AT THE WARRANT AND FROM WHERE MS. LYNCH CAME FROM THE OTHER ISSUE THE COURT NEEDS TO BE MINDEUL OF, MS. LYNCH DOES NOT LIVE IN THE AREA. SHE LIVES IN BERKELEY. ‘THE CONCERN THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT DEFENSE REQUESTS ABOUT HAVING HER RELEASED O.R. I MEAN FROM WHAT T GATHER, THIS IS NOT A DESENDANT THAT HAS MANY TIES TO THIS COMMUNITY GIVEN WHAT SHE'S FACING, WHAT 1S THERE TO KEEP HER HERE AND NOT JUST FLEBING THE JURISDICTION? ‘THE COURT: AND YOU DID NOT INTEND 70 PUT ON ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL? "wR. PERRONI: NO. THE COURT: YOU CONCEDE THAT SHE IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA? MR. PERRONI: LAST I CHECKED I BELIEVE THAT BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, RIGHT?slucreiree ee ae aw 10 a 12 13 u4 1s 16 W 18 19 20 aa 22 23 ad 25 26 27 28 33 MS, STREETER: IT'S NOT LOS ANGELES. MR. PERRONI: SHE HAS FAMILY IN THE AREA, YOUR HONOR. 1 THINK HER CHILDREN AND THO OF HER BROTHERS LIVE IN LOS ANGELES. MS. STREETER: SHE'S ESTRANGED FROM HER CHILDREN. .THE DEFENDANT: NO, I AM NOT. I AM NOT ESTRANGED FROM MY CHILDREN. MS. STREETER: YOUR HONOR, BAIL ~- THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO BE MINDFUL THAT BAIL SCHEDULE UNDER 273.6 TS $25,000.00. THE COURT: THE SCHEDULE CALLED FOR WHAT? MS. STREETER: $25,000.00 BAIL SCHEDULE. SO IF YOU WOULD -~ WERE JUST TO SET BAIL ON TWO OF THE 273.6"S THAT WOULD BE $50,000, YOUR HONOR, THE COURT: HOW DID YOU DOUBLE IT? MS. 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 MR, PERRONI: SHE COMES TO HER COURT DAYS. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE SHE CAME 70 THE COLORADO COURT DATE. THEY HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT FOR IT. SHE WAS THERE. SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE OTHER ONES HERE. SHE'S NOT -- THEY PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE'S A FLIGHT RISK. SHE HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD. THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLENCE, AND THESE ARE ALL MISDEMEANORS.SLucrelveD sae 10 Bb 12 13 4 1s 16 uv 18 ag 20 aa 22 ay 24 25 26 27 28 34 EVERYTHING HERE I THINK -- WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO ON THE CASE. I THINK EVERYTHING HERE WARRANTS AN 0.R. RELEASE. THE COURT: I DISAGREE -~ GO AHEAD. I SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERRUPTED YOU. ‘THE GENTLEVEN APPEARS TO BE FEARFUL. HE'S OLDER. HE MENTIONS HIS GRANDCHILDREN ON THE PROPERTY. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, MAKE YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT. MR. PERRONI: SHE'S NEVER COME TO THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE E-MAILS. THEY DION'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 IT UP AND READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT'S ANNOYING. SHE'S NOT COMING TO RIS HOUSE AND BREAKING HIS STUFF AND SCARING HIS GRANDCHILDREN. SHE'S NOT GOING TO HIS GRANDCHILDREN'S HOSE OR HIS CHILDREN'S HOUSE. THE ONE TIME HE SAYS HE THOUGHT SHE CAME TO SOMBONE CLOSE TO HIM WAS TO HIS ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. HE HAS NOT SEEN HER SINCE 2004. J UNDERSTAND HE MAY BE AFRAID. WHETHER THAT IS REASONABLE OR NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE ANNOYED BY E-MAILS -~ ‘THE COURT: FINISH YOUR ARGUMENT. MR, PERRONI: SUBMITTED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL -~ MR. PERRONI: YOU CAN CALL ME WHATEVER YOU WANT. THE COURT: MR, PERRONI, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT IN THIS POSITION WE DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN- stud 24as 25 26 27 28 35 MANY MANY SITUATIONS AND WHEN 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 -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT FOR SURE. IT WAS A LONG PERSONAL OR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, AND THEY ARE AT ODDS, BUT WHEN WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOMEBODY WHOSE MENTAL STABILITY Is SUSPECT AS T MUST TELL YOU, I HAVE SUSPICION OF SOMEBODY WHO WOULD GO TO THESE LENGTHS TO ANNOY AND THERE COMES A MOMENT WHEN THERE 19 A BREAK AND SOMETHING TRAGIC CAN HAPPEN. I SEE NO GROUNDS TO RELEASE MS. LYNCH ON HER OWN RECOGNIZANCE AT ALL, ACTUALLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY REASON FOR THE ARRAIGNMENT COURT 10 HAVE REDUCED THE RECOMMENDED BATL WHICH UNDAUNTEDLY WAS AS MS. STREETER POINTED OUT, RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AT $50,000 WHEN THE WARRANT WAS ISSUED, BUT IN BEING A REPETITION OF THE SAME KIND OF ACTIVITY, I OON'T THINK THAT I JUST HAVE TO AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME BECAUSE IT WAS DONE TWICE THAT YOU DOUBLED THE BAIL, THE BAIL SCHEDULE. I WILL RAISE THE BAIL TO THE BAIL SCHEDULE. THE ONLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MS. STREETER REFERRED TO IS NOT BEING AWARE CF THE THREATENING ASPECTS OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION WHICH CAUSED MR. COHEN THE PEAR. : SO THE BAIL IS NOW SET IN THE SUM OF 925,000.00 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE.> £0 SLUCc? BLE 10 uw 12 43 4 15, 16 Ww 18 19 20 ar 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 36 ALL RIGHT. NOW THE MATTER GOES BACK TO ~~ MR. PERRONI: FOR THE RECORD, CAN I JUST MAKE A QUICK RECORD? THE COURT: YEAH. MR. PERRONI: JUST A QUICK RECORD. T APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT TO THE RATSING OF BATL UNDER THE STH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS DUE PROCESS JUST MATERIALIZE THE OBJECTIONS. I APPRECIATE THE COURTS TIME. THE COURT: THE OBJECTIONS ARE NOTED AND BAIL 1S NOW $25,000.00. Ms, STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE CLERK: CAN THE RECORD REFLECT THAT MS. STREETER Ig MAINTAINING THE EXHIBIT NUMBER 1? TRE COURT: SHB MAINTAINS IT HERSELF? MS. STREETER: YEAH, IT WAS JUST BY REFERENCE? THE CLERK: SHE MARKED AN EXHIBIT. THE COURT: OH, OH, OH, T AM SORRY YOU HAVE THE MOTION FOR THE EXHIBIT TO BE RECEIVED BY REFERENCE? MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: THE MOTION IS GRANTED. MS. STREETER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MR. PERRONI: CAN I MAKE A REQUEST TOO, YOUR HONOR? ‘THE COURT: WHAT IS THAT? MR. PERRONE: ECL, ACTUALLY FIRST OF ALL, IT LOOKS IKE MR, COHEN LEFT HIS NOTEEOOK UP ON THE WITNESS STAND. THE COURT: I DARE SAY HE IS IN THE HALL. SOMEBODYln, Luceelreg Beer aa 12 13 4 4s 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 25 26° 27 28 37 OUGHT TO NOTIFY ~~ MR. PERRONI: ON THE RECORD, THE DEFENSE WOULD BE MAKING A REQUEST FOR THAT SINCE IT WAS USED TO REFRESH RECOLLECTION, THE COUR: YOU WANT THAT MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT? MS. STREETER: NG. MR. PERRONI: WE ARE MAKING AN INFORMAL REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY. SINCE HE USED I?, WE GET 17. THE COURT; WELL, ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY IS GRANTED. MS. STREETER, YOU'LL SPEAK WITH MR. COHEN ABOUT TO WHAT EXTENT HE USED HIS NOTES, AND IF THERE'S ANY BASIS FOR IT, YOU ARE TD PROVIDE TT TO DEFENSE. MS. STREETER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: . THE MATTER IS REFERRED FORTHWITH TO DIVISION 40. MS. STREETER, YOU'LL TAKE THE FILE BACK THERE. DOES IT HAVE A DATE SET FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS? MS. STREETER: NO. ‘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 402 THE CLERK: YES, SIR, THE COURT: THEN YOU'LL RETURN 10 40, MS. STREETER, IMMEDIATELY.Slucseireru 18 19 20 2 22 B 24 25 26 27 28 38 (WHEREUPON THE MATTER WAS TRANSFERRED 70 DIVISION 40 FORTHWITH.)sigcreireg 10 ut 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 aa 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO, 44 HON. SAMUEL MAYERSON, JUDGE ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ; ) PLAINTIFE, ) ) vs. ) NO. 2CA04539 ‘| KELLEY LYNCH, : ) REFORTER'S DEFENDANT, ) CERTIFICATE ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) 8s ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1, ANNETTE -L. VAN OLDEN, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALEFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES 1 THROUGH 38, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD #80 TESTIMONY TAKEN IN DEPARTMENT NO, 44 IN THE MATTER OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CAUSE ON MARCH 23, 2012. DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. Garett Liu tbe, 6&2. ‘ait OLDEN OFTCONL REFGRTERExhibit 7a 2 3 “ as as Ww a8 20 a 23 Ey 35 26 27 FORMED COPY CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney CONE HED LARA J. BLOOMQUIST, ‘Supervising Attorney ‘Siegen OFS ese SANDRA JO STREETER, Deputy City jeputy City Attorne ee ene le south Hill Street, 7" Floor Los Angeles, California 90013 pncanesperenecir Telephone: ” (213) 485-2352 are Sean Attorneys for the Plaintiff PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL CALIFORNIA, ) JUSTICE CENTER i ) Merrie } Case No.: 2CA04539 ) he ) PEOPLES PROPOSED SENTECING KELLEY LYNCH, eee ) Date: April 17, 2012 bce ) Time: 30 p.m. ) Department: 51 TO THE DEFENDANT! _ HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. VANDERET: Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, submits the following points and authorities in support of their sentencing recommendation. Dated: April 17, 2012 Respectfully submitted, CARMMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney LARA J. BLOOMQUIST, Supervising Attorney Family Violence Unit PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, tae20 a 2 B as a6 ” a8 as 20 a 2 4 2s 28 a7 20 L INTRODUCTION ‘The defendant Kelley Lynch (“Defendant”), for more than seven years, sent victim Leonard Cohen (“Victim”) thousands of emails and left several dozen voicemail messages| During this time, Victim first sought and obtained a three year restraining order from the Los, ‘Angeles Superior Courts. Vietim later sought and obtained a permanent restraining order from, the Colorado courts, which was later registered with the Los Angeles Superior Counts in 2012, After a one week jury trial, Defendant was convicted on two counts of meking obscene and/or threatening telephone calls, a violation of Penal Code §653m(a), and was convieted on five counts of violating a restraining order, a violation of Penal Code §273.6(a). During the trial Victim spoke in detail about how Defendant's actions were both annoying and threatening, During the same time that Defendant was harassing Vietim, as well as during trial, Defendant repeatedly contacted Bruce Cutler, a criminal defense attorney in New York, via bot! ‘email, letters and voice mail messages. (See Exhibit A for letters sent by Defendant to Mr. Cutler since Defendant hes been in custody.) Defendant has also repeatedly contacted Los Angeles District Attomey Steve Cooley vie email for several years. In an email sent to Mr: Cooley in January 2012, Defendant states several times throughout an email “EXECUTE Steve Cooley.” (See Exhibit B for further detail.) ‘The maximum penalty for each violaticn of Penal Code §653m(a) is six months in the county jail and/or a fine of $1,000.00. The maximum penalty for each violation of Penal Codé §273.6(@) is one year in the county jail and/or fine of $1,000.00, Penal Code §653m provide that 28 a condition of probation a defendant may be ordered to complete counseling. In addition, ai ‘Victim would be described pursuant to Family Code §6211(c) as someone “with whom thq PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, “2a0 n 2 3 ua 1s ae u as 20 a 22 2 24 28 26 2a [defendant] is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship,” Penal Code §1203.097 is applicable for sentencing purposes. ARGUMENT nL. SECTION 654 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 are based on a single criminal act or omission. Penal Code Section 654 provides in pertinent par| that “[aJn act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions o! this code may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case can it punished under more then one.” The California Supreme Court has interpreted this section to prevent multipl punishments for different acts or omissions where the defendant entertained a principal objective to which other objectives, if any, were merely incidental, People us. Miller (1997) 18 C.3 873} 875; People vs. Beamon (1973) 8 C. 3d 625, 639. For example, in Beamon, where the defendant was convicted of kidnapping and second degree robbery, the court held that both crimes were committed with the intent and objective solely to rob the victim of his truck, Jd. at 639, The defendant could therefore only be punished for one of the crimes. See also, People us, Rateliffe (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 808, where the court held that the defendant could not be punished for both kidnapping and false imprisonment. Here, Defendant committed the act of making annoying telephone calls and violating restraining order with one objective in mind: tc harass Victim. Defendant can therefore only be PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM cee10 a a2 23 u as as 18 as 22 23 24 as a 28 sentenced on one of the counts, Where, as in the present situation, a defendant suffers multiple convictions, some of which are precluded by cperation of section 654, the accepted procedure is to sentence the defendant for each count not affected by section 654, and stay the execution of 654 is applicable. Miller, 18 C. 3d 873, 876; Beamon 8 C. 31 the convictions to which se: 625, 640. The stay of sentence on the affected counts are effective pending the successful service for the more serious conviction after which time the stay of sentence becomes permanent. Miller at 886, Therefore, since the maximum sentence on the restraining orders counts are greater than the maximum sentence on count the annoying telephone counts, this Court must sta the sentence on the annoying telephone counts. However, Penal Code §654 does not apply to the restraining order counts @s the convictions on those counts occurred on different dates, 1, DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE NOT VIOLATED IF THIS COUT CONSIDERS ACTS NOT LEADING TO CONVICTIONS 4S LONG AS THERE IS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR SUCH ACTS. Ifa defendant, who is convicted of a misdemeanor, is not referred to a probation officer the court may consider any information in sentencing such defendant which could have beei included in a probation report. Pen. Code §1203(d). ‘The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the same evidentiary rules which arq used in a trial to determine a defendant's guilt are not applicable in a sentencing hearing William vs, New York (1949) 337 U.S, 241, 247. A sentencing judge is not confined to the narrow issue of guilt. Rather, the sentencing judge's primary concern is setting the appropriate sentence for that particular defendant based on the fullest information possible coneeming th PEOPLES PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. eren 12 2 u 16 W Fry 19 20 a 22 2 Ey 2s 26 ” 28 defendant's life and characteristics. Jd, If such information is not made available to the judge, the Supreme Court reasoned, a repeat offender could receive the same sentence as a first offender. The court in Williams rejected the defendant’s claim that his due process rights had been violated where the sentencing court relied on information not obtained through @ formal evidentiary hearing, The Supreme Court riled that “the due process clause should not bd treated as a device for freezing the evidential procedure of sentencing in the mold of tial procedure.” Id. at 25). The California Supreme Court is in accord with the Williams court as long as thd sentencing hearing is fundamentally fair. See, People vs. Peterson (1973) 9 Cal-3d 717. It this therefore permissible for a court to consider evidence that would not be admissible at trial, such as an arrest, in sentencing as long as there is substantial basis for believing the information eith ‘contained in the probation report or presented at the sentencing hearing is accurate and reliable] Ja, at 727; People vs. Calloway (1974) 37 Cal App.3d 905, 908. Thus, the kind of informatio contained in a rap sheet is not acceptable, but supporting factual information such as a statement by the victim, police reports, or disposition of the arrest is acceptable. Ratcliffe, 124 Cal. App.3 808, 823. In addition, an arrest not resulting in a conviction must be labeled as such to prevent the sentencing court from mistaking an arrest for a convietion. Calloway, 37 Cal.App 3d 905} 908, For example, in Peterson, the court held it was permissible to allow a police officer t testify as to uncharged bad acts by the defendent at sentencing. The defendant was allowed to present evidence to the contrary, and there was a substantial basis for believing the officer’ testimony. 9 Cal.3d 717, 728. A similar resull was reached by the court in Ratcliffe, where th court held that the defendant was not denied due process of the law by a probation report which included police contacts not resulting in convictions. 124 Cal.App.3d 808, 822. PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMao a a a 1“ as as v 18 as 20 a 2 23 24 as 26 27 28 Here, in addition to harassing Vietim, Defendant has also harassed Mr. Cutler and Mr. Cooley. (See Exhibit C for letters from Mr. Cutler and the Los Angeles County Disti Antomney's Office.) wv PROBATION IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT AND SHOULD BE DENIED IN THE PRESENT CASE UNLESS CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET BY DEFENDANT. It is well settled that probation is a privilege, an act of clemency and not a right, th: granting of which is within the sound discretion of the trial court. (People ys, Pinon (1973), 3: Cal, App. 3d 120, 123.) The California Supreme Court has stated that: ‘The paramount concer in sentencing must be the protection of society. The interests of the defendant are legitimate by secondary concem, Granting a convicted criminal the qualified liberty of probation subjects society to the risk that it will continue to be victimized during the period when he would otherwise be confined. In determining whether to grant probation, the judge must therefore satisfy himself that the risks inherent in that disposition are outweighed by the potential benefits. (People vs. Warner (1978), 20 Cal 3d, 678, 689, superseded by statute on other grounds.) For example, in People vs, Peterson (1973), 9 Cal.3d 717, 728, where the defendant had) been convicted of possession of heroin, the court allowed one of the arresting officers to testify to the defendant’s history as a drug dealer. Based on that testimony, the California Supreme Court reasoned that it was appropriate to deny probation in such a case, and sentence the defendant to state prison. (Id.) In the present situation, based on the testimony of Victim, as well as the information i the attached exhibits, it is clear that Defendant poses a serious safety risk to the community at ‘PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. -6-a 2 a u as as an as 1s 20 a 22 23 24 25 as 28 large in general, and to all the people mentioned in her letters, emails and voicemails i particular. What is particularly concerning is the recent letters sent by Defendant to Mr. Cutler Reading those letters, one would never conclude that 2 long standing relationship did not exist between Defendant and Mr. Cutler, It seems that Defendant has an undiagnosed mental healt issue, Therefore, the People are recommending that pursuant to Penal Code §12032, Defendant either allow sentencing 10 be continued for ¢ brief period and, in the interim, be ordered t comply with a mental health evaluation by Sandra G. Baca, PsyD., LMFT of About Pact Domestic Violence Project, or the be placed on five years probation pursuant Penal Cod §1203a, ordered to reside for at least one year at Gateways, ordered to take any medication tha is prescribed while housed at Gateways, be given for credit for time served, as well as credit for any time in custody until Defendant can be transferred either by a representative from Gateways or the Los Angeles Sheriff Department, ordered to pay a restitution fine of $100.00, a domestic violence fund fine of $400.00, ordered not to cwn, possess, buy or sell any dangerous or dead ‘weapons for the next 10 years, ordered not to annoy, harass, molest, or otherwise disturb th peace of any victim or witness involved in this case, and ordered to stay 100 yards away from] and have no contact with Michelle Rice, Robe-t Kory, and 9300 Wilshire Boulevard in Bever! Hills, California. In addition, pursuant to Penal Code $136.2 and the documentation included in th People’s attached exhibits, Defendant should also be ordered to stay 100 yards away from, and have no contact with Bruce Cutler, Esq. and Distict Atomey Steve Cooley. (See also, People vs. Ponice (2009) 173 Cal.App.4" 378, 382-383; People vs. Stone (2004) 123 Cal.App.a" 153 158-161.) The People are not requesting a stey away order for Victim as Victim already has 4 PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, a20 a a2 a a as 16 uv ae as 20 a 22 23 24 28 26 a7 28 permanent restraining order against Defendan:. Instead, People are requesting that compliance with the order be made part of the terms and ecnditions of Defendant's probation. Based on Dr. Baca’s letter (see Exhi>it D), as well as the actions of Defendant, th People believe Defendant is not en appropriate cendidate for probation if she is not willing ‘address the serious issues that led her down the path of conviction in this case. If Defendant refuses to accept People’s recommended terms and conditions of probation, probation should denied and Defendant should be sentenced to the maximum sentence of five years, ve CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request the Court to impose the recommended sentence. Dated: April 17,2012 Respectfully submitted, CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney LARA J. BLOOMQUIST, Supervising Attorney Family Violence Unit PEOPLE'S PROPOSED SENTENCING MEMORANDUMCxlilt asBs Brace heed htctin : Welle ke lone) lel. Suk foetsg, ae afr ees te “Spree © PrbeeiSy shat eh p Eeceregiid Pee Ct Th ie ho Motler ¢ , Bee [MeShe a Shim WedsPs “Geet acho Goel. — = pe ie tee Led ee ‘hee > aalittees Worle. Lect riding At She, | ae a ” Prodectek "per Bn. — Le brad Lebin < P. Cus Apoteet a3 abe lege is ant tal. he Dow-¢ aL AY v'2G bea veh w B Dear Brie, To hase 2 bz we bel Stored, Maree apd & hci? v FE vwallecel eid Aled Ef lteteme , Fe | ail: pag cat’ a Pe abba hee Pe Geet oa eters k janet \ en Sole : upset fy! pele ye Pete ben] cates fey Dds a dallas anh atlerC E42, PP Ce vt ete, ae a Sopa ied fo a we thé Dyine Pips mee " : £ 2. eY. pe we ; Eo ts 7 tgCe erie} ete 1 read ant yi charwes MER bli i nv BE SO~ 18S meet ELT re a5 eae, | rel - Stent bdrm pw ch he Obviews ld ‘hewne Sete tll, fs On hd Anat feb ldee wr, a 44 oe vthewk the iter ep Grde . Nef ie ath tre Vi CEEXS , diese Es Ps. oe a chef. me beaut tig ee Be Spector's wrt , Pree. he eh ned We. Seek Thempre 4 sleek heXaww] AL G6 jit. olhes de Fac le al wasdad [eS Clea’ pre's fat Gace Cre | The fen Dit baie Ta, Piney WE. hte Px. ©Shot Lived. F can Sex” Pai Reees (Orn. tort, eh] be £6 /eenant Awd, Fam donnie Sz ity, Pei me , Se a we Amare Pree niente ke Yih ae S KE Sh MH Unb Stash ope. pes mw hi. 15 whe De TaD hon poe hE uyA t Zhe lame AME STA oe PepeSisk intnk ha ea EL g pa at tend Vy eebw tbe Co ia Lhtee Conne CSE MEET Aco Qambnal | t vt $En dete a L at ae ai ln Qncke. fe tet eee frorumate ahd bt. bt Lipen weed , Fab, Wom freee, Tt i pion ie ot Gn tag Fe His’ | 1G Sn? Anh Rbe Bb ewgls boty * & 1 Dt does wet, Aron Kiract. hs fuk, Leak fo ct. fn Cheng, belive feaegest as An Shit J lett t pt AS nwhe WEE te Ke Cbrch yobe ie bettas Reed, hos Wot sh Veto ” Cowha CALA wi pee “wetinne” 2) ane boviows Ly ped (Sed & LEwSe rpre Stugde} Phen: +4 : No Buk Chore me bt. wh gq jar how Moa deeges ecified Ger Teel abe Me Canc ae COny Nitin’ Pentre, be, S Ube, ¢ Connrh bie we) here ntdnsteh 7 fontk, : : saree This. ELK : ‘© AME Bonk Sopris ee asst & be 3 Hel Sheds Hake he bi Bitalee: of = bare wee ttrg Sled wel Lat 6 al Ge fh ake deete eat be (ctw rhea it een Fhage yas cas bs jhed Abn tard Aa. nde. - haw . fe ask. hewn eg Caneel x, Ure, £RI , Tree seg pnd De T peed Lurchwl MS Odin Heth with Bech thm : Ae Gae Go mache wp CorL yA aA Gene y >Ex hibt DBPrint Dit Coe Page 1 of 35 Subject: Re: Ow First Lino Of Bushs ~ We Wil Execute Steve Cooley From: Kelley Lynch (kelleyynch2010@gmatticem) Grecnnalasln con: Denistonlo-torgancun: buce@racecuercone HRS Commisioner seo ASSO SBunde eo: washington iad Kely Sopkesusatrenc ox DoupbonsORs car. ‘yonpaByahos.oot robernaonilanOpnlcan,osoasss nav sors wonermess@aico ‘andhoinenBumslcore harsteyanatinas son wooswardsbwasipostoon alamo Som, rcdlsdint ore halsteObrd chy re pubioa ee irecaiowuetce so, poterigeoritefe podopdisclyare clghe@bpdacty ae ‘vtarecalowbeca gv poteaeitvoerkaey nacht gnalics mebseOaoloure att henpttgBarlefods com van gkmek gra some iicedvinggmsloon: modadacksor To. ent. sachsen da laccunty go, TruoDo@nto com: wiayehdalacountygo, x SREB Tretia ations abauitusyateocor, Date: Saturday, January 21, 2012 10:10 PM PS. Ask the Karmapa and Jigme Rinpoche to join me in my "Execute Steve: Cooley’ Movement." After all Cooley's buddy, Jihad Gianelli, targeted and my family. They don't just role this dude out for press conferences, He is the master mind. EXECUTE STEVE COOLEY. My motto ; and political platform. On 1/22/12, Kelley Lyach wrote: > Sharmapa, > > Pray for my colleagues and pray we have fin at The Castro. > > Love you, miss you, adore you. Please join my-Execute Steve Cooley > Movement. Jam so relieved that Thinley Norbu Rinpoche's body arrived > in Bhutan today, He spent 6 years protecting me from Cohen - the > fraud liar and thief who has dazzled the news mecia. The Karmapa > Controversy does not play out in reality. Give Karmapa my love. > Can't wait to meet him again in this lifetime. > > Love, > Kelley > > On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: >> Good Night Michael, >> >> Lets have fun at The Castro tomorrow. We have had a stressful week. >> Tlove you and do invite Ray. We all want to see him, >> >> Love you more than you know. > >> EXECUTE Steve Cooley. I'am down with thet also, Gorilla warfare. > >> Call Ross. > >> Love, >> Kelley > >> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: http/us.mgS.mail.yahoo,com/neo/launch 3122012Print Page 2 of 35, >>> To the ACLU, >>> ‘>>> Join us. Let's grow a campaign to Execute Steve Cooley and every ‘>>> lying prosecutor who sets up an innocent man, We're out of here now. ‘>>> Over to Southern Poverty Law although Michael and I will be ushering >>> you out because we've been going head to head over this situation, >>> There is nothing in it for us - but the issues, the people, Period. >> >>> It will be a bit of a relief because we all know we could be shot in >>> the back standing up for the ACLU. We know for a fact that entities >>> like WHOLE FOODS - who ripped my son's fingers off and had one of the >>> most deranged legal arguments known to mankind (his fingers weren't >>> further processed) - encourage the harassment of canvassers. They do >>> NOT care about the law. No one knows what they are talking about so >>> Southem Poverty Law should be interesting, They are NOT the ACLU. >>> They are not hated for reasons that my mother, a staunch Republican >>> and Christian can't figure out (but she is dying laughing over my >>> daily encounters and isa woman you should not fuck with ~ Cohen knew >>> this but fucked with her anyway), >> >>> Stand with us and demand the execute.of Steve Cooley. for setting up >>> the innocent man, Phil.Spector.. That is the just charge. EXECUTE, >>> Steve Cooley and let the whore spend an etemity popping. >>> Clarkson and'downing Tequilla. So >>> Keiiey >>> >>> >>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lyricr wrote: >>>> Bruce and Dennis, peeed >>5> Join us, We have armovement going: EXECUTE Steve Cooley: This js 16 >>>> pame,.This, ‘stealily- >>> ESE >>>> Love, >>>> Kelley peces >>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: >>>>> P.P.S. Let's get a "movement" going, XXOO. pecees >>>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: >>>>>> PS, Love and adore you. Have a great night. Had en enlightening >>>po> day with Ross, He thought my message to Xory was great. Thinks the >>>>>> situation is "comedic" now. eeeeee pocoees >>>>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: >>>d>>> Michael, peceeees >>>>>>> Steven Machat is running for office, Iam, as you know, interested. >epen>> in bttp:/Aus.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch 3122012Prins Page 3 of 35 >>>>>>> running The Wedding Party. You have your own party and cabinet. We >>>>>>> are in agreement ° Cooley should be executéd. Apart from that, it's >o>>>>> justa shufll. >opaan> >p>>>o> See you at The Castro tomorow - where gey men can talk about >>>>5>> PERVERTS. >>p>>>> who are talking about sex in church. peceeees >>e>>> Love, ppbeo5> Kelley DDBBDD> >pp>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: dod>39>> Bruce, poreceeed >>>>>>>> 1 was thinking of running for office also. I was going to run the >>>>>>>> "Wedding Party" and let America vote on my First Man. I think the >p>>>>>> contenders should be you and Ron Burkle. Thave my cabinet in Daassoo> place >>>>>>>> as everyone at GCI knows. Robin's the head of the CIA. Tyler's my >e>>e>>> Vice President. Michael's in charge of the FBI. My mother is Dopesoo> deputy >>>>>>>>, directors: Our fits line of business ~ we will execute Steve; popooe> Conley >>>p>>>> and any politician who lies their ass off to the American people, >>po>>> drives our blood pressure up, and refuses to work fore living, 2e>2>>>> Prosewuting and executing Cooley. should drive a stake of terror D>>s5>>> into Saree ete 7. d>>D959> Kelley Spappae> >>>>5>>> On 1/22/12, Kelley Lynch wrote: >oapoao>> Steven, peceeecees >>>>>>>>> Here we go, It was on Sprocket's site, Paul Huebl, an >oap>>d>> investigator >p>>>>>>> and former Chicago PD, told me she's the mouthpiece for Clarkson's >eppoape> mother. [figured Juror #9, from the first tial, was all over DoDpo>>>> her >e>>5>5>> site. Paul confirmed that for me, Your father told me this DoDDa>>o> story, >>>>>>>>> which I cannot recall factually right now, and it does not in any D>oS>>55> way, >paapaee> shape, or form resemble what I heard. Janice read a different >>>>>2>>> document to me, I believe. Your father was present for this. Ed pep>>>>>> Lozzi, of the Friends of Clarkson fame (her former publicist as DSSa5505 well >>>>>>>0> as the publicist for Anna Nicole Smith and a man who loves women Se>d>>5>> with >pp>peae> vicodin addiction ... and a fan of "Alan Jackson's," naturally but pooasoo> not http://us.mg5. mail yahoo.com/neo/launch sni2n012,Print Page 4 of 35 >ppoasee> a Hollywood publicist from any stretch of the imagination), knows D>DDDdd5> the >>>>5555> valet and told me hell talk to the press. He knows Lozzi so just >p>>p>>>> mention Lozzi and the dude will call you back and talk fo you. Tt >>p>pp>>> sounded positively insane to me. I figared someone could pay him peceeeeeeens >ppppen>> well. I also saw Phillip targeted by a woman, as I did at the Sppna5oo> Carlyle >>>>>>>>> (and another witness was present forthe so-called "bathtub" >>a=5595 encounter), House of Blues, and everywhere we ever went. If was >p>>e>>>> with Phillip, when Clarkson targeted him (as a down and out, out Daoooo>> of >eppdoed> work, drug addicted woman, working as a hostess in Hollywood - Do>p>D50> real >>>>>>>>> promising, Steven), I would have stood in front of him and osp552> demanded >>>ppo>>> that he listen to me because I have seen the sleazebags who have >>>5>>55> targeted him, So has Janice. They would go through his drawers, >e>>>>>>> steal fom him, and lie to the police. The criminal mind works >ppap>>>> beautifully, Steven: "I was hiding the tapes from Avril." Sure DeDpena>> he S5>55>55> was Steven. Inever once heard that. Cohen told me he owned >>>paoo>> "Bird peceeecee. >>>>>>>>> The Wire." I thought your father did. He gave the warranties and Doooorcee representalivus. Tuever saw uty evidence but always thought of D>daoa55> the >>>>>>>>> Broadway play and my conversations ith your father. Every time I >>>o>2>>> think of him stealing from your father, I want to scream, T papponan> witnessed >>>>>>>> what he did when your father was dying and it makes me ill, po>55555> Hindsight >ppanaoe> is indeed 20/20 particularly when a con artist is conning you. Spppenen> >>>ep>>>> I know that Phil Spector would be proud of you, Steven, and I know D>DDD555> he >opppope> loved your father. He is the only artist who sent me a sympathy Sosb55> note >>>>>>5>> when your father died. He was as contused as the rest of us were DDBDDD5D>- >>>>>>>>> and that includes Peter Gabriel and John We SS>>DE3>> be? >e>aee>>> There were so many lies, Cohen was scared of your family and >>poep>>> lawsuits. Not I. I went to the deposition and so many Tibetan Do>p5>>>> lamas >>>>>>>>> were praying for me. Leo the Pitbull took the deposition and T DoD>ao00> Was Sedb5555> in >p>>>>>5> disbelief when I read "Symbolic Training" (lousy court reporter). >ppapp>>> What did Leo want to know? Did FUCK Phil Spector? I had to ask SpDbo555> my . Why wouldn't we bttp://us.mgS.mail.yahoo.con/neo/launch 31272012Print Page 5 of 35 >>>>>>>>> lawyer what the rules of deposition were. I was recently >>>5>055> married >>>p>e>>> and my husband knew I was on the phone with Phillip and Janice >>D>>5>09> every >>>>>p>>> single night of my life. Dzigar Kongtrul, who lived with us (and DEDDDE>>> was >>>edd>>> here as Khyentse Rinpoche's SPY), also witnessed quite a lot of DeebeDe>> this Dpppooo>>- >>>>>p22> in disbelief, Gesar Mukpo lived with as. He is Douglas Penick’'s >>>>>55>> nephew although Steve Lindsey wants people to believe we FUCKED. >>>>>>>5> That's why I decided to say I wanted ty have sex and marry Bruce >pppod>>> Cutler. I thought some sleazebag lawyer would attempt to say I >>>>>55>> FUCKED. >p>b>>55> someone, Misogyny is a beautiful thing, Steven, People cannot >eepaao>> believe I have been called a whore and prostitute. Lindsey told De>>>500> the >>>>>>>0> court I wanted fo be a whore. Courts are insane and all up in our D>>pppoo> vaginas, Steven, If were running for office, my party would be S>>s5500> the >>>>>>>>> Wedding Party and I would demand the death penalty for corrupt >>>>>5>>> politicians because they, and ying rotten lawyers, have destroyed >>>>>>>>> this country. Mysfirst ug Steve Cooley NCooley. >oppe>>o> shouldn't dooa5e>>;bemmm peeeeeeney >>>>ppe>> B. The 1975 Assault at the Beverly Hills Hotel >pppe>>e> On November 26, 1975 at about 2:00 am., Kevin Brown, a valet S>>55525> employed >>>>>5>>> by the Beverly Hills Hotel, was at work when he heard a woman D>aS>305> seream >>>>>>>>> "Get away from me." Brown looked over and saw Spector arguing with DEbSDbo>> a >>>>>>>>> woman near the front door of the hotel. Brown approached and asked >p>>>>>>> what was happening. Spector turned te face Brown, pointed a >d5255>> revolver >>o>2>>>> at his face, and told Brown, "Get the fuck away from me." Brown SD>aa>o>> began peppe>ee> to back away from Spector as Chris Dunn, another valet, approached Doo>>d>5> the >>>>>>>>> group. Spector pointed the gun at Dunn before Spector and another D>ap>o>>> man >>>>2>>>> got into a silver Cadillac and drove away. SSDBeSae >>>>>>>>> Brown reported the incident to the Beverly Hills Police po>>>>5>> Department. >>>>>>2>> The Los Angeles County District Attomey charged Spector with two >eppao>> felony counts of assault with a firearm and two misdemeanor counts >oa>2>35> of >>>>>>>> brandishing a firearm, In Superior Court, Spector pleaded guilty hutp://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch 3/12/2012Cylvb+ oFBuuce Cortes, Esq, PaRrnen Tasory Cs Pasarone Ets ParnEn Corus & Partatore, PLLC Narnna . Manoa Ese Assoce ‘Aromeys sp Coasttons Lie 760 Maoton Avis 3280 Fone "os New Yon (006 New You, te, 212.679.6669 | Pax 212 2024787 ‘April 16, 2012 Judge Robert Vanderet Department 51 Los Angeles County Superior Court 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Kelley Lynch Dear Judge Vanderet: As a criminal defense attorney, I have never written a letter like this before, however, I am writing to you regarding the sentencing of Kelley Lynch. I too have been subjected to Ms. Lynch’s constant telephonic and electronic harassment for the past five years. I have never met ‘Ms. Lynch in person, however I came into contect with her while I was defending Philip Spector. As a result of representing Philip, she began calling me. Ms, Lynch has left me countless voicemails almost every single night for the past five yoars. Part of my daily morning routine was to go through and delete upwards of 30 voicemails ‘that she had left the night before. ‘There was a time whea Ms. Lynch found the fax number of the law firm ftom whom I sublet office space and she would fax hundreds of pages every day, making it impossible for the firm to receive legitimate faxes, until the IT people were able to block her number, Once Ms. Lynch discovered my email address, she began sending hundreds of emails to me every single day. I tried adjusting the spam filters, but she changed email addresses to evade ‘these measures. I even set Outlook to send her an automated response to every single email informing her that her emails were being automatically deleted and unread, but this too did nothing to slow her steady barrage. ‘My partner, Tim Parlatore, spoke with Ms. Lynch several times on the phone in an attempt to convince her to stop. Every time, she would agree to stop, this would only provide me ‘with a 48-72 hour reprieve before she would recommence her campaign in earnest. ‘This bombardment has continued unabated until recently when Ms, Lynch was remanded, Not having followed the news, I only Jeamed of this case when I began receiving letters from Ms, Lynch with a return address at the Lynwood Jail While Ms. Lynch never threatened physical violence against me, as she apparently did with Mr. Coben, this has had a significantly negative impact on my life, I bave had ‘wr COTLERAREPARLATORE.CoMtconversations with Pat Dixon, of the District Attorney's Offices as far back as 2008 asking them to do something about this woman. I am glad to hear that she has finally been brought to justice ‘and I hope that she will be punished accordingly and that I never have to heer from her again. Very truly yours, Pic GP > Bruce Cutler, Esq.LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ‘STEVE COOLEY « District Attomey DOMINICK J. FIVETT! + Chit JACQUELYN LACEY + Chief Deputy District Anomey GEORGE MUELLER » Assistant Chiat April 17, 2012 YJABAND : ‘The Honorable Judge Robert Vanderet ‘Los Angeles County Courthouse 210 W Temple St, Department 51 Los Angeles, California 90012 Re: Kelley Lyinch Seritencing, Los Angeles City Attorney Case No. 2CA04539 Dear Honorable Judge Vanderet: ‘The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Bureau of Investigation who is charged with the personal security of District Attorney Steve Cooley requests Mr, Cooley's name be added to the list of persons not to be contacted, annoyed, or harassed by Kelley Lynch. This request is based on the volume of annoying and threatenirg communications directed at Mr. Cooley already received into evidence at this trial, coupled with an additional email received on January 21, 2012, that directly threatened to “execute Steve Cooley.” Kelley Eynch began her contacts with the District Attomey’s Office in 2007. Please feel free to contact myself or my staff if the court has any questions concerning this request. ‘Very truly yours, STEVE COOLEY District Attomey wee Alea JACK HORVATH, Captain Bureau of Investigation co Attachment: Kelley Lynch email, dated January 21, 2012 ‘Gara Shortridge Foltz Criminal J ‘210 West Te ‘Suite 17-1102 ‘Los Angsles, CA 90012 (218) 974-3601hibit 3Sandra G Beca, PsyD, LMFT About-Face: Domestic Violence Intervention Project 3407 West 6" Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90020 213-384-7084 213-384-7653 Fax April 17, 2012 RE: Kelly Lynch CASENO.: 2CA04539 Ms. Sandra Jo Streeter, Deputy City Attorney | read the five letters you sent me written by Ms. Kelly. It appears she has targeted her rage to several people for her current problems. The threats about “execute Cooley” are a source of concern. Any threats made by the defendant must be taken as credible and serious. From her writings and the barge of {etters and emails she has sent suggest she is out of control and possibly dangerous. Having not met with Ms. Lynch my supposition is she is suffering from 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder (Diagnostic. Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders-V1, published by the American Psychiatric Association) Four of the following must be present to met the eriteria. 1. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of other such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent present in a varity of contexts, 2. Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or ber 3._ Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness or friends or associates 4, Unwerranted fear that information will be used against him or her 5. Reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events juries or slights 6. Bears grudges ie, is unforgiving or insults, 7. Perceives attacks on his or her character o: reputation that are not apparent and is quick to react angrily to counterattacks 8. Need to have the last word~"+« Re:Lyneh, Kelly ‘Case No.: 2CA04539 RECO! ENCING CONDITION: Ms. Kelly would benefit being ordered to an inpatient locked psychiatric facility such as Gateways where she will benefit from a psychiatric evaluation, treatment and medication. My impression is she will not comply with court orders if she is released. Left o her own devices the fear exists she will act out her perceived injustices. There are 2 couple of ways to stop the bombardment of letters and emails, one isto provide 4 list to the jail authorities of people blocked from receiving correspondence from Ms. Lynch ‘would be helpful. Another would be asking the court to issue an order addressed to the jail authorities that, Ms. Lynch is prohibited from using the telephone. Ms. Lynch revels in a false belief of entitlement “if, people are bothered by the letters she sends, it isnot her problem and they should change their addresses. If Lcan be of further assistance, you can reach me on my cell 213-500-5574 or at my office at 213-384- 7084, Respectfully submitted, Sandee 9. Baca, Pig, LT 2[PugeExhibit 8SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VANDERET, JUDGE DEPARTMENT NO. 51 HON. ROBERT C. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF, -vs- KELLEY LYNCH, DEFENDANT. ) } ) ) ) ) ) ; ) ) NO. 2CA04539-01 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 NIKHIL 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) } etree eune at 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 623 CASE NUMBER: 2CA04539 CASE NAME: PEOPLE VERSUS KELLEY LYNCH LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012 DEPARTMENT NO. 51 HON, ROBERT VANDERET, JUDGE REPORTER: CYNTHIA A. ROMERO, CSR NO. 7861 TIME: P.M, SESSION APPEARANCES: THE DEFENDANT WITH HER COUNSEL, MICHAEL KELLY AND NIKHIL RAMNANEY, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; SANDRA JO STREETER, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. WE'RE HERE ON CASE NUMBER 2CA04539, PEOPLE VERSUS KELLEY LYNCH. THIS IS THE TIME SET FOR SENTENCING. APPEARANCES, PLEASE. MR. KELLY; MICHAEL KELLY, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER. MR. RAMNANEY: NIKHIL RAMNANEY, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, ON BEHALF OF MS. LYNCH WHO IS PRESENT IN CUSTODY BEFORE THE couRT. MS. STREETER: SANDRA STREETER FOR THE PEOPLE. THE COURT: OKAY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF MATTERSBI Ha He wene 11 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 624 TO TAKE UP. ONE, DEFENDANTS HAVE FILED A MOTION, NOTICE OF MOTION 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 IP IT WERE HERE AND AS DESCRIBED, THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THE DESCRIPTION FAILS 70 MEET EVEN THE FIRST TEST, THE FIRST PRONG OF THE TEST SET FORTH IN PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS IN THAT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF 1S NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED. THE DEFENDANT HERSELF, FROM THE DESCRIPTION, WAS CLEARLY AWARE OF ALL OF THE FACTS LAID OUT. WE HAD DISCUSSICNS ABOUT THEM DURING THE TRIAL WITH COUNSEL, SO I DO NOT FIND THE EVIDENCE TO BE NEWLY DISCOVERED. SECONDLY, THE COURT IS CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD NOT RENDER A DIFFERENT RESULT, PROBABLE, EVEN IF ADMITTED ON RETRIAL. IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT COULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE FIVE 273.6(A) COUNTS, WHICH ARE VIOLATIONS OF COURT ORDERS. SECONDLY, WHILE THE TWO 653M COUNTS OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT 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 EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED SUCH BASIS, IT WOULD NOT PROVIDEoY Kaw ew ne a 12 13 14 18 16 ay 18 19 20 21 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 COMMEKTS ABOUT DEFENDANT -- ABOUT DEFENDANT'S VICTIM. 80 THE MOTION, IT SEEMS TO 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 MAKE A PRESENTATION? MR. KELLY: I AM LOOKING OVER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE. IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF EXTRA EXHIBITS THAT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER THE CONTENT. I WILL NOTE THAT MS, LYNCH DOES NOT HAVE ANY CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL RECORD, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL AND TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ANYTHING, THERE'S BEEN NO INDICATION THAT THERE'3 BEEN ANY OFFENSE IN MS. LYNCH'S HISTORY THAT INDICATES ANY PROPENSITY TOWARDS VIOLENCE OR ANY VIOLENT CONDUCT IN HER PAST. THIS ITSELF WAS A NONVIOLENT OFFENSE. THERE WERE, AS THE COURT MENTIONED, MULTIPLE B-MAILS, BUT THAT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE. ALSO, AS WAS NOTED DURING THE TRIAL, MUCH OF THIS TIME, THIS PER:OD, MS. LYNCH WAS -- OR ACTUALLY, AS FAR AS I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM THE ENTIRE PERIOD, MS. LYNCH WAS NOT EVEN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. SO THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY LEGITIMATE THREAT THROUGH THISeoYauewne a. 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 626 ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE LAST YEAR WHILE THERE WAS 1101 EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR E-MAILS, I DO BELIEVE THE CONDUCT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE E-MAILS WAS ACTUALLY IMPROVED IN THE LAST YEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTENT SIGNIFIES DEFENSE WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT THIS WAS A CONTINUOUS ACT, THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY, THE DELINEATION BETWEEN COUNT TO COUNT, TAIS WAS ESSENTIALLY ONE CONTINUOUS ACT WITH THESE E-MAILS THAT HAD BEEN ONGOING FROM FEBRUARY OF 2011 TO JANUARY 2012 AND SO BASED ON THAT, WE DO BELIEVE PROBATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MS. LYNCH, WITH ANGER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS PERHAPS, COMMUNITY SERVICE OBVIOUSLY A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND A STRONG ADMONITION TO MS. LYNCH TO NOT INCLUDE OR CONTACT BY PHONE OR £-MAIL MR. COHEN, AND -- AS WELL AS HIS REPRESENTATIVES. THERE IS STILL A MECHANISM PERHAPS OF WHICH, IF 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 REPRESENTATIVE OF MR. COHEN. THE couR WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT I UNDERSTAND THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: MR. COHEN, DO YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD? MS. STREETER: AND AFTER MR. COHEN ADDRESSES THE COURT, THE PEOPLE HAVE SOME COMMENTS.Oo oY aueuwne 10 a. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 627 THE COURT: YES. PLEASE COME FORWARD. MS. STREETER: YES. THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE FINE. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I WANT TO THANK THE COURT AND THE PERSON OF YOUR HONOR FOR THE CORDIAL, EVEN-HANDED AND ELEGANT MANNER IN WHICH THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE UNFOLDED. 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 THE 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 WAS UNTRUE. I WANT TO THANK THE DEFENDANT, MS. KELLEY LYNCH, FOR INSISTING 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 TO OBSERVE HER PROFOUNDLY UNWHOLESOME, OBSCENE ANDsee eur au 10 aL 12 13 14 15 16 aq 18 19 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 MYSELF WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID OR POSTPONE THE INEVITABLE DAY OF RECKONING WITH THE IRS, THE DAY WHEN 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 ADANS, A HIGHLY RESPECTED FIRM IN THIS CITY, WE SUBMITTED A THEFT LOSS AMENDMENT TO THE IRS, 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, HER FORMER TAX ATTORNEYS (WHOM SHE FIRED), HER ACCOUNTANT WHO RESIGNED, THE IRS, AND TWO COURTS OF LAW, ONS IN CALIFORNIA, A FEDERAL COURT IN COLORADO, HAVE LONG BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THESE VERY SAME ANC VERY PUBLIC FORENSIC REPORTS WHICH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS DARED TO ASSERT WE WITHHELD, AND OFFERED THIS FICTIONAL WITHHOLDING AS JUSTIFICATION FOR MS, LYNCH'S DAILY OBSCENITIES, DEATH THREATS AND MENACING FANTASIES OF REVENGE. MS, LYNCH IS IN FULL POSSESSION OF THE FORENSIC ANALYSIS, SHE JUST DOESN'T LIKE IT AND SHE HAS GONE TO UNACCEPTABLE -- UNACCEPTABLE LENGTHS TO IGNORE, DISCREDIT, THREATEN AND VILIFY ANY PERSON WHO, OR INSTITUTION, THAT HAS AFFIRMED IT.COLA mewn e 10 un 12 13 14 18 16 a7 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 629 THIS IS, AS PROSECUTOR SANDRA JO STREETER SHARPLY OBSERVED, NOTHING BUT THE UNRAVELING OF A CON IT GIVES ME NO PLEASURE TO SEE MY ONE-TIME FRIEND SHACKLED TO A CHAIR IN A COURT OF LAW HBR CONSIDERABLE GIFTS BENT TO THE SERVICE OF DARKNESS DECEIT AND REVENGE. I FEAR THAT HER OBSESSIVE COMMITMENT TO THESE ACTIVITIES WILL RESUME AS SOON AS MS. LYNCH IS RELEASED. THEREFORE, I WILL BE GRATEFUL FOR WHATEVER RESPITE THE COURT WILL ALLOW MY CHILDREN MY GRANDCHILDREN, MY FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES AND MYSELF I MUST CONFESS, SIR, THAT MS. LYNCH'S CONTEMPT FOR EVERY COURT ORDER AND EVERY LEGAL RESTRAINT THAT WE HAVE OBTAINED IN THE PAST, HER DEFIANCE OF THE LAW AND HER PLEDGE OF UNRELENTING WARFARE, DO 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. MICHELLE RICE. WITHOUT HER METICULOUS MS. LYNCH 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 CRUELTIES AND EVASIONS WOULD NOT BE KNOWN. IT IS THROUGH MS. RICE'S PAINSTAKING MANAGEMENT OF THESE TOXIC DETAILS THROUGH MULTIPLE COURTS, BEFORE EMINENT JUDGES, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PRESENT THIS CASE TO OUR ESTEEMED CITY PROSECUTOR MS. SANDRA JO STREETER, WHO THEN SO SKILLFULLY AND STEADFASTLY ARGUED IT IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE BEFORS THISeyrauewnn 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 630 COURT AND THIS JURY. YOUR HONOR, I 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 IF IT BE TEMPORARY. I AM 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 MR. STEVE STEVENS FOR HIS INVALUABLE CONSULTATIONS. IT IS MY PRAYER THAT MS. LYNCH WILL TAKE REFUGE IN THE WISDOM OF HER RELIGION, THAT A SPIRIT OF UNDERSTANDING WILL CONVERT HER HEART FROM HATRED TO 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 TO 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 FIRST ONE IS THAT IT I$ 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 DOBS NOT -- THE COUNTS DO NOT MERGE.era weuwne 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 631 COUNSEL IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT'S SOME ARBITRARY MANNER WITH WHICH THE PEOPLE PLED THE CASE. THE PROBLEM THE PEOPLE WERE FACED WITH IS EACH E-MAIL OR EACH VOICE MAIL ON A CLEAR READING OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER IS A VIOLATION, AND THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE THE PEOPLE SAW WOULD BE TO DO 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 MAIL 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 THE LETTER FROM DR. BACA. THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THIS SITUATION, THE PEOPLE ARE PACED WITH WE CAN'T FORCE MS. LYNCH TO SUBMIT TO A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION. THAT'S SOMETHING HER ATTORNEYS WOULD HAVE T0 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. IT'S NOT JUST THE CONDUCT TOWARD MR. COHEN THS PEOPLE ARE, PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT THE REASON THE PEOPLE ATTACHED LETTERS, AND THE PEOPLE MUST STATE -- FIRST EXPLAIN TO THE COURT HOW THE PEOPLE CAME UPON THE1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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 JUST THE E-MAIL -- AND IN ADDITION, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONTACTED THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES OUT OF CONCERN BY WHAT MS. LYNCH IS DOING. BUT OF THE TWO, WHAT THE PEOPLE FIND MOST CONCERNING ARE THE LETTERS THAT ARE SENT TO MR. CUTLER. BECAUSE IF ONE WERE TC READ THOSE LETTERS, ONE WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THAT THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP, NO ~~ WHAT 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 IS A CONCERN THE PEOPLE HAVE, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF SHOWING THOSE TO DR. BACA, IS THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS PART OF WHAT IS DRIVING THIS IS THAT MS. LYNCH HAS SOME UNDIAGNOSED MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, AND THE DANGER THAT SHE POSES TO MR. COHEN, MR. CUTLER AND MR, COOLEY, AND SOCIETY IN PARTICULAR. SO THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WITH JUST PUTTING HER 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. SO THE PEOPLE WOULD TRULY LIKE TO URGE THAT WHAT IS -~ IS DONE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ORDEREDone ewne 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 633 TO GO TO A LOCKED MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY. IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN THE PEOPLE SEE THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS FCR THE COURT T0 GIVE MS. LYNCH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE. TO DO AS MR. COHEN IS ASKING, TO GIVE HIM A BIT OF RESPITE. THE COURT: DEFENSE WANTS TO BE FURTHER HEARD? MR. KELLY: YES, I DO. WHILE THERE IS A HISTORY BETWEEN THE 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. I WILL 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-MAILS 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 THIS POINT, THAT DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE, CONSIDERING WE DON'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. BUT TO PUT OVER SENTENCING ALTOGETHER FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE AT THIS TIME IS APPROPRIATE.we ene 634 BUT AGAIN, WE ARE -- IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT I$ A TERM OF THE PROBATION, I'M SURE MS. LYNCH WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT TERM AND AT LEAST SPEAK TO SOMEONE AND SEB IF THERE IS AN EVALUATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN AND A DIAGNOSIS, TF ANY, THAT CAN BE GIVEN BASED upon THar. THE COURT; ANYTHING FURTHER? WOULD YOUR CLIENT LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT? THE DEFENDANT: I DO WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT. TRE COURT: WELL, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO. THE DEFENDANT: T WANT 70 MAKE A SHORT STATEMENT. IT IS MY IMPRESSION THAT WHAT T DID HERE WAS I ACTUALLY WENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. I'VE HAD AGENTS FROM THW TREASURY FLY IN FROM WASHINGTON THAT ARE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE, THE FBI'S INVOLVED AND THE FBI TOLD ME T0 LET THE IRS TAKE THE LEAD. IT WILL BE BROUGHT IN FOR CRIMINAL WITNESS AND EVIDENCE TAMPERING WITH RESPECT TO LEONARD COHEN. THAT 1S FACTUAL, THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE RECORDED. AND $O I DO BELIEVE THAT I HAVE ENGAGED IN EXCESSIVE, UNAUTHORIZED RAMBLING, AND THAT MY BEHAVIOR HAS BEEN EXCESSIVE. BUT WHAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED, REGARDLESS OF MS. STREETER'S VICIOUS, I THINK, ATTACK ON ME, AND WHAT MY CHILDREN HAVE GONE THROUGH, HAS BEEN EXTREME. I'VE PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO TRE IRS THAT I HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED BY LEONARD COHEN, STEVEN MACHAT, WHOa7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 635 IS ABOUT TO SUE 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. I'M WILLING TO TAKE ANYTHING THE JUDGH SUGGESTS, AND MY -- I DID HAVE MY WAGES GARNISHED ALSO, YOUR HONOR. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN 25 PERCENT OF MY INCOME, AND THE STATE DID TELL ME TO 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 If IS NOT, HE DIDN'T HAVE TRE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION. SO I 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-18 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 THAT 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 EDELMAN. NO ONE WOULD EVER TALK TO ME. EVER. $O I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SETTLE ANYTHING. AND THEN I WAS GIVEN LEGAL ADVICE THAT I COULD CONTACT MR. COHEN FOR TAX INFORMATION. THE COURT: OKAY, ANY LEGAL CAUSE WHY SENTENCE SHOULD NOT NOW BE IMPOSED?10 an 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ag 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 636 MR. KELLY: NO, YOUR HONOR. MR. RAMNANEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. LET ME JUST -- BEFORE T PRONOUNCE SENTENCE, TELL YOU WHAT HAS GONE INTO MY CONSIDERATION. FIRST, I THINK THE EVIDENCE, 17'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 70 DO WITH WHETHER IT WAS LEONARD COHEN OR JOSEPH SMITH ON THE END OF THOSE. NO PERSON SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THAT KIND OF TARGETING BY ANYONE, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE STATUTES IN PLACE THAT PREVENT THAT, THE DEFENDANT HAS ALSO THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING, CONTINUING UP TO THE PAST MONTH, AS I 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 PACT ~~ WHOEVER HAS THAT PHONE, WOULD YoU PLEASE TURN IT OFF. SHE HAS INDICATED EXPRESSLY HER BELIEF THAT RESTRAINING ORDERS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON HER BEHAVIOR. HAS SAID SO A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THE EVIDENCE WE HEARD. SHE'S ALSO SHOWN NO REMORSE NOR GLIMMER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WRONGDOING FOR HER BEHAVIOR, EVEN UP To THIS MoMENT.i) 10 aL 42 13 a4 1s 16 17 1e ag 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 OFTEN 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 BFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE PAST PROTECTIVE ORDERS HAVE 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 STOPPED. THERE I$ MUCH MERIT TO MS. STREETER'S SUGGESTION OF A MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY, BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED AT THIS POINT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS AMENABLE 10 TREATMENT AND COOPERATIVE ENOUGH TO ENGAGE IN TREATMENT, AS MS. STREETER HAS INDICATED, THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WOULD FACE -- COULD FACE IN THIS CASE IS A JAIL TERM OF FIVE YEARS FOR THE FIVE COUNTS OF 273.6(A). I AGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS THAT THE 653M COUNTS WOULD BE MERGED BECAUSE THE CONDUCT THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR THOSE IS THE SAME CONDUCT THAT FORMS THE BASIS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS. SO 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 TO THE COURT FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.10 i 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 25 26 27 28 638 THAT'S 60 MONTHS. DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, SHE WILL SERVE A TERM 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: I DON'T THINK THE TRADITIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUNSELING IS THE KIND OF COUNSELING WE NEED HERE. WHAT I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE JAIL AUTHORITIES TO DO IS TO PUT TOGETHER A PROGRAM FOR MS. LYNCH WHILE SHE IS IN CUSTODY THAT WILL INCLUDE ON A WEEKLY BASIS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: ANGER MANAGEMENT, ALCOHOL COUNSELING AND PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELING. THERE WILL BE THREE-MONTH REPORTS TO THE COURT ON HER PROGRESS AND COOPERATION IN THAT EDUCATION PROGRAM. AND AT THE END OF KER 18-MONTH SERVICE, SHE @ILL 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, MS, LYNCH IS BARRED BY STATUTE FROM OWNING OR POSSESSING ANY FIREARMS FOR THE NEXT TEN YBARS. DOES DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PROBATION? MR. KELLY: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS