February 19, 2017 at 8.12 AM

From: Sandra <sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 8:12 AM
Subject: My comment on your public web blog post of 2-18 under the 1st Amendment
To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com



First, the court is not required to "clarify" the charges against you except for a formal reading of the complaint at your arraignment, unless the defendant waives a formal reading. Anything beyond that is "legal advice" that the court is prohibited from giving. If you want a legal expert to explain the charges against you, ask for the PD to be appointed. Or take your chances. It is up to you.

Second, a criminal complaint puts you on notice of (as to each charged offense or "count") the act constituting the offense, the date of the offense, the name of the victim and the code section violated.

The only information beyond that to which you are entitled is criminal discovery, which pursuant to relevant statute (and related California Constitutional provisions) need not be provided util 30-days prior to trial.

Note that in no event is the prosecutor required to verbally explain or "clarify" anything to you. For that you have the option of requesting court appointed counsel.

Moreover, if you were sincere about the claimed good faith basis for pestering Ms. Streeter, you would not be emailing her (since she has had no connection to you or any case pertaining to you since 2012 and became your harassment victim on Febuary 14, 2013 - resulting in your return to jail for 6-months in January 2014). nstead, you would be writing your assigned prosecutor who appeared in court at your arraignment.


Harassing a member of the prosecutor's office while you have a case pending against you for harassment is never a great idea for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.


Commentary:  Lynch does believe that the Court should ensure that she is properly notified of the charges particularly in light of the prosecution's contradictory statements and charges raised without naming the parties they relate to.  This was an ongoing issue throughout Lynch's 2012 trial.  Obviously, that does not actually put someone on proper notice.  The prosecutors are interested in lying and playing games.  That is Lynch's personal opinion.  In fact, Streeter informed the Court that the matters related to federal tax issues was Lynch's "excuse" during the 2012 trial.  Lynch has asked IRS Commissioner's Staff for a formal opinion on these issues.  Streeter was initially the prosecutor in the current proceedings.  In fact, after lying about Lynch throughout her 2012 trial, she was once again assigned this fraudulent, retaliatory case.  Streeter made the determination that Lynch's communications were not legitimate.  Lynch maintains that Streeter and her colleagues have acted in bad faith and are using these proceedings to harass her.  Lynch has never harassed her prosecutor and advised the Court that she doesn't want to communicate with them at all.  Stephen Gianelli and others do not have a first amendment right to harass Lynch, members of her family, and others.  





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:19 PM Subject:  To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com As you stand before the court in the morning in a serious criminal case that - if you are convicted - could result in a 9-year jail sentence (which would translate to an actual 4 and a half years behind bars) - keep in mind that the sole reason that you are in that position is not some conspiracy, it is not a result of the conduct of others, your situation is entirely the result of your continual refusal to obey a facially valid order of the court, your prior criminal record of convictions and probation violations, and your 14 year history of electronic harrassment. Commentary:  The reasons Lynch is in this position is due to the fact that she reported allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, he and his representatives retaliated, and the DA dragged her into the Phil Spector case.  The fraud California domestic violen...
Read more

March 8, 2017 at 10.00 PM

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM Subject: Blog post of today To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com I find it extremely ironic that you are all lathered up about a strightfoward website maining consisting of an archive of pleadings in your various legal matters with Leonard Cohen, with three FAQ;s that consist of stright foward anwers to your primary legal contentions that aree not onlysupported by the evidence but have also been so found by the court. This is ironic due to your many wibsites and tens of thousands of blog posts over the last seven years that consist mainly of your warped, self-serving, and factually and legally unsupported hyperbole about these matters. At a minumum there should be a dispassionate rebuttle to your daily diatribes based on facts and actual court documents and judicial rulings. Commentary:  Lynch is not lathered up about the Fact Check blog that is Leonard Cohen's defense to crimi...
Read more

March 2, 2017 at 7.19 AM

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:19 AM Subject: Blog posted, harassing emails To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com I am sure that the emails you are posting on your blog are just the tip of the iceberg, and that in actuality you are sending out far more emails to the City Attorney and his deputies. Have you read Penal code section 653M, or do you simply believe that everything you write is so important and legitimate that you have an unqualified right to say it, to whomever you wish, as many times as your whims dictate? Don't be suprized if you pick up additional charges (if Bruce Cutler alone decides to request charges, that would be hundreds of additional counts) or wind up remanded. You just cannot keep scoffing at court orders and the Penal Code while taunting prosecutors without consequences. Commentary:  Lynch continues to document everything that unfolds for IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other authorities.  Lync...
Read more