March 7, 2017 at 8.44 AM

From: Sandra <sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:44 AM
Subject: Res judicata
To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com



" The voice mail messages were raised in 2012 and res judicata applies."

I don't think res judicata means what you think it means.

Res judicata is not a rule of admissibility. It means simply that some issues decided in a final judgment (such as your 2012 contiction) are binding on the same parties in a subsequent trial. In other words, you cannot argue that you were innocent of the 2012 charges - because those charges were determined against you in a bonding and fnal judgment of conviction.

If res judicata applied to your prior theatening voice mail messages then it would mean that they are deemed to evince an intent to annoy. (Which analysis is hardly necessary, because they are so patently threatening and alarming, no jury would ever conclude other wise?)
Perhaps you were thinking of double jeopardy? That principle does not apply either because you are not being charged with your 2011 miscondct.

The admissibiity of your prior bad acts (charged or uncharged) is exclusively governed by Evidence  Code section 1101 and folowing (making prior acts of misconduct admissible to prove intent, motive and identity) and Evidence Code section 352 (that would neverthe less allow your trial judge to exclude the evidence if - after weighing the issues - it concludes that the prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value.

Since your long (since 2004) pattern of bombarding Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory and Michelle Rice - who are all victims in your case - with angry communications that are petently harassing is highly probative to your state of mind when you engaged in simular communications in 2016, those voice messages will be admitted into evidence. Not as stand alone charges, but to prove motive (revenge) and intent (harassment).


Res judicata will have nothing to do with the weighing process that the court will engage in when evauating any objection to the admissiblity of your 2011 threatening voice messages.

Commentary:  Lynch has not engaged in any prior bad acts and looks forward to the City Attorney's attempts to argue otherwise.  That includes their decision to use prior domestic violence evidence against Lynch since none exists.  See Evidence Code Section 1109.  The City Attorney is enforcing a fraudulent domestic violence order.  Lynch believes the conduct of the co-conspirators is a course of conduct that is highly relevant, material, and goes to motive.  

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