Thursday, April 18, 2013

I Didn't Realize LAPD's TMU Had A Stark Raving Lunatic Impersonating A Dog As Their Spokesperson

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Subject: Fwd: Since you asked, the IRS says no warrant is required even to read email
To: Washington Field <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Dennis <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, "Hoffman, Rand" <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

To the FBI,
The agent I spoke to about Gianelli on Friday was listening to me.  In any event, this man is criminally harassing me and advising me that Threat Management has a problem with me and think I pose a risk that needs to be managed?  The self-inflicted revenge fantasies must have kicked in if people think the truth is slander.  TMU should fear Sandra Jo Strreeter because lying about me to them exposes them to liability.  This entire situation demands an investigation. I spoke to TMU on Friday.  I called with a question and they phoned back.  They were entirely professionally.  They should assess who is using them to do their dirty work - that would include Leonard Cohen who thinks lying to law enforcement, concealing evidence, and perjuring himself about the IRS is acceptable conduct for a Canadian citizen with a green card and a lifelong history of tax fraud in two countries.  Teenagers have figured my situation out so hopefully TMU did the same.  In any event, this harassment is over my appeal.  It is outrageous and this man has been relentlessly advised to CEASE AND DESIST.  He's having a ball.  Impersonating my teacher as a DOG. 

This man belongs in prison.  I've also spoken to Detective Viramontes/LAPD about him and his ongoing harassment.  I wouldn't let this man serve as my spokesman.  People think he belongs in prison, has motive, is on someone's payroll, aligned with Leonard Cohen and probably Alan Jackson, and is dangerously unstable.  I wonder if TMU would like this lunatic targeting their elderly parents and children. 

All the best,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The-14th Sheepdog <>
Date: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Since you asked, the IRS says no warrant is required even to read email
To: Kelley Lynch <>

All of these agencies blocked your emails YEARS ago (except for Doug Davis who blocked you in 2012). NO ONE is listening, Kelley, except for the attorneys for a few people that you are slandering and Threat Assessment and Management - the very people you "have no problem with". (Apparently they have a problem with you, as in think you pose a risk that needs to be managed.)

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:
P.S.  The ambulance chaser doesn't understand that the IRS used a subpoena.  This man is absolutely psychotic.  Would you  want him targeting your family?  He belongs in prison.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:
To the FBI,

The criminally harassing ambulance chasing dog continues to target me.  What a lunatic.  I think the fact that Cohen aligned himself with Gianelli speaks volumes, no?  That might explain why Cohen felt comfortable taking the stand and perjuring himself as extensively as he did.  Arrogant idiots.  However, this man's criminal harassment is outrageous and has been going on since 2009. 


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:27 AM, The-14th Sheepdog <> wrote:

IRS lawyers say they don't need search warrants to snoop in your email

Internal Revenue Service lawyers say Americans have “generally no privacy” in email, social media messages and other online communications, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union.

ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler wrote in a blog post that the organization requested “records regarding whether it gets a warrant before reading people’s email, text messages and other private electronic communications.” The IRS responded with 247 pages of records, which the ACLU posted to their website.

The documents do not disclose whether the IRS obtains warrants before reading digital communications, but Wessler said the documents suggest the IRS does not do so.

Digital privacy has been a grey area since the onset of the Internet. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act says that any email stored on an email provider’s servers for less than 180 days would require a warrant before it is obtained by a government authority. Email older than 180 days or any email that has been opened would not require a warrant.

Now that you mention it.
--The Dogster