Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Kelley Lynch's Emails To Larry Rohter/NY Times & The FBI Re. Gianelli's Ongoing Criminal Harassment, Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, And The Los Angeles City Attorney

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM
To: The-14th Sheepdog <>, STEPHEN GIANELLI <>, Washington Field <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, ASKDOJ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, moseszzz <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>

Hi Mr. Rohter,

How would you like this lunatic criminally harassing you and your family?  Ask yourself that question.  That's what my family has been exposed to over Leonard Cohen's criminal tax fraud, the Phil Spector matter, and the insanity I am now dealing with as it involves the City Attorney of Los Angeles who seem to think that their jurisdiction, and that of LA Superior Court's, involves federal tax matters.  I disagree and have asked the IRS Commissioner's Staff for an opinion on that issue and an investigation into Sandra Jo Streeter's lies and conduct throughout my Stalinesque Show Trial featuring Phil Spector and Leonard Cohen's good rock and roll testimony about one version of his Phil Spector gun stories. 
All the best,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:
To the FBI,
I would like to point out that I am not pro per re. the Writ of Habeas Corpus.  I am familiar with the forms, format, and am being advised by my attorney who is guiding me through the writing of the Writ and reviewing it.  He has quite a lot of the sections right now.  Gianelli understands I am represented here by Francisco Suarez who he has relentlessly contacted.  He did this with respect to another individual and their very serious legal matter. 
Is there an imminent threat with respect to this man?  Here's my answer - I have no idea.  I do not know this man.  I have no idea who he is.  I know that he has relentlessly targeted me since hearing from Cohen's lawyers in or around June of 2009.  He relentlessly targeted my children, my elderly parents, my sister and her husband (and attempted to blackmail them from what I could tell and was advised - by their attorney - to cease and desist and would not), friends, ex-husbands, people I worked with (including an Iranian scam artist who held himself out to the public as a lawyer when he was not and was involved in a deal with the Iranian government when Jerry of the Treasury Department advised him - with Goudarzi present - that you cannot do a deal with the Iranian government and mentioned nuclear proliferation, etc.), and others. 
This man also made an appearance in my trial via Streeter and Cohen over a NAMBLA issue that does NOT involved Leonard Cohen.  Any dangerously unstable stark raving lunatic who attempts to lure my then minor son into communicating with him will be viewed as a sexual predator. 
I've advised the 14th Sheepdog (who is signing his name as the Dogster while criminally harassing me) a/i/a as Stephen Gianelli to contact Leonard Cohen and Alan Jackson and to CEASE AND DESIST.  I continue to maintain that there should be an investigation - by the IRS and FBI - into why prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter permitted Gianelli to criminally harass me on quite a number of emails with her copied in.  The women has serious issues and exculpatory evidence may be the least of them.  As Detective Viramontes/LAPD and I discussed - I think she has serious psychiatric problems that includes pathological lying. 
I am represented on appeal, with respect to the Writ, and wouldn't take legal advice from this lunatic if he were last lying rotten ambulance chaser on earth.

All the best,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:
To the FBI,
This man is clearly targeting me over the appeal, oral arguments, Writ, etc. 

I have yet again advised him to CEASE AND DESIST.  He has confirmed that he has a right to criminally harass me and understands that this conduct carries penalties such as 18 months in jail or prison.  The man is writing to me while impersonating a DOG.  Enough said.  I have other things to do right now and view this man as dangerously unstable and a very very sick individual.

All the best,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

I am advising you to cease and desist.  I am represented on appeal and in connection with the Writ of Habeas Corpus.  Clearly, you are criminally harassing me over the appeal, oral arguments, and this Writ.  You are criminally harassing me over Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, IRS matters, the IRS binder, Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, and other issues.  You have lied to the IRS and FBI about me; transmitted fraud to the IRS about me; relentlessly targeted members of my family and others; have relentlessly contacted my appellate attorney (who refuses to communicate with you and advised me to forward all of your emails to the FBI who I spoke with about your activity re. me on Friday), have advised me that you have a right to criminally harass me while impersonating a dog (advising me that this carries penalties of 18 months in jail or prison), and felt comfortable criminally harassing me while copying in prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter on many emails and Leonard Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, on at least one since the trial where she acknowledged that she cannot communicate with me on the stand.

I do not want you sending me a criminal manual relating to the appeal process, newly discovered evidence, concealed exculpatory evidence, or anything else.  Call Leonard Cohen and Alan Jackson.  Evidently you are aligned with Cohen and may have found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor about me, per Investigator William Frayeh/DA's office who spoke to you and concluded that you are a shady character.  He's a very astute and professional man.

Kelley Lynch

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:49 AM, The-14th Sheepdog <> wrote:



These points we have been raising with you by way of public comment are not pulled out of thin air. The foregoing link is to a premier appellate defender’s resource manual – the chapter dealing with drafting and filing a writ of habeas corpus.
A few excerpts:
Habeas corpus use has certain limitations. Among these are the requirement of
custody and related mootness issues, the bar against repetitive petitions, the bar against
use of habeas corpus when appeal is or would have been available, and the requirement of
due diligence.
B. Successive Petitions [§8.10]

The general rule is that all claims must be presented in a single, timely petition;
successive petitions will be summarily denied.
C. Availability of Appeal [§8.11]

Habeas corpus cannot be used to raise issues that could have been but were not
raised on appeal (In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759), nor to seek a second
determination of issues raised on appeal and rejected (In re Foss (1974) 10 Cal.3d 910,
930; In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225). (See also In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d
679, 68311 [defendant who abandoned appeal after certificate of probable cause was
denied and at that time failed to use proper remedy (mandate) to perfect appeal cannot use
habeas corpus to attack denial of motion to withdraw plea].)
2. Timing [§8.18]

If the petition is to be filed in the Court of Appeal while an appeal is pending, it
should be submitted promptly, so that the appeal and writ can be considered together.
B. Petition [§8.19]

“The petition serves primarily to launch the judicial inquiry into the legality of the
restraints on the petitioner’s personal liberty.” (People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728,
738.) The petition also states the grounds for the claimed illegality of the petitioner’s
liberty, so that the return can respond to the allegations and frame the issues for the
2. Formal petition [§8.21]

Although the entire document filed with the court is usually called a “petition” for
habeas corpus, it contains within it a formal pleading, also called a “petition,” that sets out
the facts and law necessary to state a prima facie cause of action. The formal pleading is
supplemented with points and authorities and evidentiary exhibits. The formal petition
must include a prayer for relief and be verified.
a.       Format [§8.22]

Rule 8.384 prescribes the requirements for a petition filed by an attorney.
Another option is to use Judicial Council form MC-275, a copy of which is
available from the California courts’ or ADI’s website. This form is required for pro
per petitions, unless the Court of Appeal has excused use of it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
b.      Facts and law [§8.23]

The key elements in the formal petition are supporting facts and supporting cases,
rules, or other authority. Although the facts and law in the formal petition need not and
generally should not be extremely detailed, they must be sufficiently specific to constitute
a cause of action, i.e., a prima facie case for relief. Amplifying detail and legal analysis
can be included in the accompanying points and authorities. Technically, however, the
petition must stand on its own without reference to anything else.
c.       Verification [§8.25]

A petition must be verified under penalty of perjury. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1474,
subd. 3 & 1475; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)
3. Points and authorities [§8.26]

A memorandum of points and authorities should be attached to the formal petition
to amplify the legal implications of the facts and address relevant authority. It must be in
the proper format for the intended court, including a statement of case, statement of facts,
argument, and conclusion. It must include references to the record, declaration, or
exhibits. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)-(b), 8.384(a)(2).)
4. Declarations, exhibits, and other supporting documents [§8.27]
Declarations and exhibits should be attached to the petition. Any reference to
facts outside the record must be supported by adequate declarations or exhibits.

--The Dogster