Monday, October 27, 2014

Kelley Lynch's Email To DOJ's Criminal Division Re. Gianelli's Legal Arguments On Behalf Of Leonard Cohen

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:48 AM
Subject: Fwd: Fw
To: "Division, Criminal" <>, ASKDOJ <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>, "kevin.prins" <>,, Sherab Posel <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Jeffrey Korn <>

Hello DOJ Criminal Division,

Gianelli has now written me copying in Boulder, Colorado District Attorney Stan Garnett.  I have copied Jeffrey Korn on this letter.  Stephen Gianelli is not listed as attorney of record.  In that matter, Michelle Rice is.  She's Jeffrey Korn's co-counsel so I believe Korn can respond.  

The Boulder Court wrote me that their order is NOT a domestic violence order and Cohen did not request a domestic violence order.  He listed his concerns about my communications with third parties.  He testified that those third parties involved IRS, FBI, DOJ, Dennis Riordan, Paul Shaffer, Bob Dylan, Oliver Stone, journalists, my online posts refuting his slanderous false accusations, etc.  

When Rice, who lied on February 14, 2011 (with IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle copied in), filed this order in California, it was given a domestic violence case number.  It was filed in Family Court.  It was modified and transformed fraudulently into a domestic violence order.  It was then prosecuted by the City Attorney's Domestic VIolence Unit and subjected me to domestic violence statutes.  

It's irrelevant if I was served in open Court.  The Court told me  - and others - that this order expired on February 15, 2009 and I have provided DOJ with that evidence.  Paulette Brandt has already testified before LA Superior Court that Boulder Court personally gave her this information as well.

I do not know why Enichen was permitted to even issue the secret TRO.  Cohen flew in from Europe in the middle of a tour.  The concert he testified about was not until a year later.  I asked my PD to explain that and obtain the information from Boulder.  After the hearing, I went back to the Court and read Cohen's insane declaration.  It is filled with perjury, slanderous statements, and absurd allegations.  Therefore, I filed a Motion to Quash.  Enichen evidently condones perjury.  What else could I conclude?  I waived no claim.  I filed the Motion to Quash after the hearing and was very clear with this judge.  

I didn't violate the Colorado order.  I was convicted of violating a California domestic violence order using domestic violence statutes.  I was sentenced for, among other things, domestic violence statutory requirements.  I was fined for domestic violence restitution, etc.  Cohen's testimony is evidence of perjury re. the statutory required "dating relationship."  He testified one way at the March 23, 2012 hearing and admitted on the stand that he changed his testimony.  He was forced to admit that and did not willingly retract his testimony.  

I did not violate probation.  The City Attorney conspired, from what I can tell, with Gianelli.  See their emails.  Gianelli, who is a proxy, continues to criminally harass me and others.  He has criminally harassed me, my sons, friends, and many others since hearing from Michelle Rice in May 2009.  

All the best,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:37 AM
Subject: Fw

Ms. Lynch,
The May 27, 2011 California registration of the September 2, 2008 Colorado protective order did not “modify” or “transform” the Colorado order in any way; the California registration simply provided a gateway into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System  (CLETS), thereby making its terms readily available to California law enforcement officers in the field. In fact, the Colorado order is attached to, and incorporated by reference in, the California registration; The terms of the Colorado order were, are, and have at all times remained the terms of the Colorado order. See California registration with attached Colorado protection order here.
Please note that the Colorado protection order linked above bears your signature; you were served with it in open court. The Colorado order also states unambiguously on its face that it is a “permanent” order, meaning, there is no expiration date. (Also see section 4 of the California registration, under the blank for “expiration date” in which is typed “permanent”.)
Regarding your claim that Judge Enichen should have set the Colorado order aside based on alleged “perjury”, you waived that claim by and through your stipulation and request at the contested evidentiary hearing scheduled in the Colorado proceedings that the requested protection order be issued. (See the transcript of the Colorado proceedings, linked here: - see linked transcript beginning at page 21 line 16, where you affirm that you want to give up your right to an evidentiary hearing and expressly request that the order be made permanentand the court tells you if you do so you cannot subsequently request that the order be set aside as based on “fraud”. Simply put, these claims were thereby waived.
Your California criminal conviction of violating the Colorado order was challenged on direct appeal and through your petition for writ of habeas corpus and all of the arguments you raise here (and more) were roundly rejected by the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. When you were subsequently charged with violating your probation and returned to jail in January of 2014, you did not appeal the revocation of your probation.
These claims of yours – including your alleged “harassment” -  are pure nonsense.          
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
------------------------------------------Forwarded email------------------------------------------
From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:52 AM
To: "stan.garnett" <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>

What authority to you believe Los Angeles Superior Court had to modify the Boulder, Colorado order and transform it into a domestic violence order?  Boulder Combined Court has confirmed that the order was not a domestic violence order but I was prosecuted by the City Attorney using domestic violence statutes.  I was sentenced in accordance with those statutes and LA Superior Court attempted to extort fines/fees from me for domestic violence.

Leonard Cohen took the witness stand, acknowledged he changed his testimony re. the statutory required "dating relationship," and I have witnesses that he offered me 50% community property (palimony).

The paperwork Boulder Combine Court provided me prove why I was repeatedly advised that this order expired on February 15, 2009.  Unfortunately, Judge Robert Vanderet evidently told my lawyers that we could not attack the judgment.  Strange since Boulder Combined Court's statements are what I relied on re. the order expiring on February 15, 2009.  Paulette Brandt has testified that she was provided the same information - well in advance of the Court sending me the documents.  I did not willfully violate anything but think Enichen should have vacated this order due to the perjury.  

I would like to point out that Enichen was wrong when she advised me that the TRO matter was not an IRS matter.  Robert Kory wrote the IRS advising them that the Boulder order prohibited me from transmitting IRS form 1099 to Leonard Cohen.  Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, testified that the Boulder order prevents Cohen from providing me with IRS required information - including the IRS required form 1099 Cohen refuses to provide me.  Of course, Rice felt comfortable writing me on February 14, 2011 and lying to me with IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle copied in.  Cohen's lawyers have also attempted to argue that the order prevents me from effecting service on a corporation.

Where did Judge Enichen obtain jurisdiction that would permit her to subvert IRS requirements?  I personally cannot see it.  I also do not understand why so many judges in LA Superior Court are hearing IRS and federal tax matters.  

See attached.  The issue with the Boulder, Colorado order also resulted in a probation violation.  Of course, the prosecutor - who lied extensively throughout my trial (including about IRS matters) - retaliated against me.  That is overwhelmingly obvious.  

Stan, Stephen Gianelli continues to criminally harass me.  He evidently wrote Boulder PD.  I would like those communications preserved.  This activity has crossed many state borders and is now federal.  The same is true for the fraudulently registered California order.  I cannot see how a modified and fraudulent order can be given full faith and credit.  We shall see if "Family Court" agrees to dismiss it.  Possibly not - because that would mean liability for Los Angeles as it would involve two false arrests and imprisonments.  Also kidnapping when I was taken from the Bay Area to California on federal highways.  That's a federal matter that I'll address in my federal lawsuits against the City and County of Los Angeles.  

Kelley Lynch