Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To City Attorney Mike Feuer Re. The Ongoing Criminal Conduct On The Part Of Stephen Gianelli

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:34 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your email threat dated , February 16, 2015 10:54 PM to sue the City for failing to prosecute the undersigned
To: mike.feuer@lacity.org, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>,"Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>

Mike Feuer,

This particular criminally harassing email was sent to two of my gmail accounts.  This man uses numerous email accounts to harass me and others.  He also creates monikers such as the 14th Sheepdog and I have no doubt that he sent me one of the most vile emails i have ever seen in my life.  That email slandered Oliver Stone and FALSELY accused him of molesting my children and doing drugs around them.  That's a very very serious allegation against Mr. Stone.  The issues raised in that particular email related to issues your office raised during my 2012 alleged trial.

Gianelli is arguing your office's defense.  I want you to be very clear about this:  my emails are not only grievances, they are reporting criminal conduct to your office.  

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Subject: Your email threat dated , February 16, 2015 10:54 PM to sue the City for failing to prosecute the undersigned
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: "Vivienne A. Swanigan" <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>

Ms. Lynch,

Since 1963, all government tort liability in California has been based on statute. The legislation and amendments are codified in Government Code §§810-996.6. The Act applies to all public entities and their employees.

Claims for injury to person, property, or crops must be presented within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. Claims for all other injuries must be presented within one year of the accrual of the cause of action.

If the claim is rejected by the public entity, and notice is provided to the claimant that the public agency has rejected the claim, then the complaint for damages must be filed with the court no later than six months after the date of rejection.

There are numerous illusory and potentially meritorious defenses to government tort claims. Some of these immunities are contained in the California Tort Claims Act; the remainder are strewn through the California Codes. There is no tort liability for California governmental entities in the absence of an express statute or constitutional provision creating or accepting liability.

Except as provided otherwise by statute, “a public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” Govt. Code §820.2. Since the public employee is immune, the public entity employing the employee is also immune. Govt. Code §815.2(b). The decision by a public prosecutor to prosecute, or not to prosecute, is a discretionary act, and therefore immune from liability. This is true under federal law as well. See General Dynamics Corporation v. United States (9th circuit 1998, linked here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1097464.html. As stated in General Dynamics:

The decision whether or not to prosecute a given individual is a discretionary function for which the United States is immune from liability.” (Citing Wright v. United States, 719 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir.1983).) 

Public employees acting within the scope of employment are personally immune from liability for the prosecution of judicial or administrative proceedings even if they act maliciously and without probable cause. Govt. C. §821.6.

Heed these legal principles well Ms. Lynch. Given your criminal history, a suit or motion against those whom you have been harassing is likely to be viewed as more harassment. And has you have learned, harassing behavior has a downside.

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece