Friday, May 8, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To The Lawyer Representing Sam Manning's Daughter In Another Karina Von Watteville Fimbel Matter

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Sam Manning - Karina Von Watteville
To:, Stephen Gianelli <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>

Mr. Schachter,

One other point, if you would like to speak with me, Paulette Brandt, or Linda Carol, please feel free to call us.  I will absolutely be filing Linda Carol's declaration (which she is writing) with Judge Hess (Case No. BC338322).  It will be attached to my Motion to Vacate Leonard Cohen's fraudulent domestic violence order.  He uses restraining orders to discredit me.  And, it will be submitted to the Small Claims Court in the Paulette Brandt rental arrears case.  A Bay Area lawyer, I do not know, has relentlessly targeted me, slandered me, witness tampered, and stalked me - and many others - for six straight years now.  That includes my sons.  This is a declaration my younger son wrote.  Gianelli's vile emails made him physically sick.  Gianelli has targeted every single individual who provided me with a declaration.  My son's declaration can be found in this document.

Please review my site for further details.  Karina Von Watteville has attempted to argue, through Stephen Gianelli, that I harassed her.  That is a bald faced lie.  I sent her a handful of cease and desist letters and copied IRS, FBI, and DOJ in on those emails.  Cohen's tax fraud is egregious and neither he, his lawyers, nor this Criminal Stalker Gianelli speaks for IRS.  LA Superior Court refused to permit me to put Agent Luis Tejeda, head of fraud for Western Division of U.S., on the witness stand.  I don't think that will be true in my federal RICO lawsuit.  If Karina Von Watteville attempts to sue me or argues that I harassed her (when she is the person who became obsessed with me and began slandering me and lying about me) in a Court of law, that will become perjury and ICE will be formally notified.  I have had it with people I view as lying con artists.  

Stephen Gianelli is now writing Von Watteville's legal documents.  I've enclosed his argument submitted to the Small Claims Court where he and Von Watteville are attempting to defraud Paulette Brandt of rental arrears totaling $6,700.  The Court ruled in her favor but Gianelli began representing her.  He is now arguing directly with the Court over this matter.  

In any event, I am documenting everything and want to know why, after receiving Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter, Von Watteville contacted Leonard Cohen's lawyer.  She probably smelled cash but that's just my educated guess.

All the best,
Kelley Lynch

P.S.  Gianelli generally argues that I'm a drunken slut.  I rarely have a glass of wine.  He doesn't know me but has motive.  Here's Linda Carol's declaration that is still in draft from.  She thinks the information Von Watteville told her is relevant because it disturbed her and that's one of the reasons she wanted to rent a room from Paulette Brandt.  Gianelli is now threatening us over this declaration although it is being filed in Court and the truth is the defense to slander.  I don't know Von Watteville either and do not intend to know this woman.  The mediator in Small Claims told me to bring her conduct to the attention of the Small Claims judge.  I will and I will also send him Gianelli's criminally harassing and slanderous emails where he confirms that he is representing Von Watteville and writing legal documents for her.

Paulette Brandt Elliot vs. Karina Ingeburg Von Watteville Fimbel
Case No. LAM 14M09452


1.      Paulette Brandt is the plaintiff in this action and is also the moving party.

2.      Through her “motion for a new hearing” Brandt seeks to overturn the judgment of this court in favor of defendant Karina Von Watteville following the trial on the merits of Brandt’s complaint.

3.      Brandt seeks to avoid the clear statutory policy in favor of the finality of a small claims judgment in favor of the deendant provided by CCP Section 116.710(a) [plaintiff in a small claims action shall have no right to appeal the judgment on plaintiff’s claim], by filing a purported “motion for a new hearing” (trial) – which is a procedure that does not exist in the Code provisions applicable to small claims proceedings, based on grounds that are unknown in the law (inadvertent error by the court”).

4.      When the legislature enacted the less formal statutory scheme applicable to small claims proceedings (Code Civ. Pro. Sections 116.201 – 116.798), the intent was to render the post-trial motions applicable to unlimited jurisdiction civil cases, such as Brandt’s motion for a new trial on the merits.  INAPPLICABLE to small claims actions  (See Eloby v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 973, 975-976 [new trial motion procedure inapplicable to small claims proceedings the very purpose of small claims law – proving a summary means of resolving eligible disputes – would be frustrated if all of the normal post-judgment proceedings were to be made available in small claims cases; moreover, it would be incongruous, where the plaintiff had no right of appeal (citing Parada v. Small Claims Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 766).

5.      While Brandt could have filed a “motion to correct a clerical error in the judgment or to set aside and vacate a judgment on the ground of an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision” (see Code Civ. Pro. Sections 116.725; Judicial Council form SC-135), A.  Brandt DID NOT MAKE THAT MOTION, B.  Brandt is not asserting  clerical error” in the judgment (such was where the court intended to award $1,000 but mistakenly typed “$100” on the judgment form); and C.  Nor is Brandt complaining of an error of law.  Indeed Brandt implicitly conceded that the applicable statute of limitations for breach of an oral rental agreement is two years from the date of breach, she takes issue with the court’s fact finding function and his decision – after hearing all of the evidence – that the contract was breached when Von Watteville moved out of the apartment, instead of the date that Brandt now urges the contract was breached (when Von Watteville alleged received her social security check). 

6.      Granting a motion to vacate here would completely abrogate the finality provided by Section 116.710(a).

Date:  May 6, 2015
Signed:  Karina Von Watteville

Paulette Brandt Elliot vs. Karina Ingeburg Von Watteville Fimbel
Case No. LAM 14M09452


I, LINDA MURPHY, declare:
1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am Paulette Brandt’s roommate.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein.
2.         At some point in or around October 2013, I began an apartment search in the Los Angeles area.  Marie Jones posted an ad and I rented a room from her for the months of November and December 2013.  At that time, I met Karina Von Watteville a/k/a Karina Fimbel.  Ms. Watteville was living with Marie Jones and that is how I became acquainted with her.
3.         Problems arose between Marie Jones and Karina Von Watteville related to monies allegedly owed Ms. Jones.  The argument involved issues related to Ms. Watteville’s cats who were using the apartment as their kitty litter box and money owed Marie Jones.  Karina Von Watteville, who picks through people’s trash and brings items home, infested the apartment with bed bugs and cock roaches.  An argument arose over money allegedly due Marie Jones and the police were called.  This incident occurred in or around November/December 2013.
4.         I continued to look for a permanent and more appropriate room to rent.  Karina Von Watteville advised me that she previously lived with a woman by the name of Paulette Brandt who had an available guest room for rent.  Although prior to moving in with her, Karina Von Watteville did not know Ms. Brandt, she explained that she prevented her from ending up homeless after being evicted from the place where she was living at the time.  Ms. Von Watteville appeared to like Ms. Brandt very much, was complimentary about her, noted that she enjoyed living with her, and strongly encouraged me to contact Ms. Brandt about the room.  Ms. Von Watteville also explained that the apartment was clean, pretty, and assured me that Paulette Brandt was an excellent roommate and friend.  Ms. Von Watteville explained that Paulette Brandt was incredibly generous with her during the period of time she rented the guest room.
5.         Because I needed to know the amount of rent that I would be expected to pay, Karina Von Watteville and I discussed the fact that Paulette Brandt charged her $500/month rent and $50/month utilities.  Von Watteville confirmed that she owed Ms. Brandt this amount; intended to pay her when she received a lump sum social security payment; and mentioned that she felt bad about the situation.
6.         I contacted Ms. Brandt, visited the apartment, rented the room, and have lived here for over a year now.  Paulette Brandt and I get along extremely well.  The apartment is well kept and very pretty.  I have my own room and enjoy my privacy.
7.         At some point in or around June 2014, Karina Von Watteville advised me that she had received her social security check.
8.         Karina Von Watteville also explained to Paulette Brandt that she received her lump sum social security payment.  She made no attempts to reimburse her for the rental arrears. 
In June 2014, Paulette Brandt sent Ms. Watteville a rent demand letter.  She asked a friend of ours, Kelley Lynch, to email a copy of the letter to Von Watteville to ensure that it was received.  At that point, Karina Von Watteville began slandering Paulette Brandt and seemed obsessed with Kelley Lynch.  I have known Kelley Lynch for over a year and she is a very nice, courteous, and respectful individual.  Karina Von Watteville does not know Ms. Lynch but became increasingly upset with her over Paulette Brandt’s rent demands.  After receiving the rent demand letter, Von Watteville began slandering Kelley Lynch.  She specifically informed me that she intended to get Kelley Lynch in “trouble.”  Because she was calling me frequently about Kelley Lynch, I became somewhat alarmed and passed this information onto Ms. Lynch.  Karina Von Watteville also began looking for ways to harm Paulette Brandt.  She mentioned that she would like to find a way to force Ms. Brandt into homelessness.  I was shocked by her vindictiveness.
9.         In or around November 2014, Paulette Brandt filed a Small Claims Complaint against Karina Von Watteville addressing the rental arrears due and owing.  I personally served Karina Von Watteville the Small Claims Complaint.  She was extremely angry but did confirm that she had an agreement to pay Paulette $500/month rent and $50/month utilities.
10.         Karina Von Watteville has a habit of infesting apartments and properties with cock roaches, bed bugs, and leaving mounds of garbage and trash piled up.  In or around June 2014, Karina Von Watteville was living in a commercial space she rented under the name of Cover Girl Models.  She lived in the space with her cats.  I visited on one occasion and was shocked to note that garbage and trash was piled around the room and the cats were using the entire space as their kitty litter box.
11.       Karina Von Watteville evidently permitted her cats to use her room at Paulette Brandt’s apartment as a kitty litter box as well.  She informed me that, after receiving the formal two months notice from Ms. Brandt (asking her to vacate the premises), she retaliated by leaving bags of garbage and trash behind and intentionally permitted her cats to urinate and defecate in the room.  She also apparently infested Paulette Brandt’s apartment with cock roaches.
12.       I became friendly with the man who rented Karina Von Watteville an apartment immediately before she moved in with Paulette Brandt.  He explained that he was forced to ask her to leave because she infested his property with cock roaches and owed him $4,000 in back rent.  To the best of my knowledge, he has not been paid. 
13.       I do see Karina Von Watteville from time to time but she no longer speaks to me.  I am aware that, after receiving Paulette Brandt’s paperwork, she contacted Leonard Cohen’s lawyer.  Kelley Lynch was Cohen’s personal manager, is involved with legal matters related to him, and reported allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service. 
14.       Since I have known Kelley Lynch she has informed me that a man by the name of Stephen Gianelli has criminally harassed and stalked her, members of her family, and others.  He is now sending Kelley Lynch, and others, highly slanderous emails about me, Paulette Brandt, and Kelley Lynch.  I do not know this individual.  It is my understanding that he has offered Karina Von Watteville legal assistance with the Small Claims matter involving Paulette Brandt.  Neither Kelley Lynch nor I are parties to that matter.  I am aware that Karina Von Watteville communicated with Robert Kory (Leonard Cohen’s lawyer), and was legally assisted by Stephen Gianelli, because I have seen some of the slanderous and false emails he has sent Ms. Lynch and have had numerous discussions with people who were present at both Small Claims hearings.  At those hearings, Karina Von Watteville evidently attempted to use Kelley Lynch’s cease and desist letters to defend herself although her conduct with respect to Ms. Lynch has nothing whatsoever to do with the rental arreas she owes Ms. Brandt.  This is simply Karina Von Watteville’s attempt to retaliate over monies she personally owes for rent. 
15.       The following is an excerpt of Stephen Gianelli’s email confirming that he provided Karina Von Watteville with legal advice and addressing her phone call to Cohen’s lawyer.  This email confirms that Von Watteville did contact Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, after receiving Paulette Brandt’s rent demand letter and Gianelli is providing Von Watteville with legal advice:
“Ms. Von Watteville followed my advice and never even had to get to the other two defenses I specified; she won the hearing with the first issue out of the box:  The claim is time barred under CCP § 339 as arising from the breach of an alleged oral contract. Simple and elegant. No credibility issues to resolve. The shortest distance between point “A” and point “B”.  Game, set match … In contacting Robert Kory with advice about what to do ... “

16.       I was copied in on Kelley Lynch’s cease and desist letters addressing Ms. Von Watteville’s slanderous comments I (and others) repeated to Ms. Lynch.  Karina Von Watteville does not know Kelley Lynch, as I’ve said, and simply began bad mouthing her, told me she planned to have her investigated and get her in trouble, posted a Gold Record Leonard Cohen gave Kelley Lynch (that Von Watteville photographed) on her Google Plus account, and advised me that Ms. Lynch is an alcoholic.  Kelley Lynch does not have a substance abuse problem and is most definitely not an alcoholic.  These are merely slanderous allegations meant to undermine her credibility. 
17.       On May 4, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote Paulette Brandt (copying in Kelley Lynch) a letter that clearly relates to the Karina Von Watteville Small Claims matter.  He has falsely accused me of being involved with a vicious and malicious slander campaign against him.  I do not know this individual and have simply addressed the fact that he suddenly launched a slanderous campaign against me, Paulette Brandt, and Kelley Lynch.  It is my personal opinion that he is attempting to intimidate us.  He has been harassing and stalking Kelley Lynch for the entire time I’ve known her and this has apparently gone on for years now.  He seems crazy and his emails are threatening, slanderous, and vicious.  This man appears to be obsessed with legal matters that involve Phil Spector and Kelley’s former business partner, Leonard Cohen.  Paulette Brandt and Kelley Lynch are both close friends of Phil Spector’s, recently participated in an internet radio program about him, and Kelley Lynch is involved with ongoing litigation matters with Leonard Cohen.  This is an excerpt of Stephen Gianelli’s May 4, 2015 email falsely accusing me of slandering him and advising us that he will support any party opposing us. 
One  downside (of several)  to you signing on to Kelley Lynch’s vicious and malicious slander campaign against me (and many others) is that any non-lawyers who you and/or Ms. Lynch and/or Linda Carol are harassing or slandering and find yourselves opposing in litigation of any kind will have technical litigation support from a top Californian trial lawyer of 35 years’ experience who retired at the top of his game in 2013 – for free.

In any legal matter you and/or Ms. Lynch and/or Linda Carol may initiate or find yourselves otherwise involved in, you will find me supporting the other side at no charge.

18.       When Karina Von Watteville and I stayed with Marie Jones, I frequently heard conversations where Von Watteville would provide us with details about her former life as a ADDRESS THIS WITH SPECIFICITY FOR THE COURT.  She was incredibly graphic regarding what she would do with men and it sounded as though her activity was recent and took place in California.  I also heard many details about the elderly men in Von Watteville’s life and her litigation matters involving their estates.  I personally found these details upsetting and disturbing and this is one of the main reasons I wanted to look for a new place to live.  I believe this information is relevant because it addresses Ms. Von Watteville’s character.  She is an individual who appears to take advantage of others; gossips relentlessly; and does not have what one might call a life of her own.
19.       I have spent most of my adult life working as a model and actress and am now pursuing a college degree.  
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

This declaration is executed on this 5th day of May 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                                        Linda Carol