Thursday, May 21, 2015

No One Asked A Criminal Stalker To Keep Them Informed About Phil Spector; Nor Do We Need A Stranger, Who Argues Spector Prosecution Theories Online, Harassing Us Over This Matter

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Federal district court decision on Spector habeas petition expected by September, 2015
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, 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" <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>,

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

This is another highly material email.  I've advised this criminal relentlessly to cease and desist and I can assure you that I didn't ask someone arguing Spector prosecution theories online to keep me posted about developments in the case.  I have my own sources of information that are far more reliable than my stalker's.  Stephen Gianelli worked with Michelle Blaine to target my accounts and his best posting buddy continues to be "Kelly Green" of Darwin Exception fame.  I think that sums things up.

I am now reviewing evidence.

All the best,


Motion for Issuance of Report & Recommendation
Paul Abrahms Civil Minutes - 03.12.2015

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Subject: Federal district court decision on Spector habeas petition expected by September, 2015
To: blind <>

Several of you have asked me to keep you informed about post judgment developments in the Phillip Spector criminal case.

On March 10, 2013, Spector a counsel asked the court to issue its magistrates report and recommendation to the judge as to the disposition of Spector’s pending habeas petition, again pointing out Spector’s advanced age and ill health and brining the court’s attention to the local rules, which state: states: “The Court shall render and file its decision on motions and non-jury trials within 120 days after the matter is submitted for decision.” (Civil Local Rule 83-9.1.)

On March 12, 2015, federal magistrate Paul L. Abrams responded as follows:

“The Court has reviewed petitioner’s Motion for Issuance of Report & Recommendation, filed on March 10, 2015. The Motion is granted to the extent that the Court anticipates issuing its Report & Recommendation in this action by September, 2015. The Motion is denied to the extent it seeks the issuance of the Report & Recommendation prior to that time.” (Bold type original.)

Typically, the court will adopt the magistrate’s recommendation in the form of a dispositional order, which may take a few additional months (or not). Therefore, the matter should be decided by the district court by the end of the year.