Monday, May 25, 2015

Stephen Gianelli Attempts To Infiltrate The Phil Spector Defense. That's His Modus Operandi. Does He Want To Know If Doron Weinberg Would Handle The Third Trial?

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court
To: Stephen Gianelli <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>,, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>


I was referring to this email I wrote Lozzi.  You were not a recipient.  You grabbed it from my blog.  You are attempting to infiltrate the Phil Spector defense again.  Interested in knowing if Doron Weinberg would handle the third trial if the case were remanded?  Ask your friend.  I met with Doron Weinberg's friend and he wasn't a criminal stalker like you.  He seemed quite brilliant and really understood matters with IRS and FBI.  Write Doron Weinberg directly.  Don't copy me.  Write Lozzi and Hootnick and don't copy me.  You are arguing Spector prosecution theories online.  You are fooling no one.  Well, perhaps some mob moll.

Cease and desist, Liar.

Kelley Lynch

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli,

Are you on drugs?  You have criminally harassed, stalked, threatened, intimated, and slandered me for six straight years.  The same goes for my sons, sister, and many others.  Paulette Brandt is now in your sights.  You have threatened me with your alleged Mafia connections.  You have said I should die.  You recently
wrote that Paulette Brandt and I should commit suicide.

I do NOT want to hear from you.  Write Ed Lozzi on your own.  You responded to an email I wrote him.  You were not copied on that email.  You grabbed it from my blog that you are obsessed with and harass me over.  I said what I had to say to Ed Lozzi - he should stop lying about Phil Spector.  He doesn't know

Write Doron Weinberg.  If he wants to hear from a criminal stalker - sobeit.  I don't.  Perhaps Phil Spector is actually interested in the fact that Leonard Cohen now has three versions of his garbage Leonard Cohen "gun story" before LA Superior Court.  Cohen has now stolen millions from me, Machat & Machat, and stole and
sold Phil Spector's master tapes to Sony - per Steven Machat who, by the way, offered me a job after his father died.    

Ed Lozzi is insane from my perspective.  I spoke to him and am writing a book.  I also spoke to Detective Mark Lillenfeld, crime scene investigator, and others.  He told me he phoned the prison and advised them that Phil Spector could call in an assassination from prison.  That is insane and demands an investigation.

I am filing a federal RICO suit against Leonard Cohen and others.  Cohen and I have a hearing before Judge Hess on June 23, 2015.  You have attempted to intimidate nearly every witness that provided me with a declaration.  I wasn't fired.  I refused to meet with Cohen and his tax lawyer, hand over corporate records, and refused to
assist them in unwinding his fraudulent transactions.  I turned down his offer of 50% community property (and other settlement offers - made in front of witnesses which I also have in writing and provided to IRS and others).  He seemed to want to coerce false testimony from me against his representatives.  A great deal of that
was addressed in Natural Wealth's June 2005 lawsuit against Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory.  Cohen's plan to use fraudulent restraining orders was also addressed
months before it occurred.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who has now stolen millions from me and Machat & Machat.  He has embezzled approximately $6.7
million in assets belonging to Traditional Holdings, LLC and refused to pay what were allegedly loans back in 3 years at 6% interest.  The fraud default, in a matter
I was not served, has raised serious federal tax and corporate issues.  The court has no jurisdiction over me and/or the corporations not named as parties to the lawsuit.  My share of those entities, and the intellectual property, was wrongfully converted to Leonard Cohen.  The fraudulent financial issue continues to accrue.
You continue to serve as an informal member of Leonard Cohen's legal team and have since May 2009 when you heard from Kory/Rice.  You are arguing Spector
prosecution theories online - including at Truth Sentinel where you slandered me and Ann Diamond.  You are out of control.

You're a criminal, Gianelli.  No one ever said you're a crackpot.

You've also copied Alan Hootnick on this email?  Email Alan Hootnick and Ed Lozzi on your own.  I am convinced you attempt to infiltrate matters including Phil Spector's legal defense and the Leonard Cohen Criminal Tax Fraud matter with IRS and Treasury.  That would explain why you hunted down Agent Sopko's partner at DOJ.  I have never heard anything so insane in my life.  No wonder IRS blocked your emails as harassing.  You brought that to my attention.  I have, as LAPD's TMU advised me, maintained all of your criminally harassing emails.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, May 24, 2015 at 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Cc:, alan hootnick <>

Ms. Lynch,

1. “I wrote Ed Lozzi - not you.”? You are mistaken. (See below.)

2. You do not own the Spector case, which I have been covering ever since my San Francisco colleague Doron Weinberg was retained for the retrial in 2008. And it’s a good thing for Ms. Spector that you do not, since your extreme and malicious views and propensity to engage in personal attacks are unlikely to open hearts and minds, instead further turning the public against Phil Spector. (You have done more to harm the public perception of Phil Spector’s guilt or innocence than Ed Lozzi ever will.)

3. I am quite confident that Mr. Lozzi cares not at all whom you regard as a “criminal”, since your perception in that area is not exactly spot-on (including your self-serving views of your own criminal record).

4. Your ridiculous claims that you are going to sue your former employer in federal court (that you have been making in mass emails, bizarrely cc’d to the IRS, FBI, CIA and others) ever since he fired you and then obtained a $7M civil judgment against you in 2006 for the money you embezzled while in his employ are also wearing a bit thin ten years after the fact.

5. Not everyone who believes that Phil Spector deserves a new trial is a crackpot like Kelley Lynch.

Very truly yours,

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

From: Kelley Lynch []
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:38 AM
To: Stephen Gianelli; Edward Lozzi; *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; Kelly.Sopko;
Subject: Fwd: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court

Stephen Gianelli,

I wrote Ed Lozzi - not you.  You have been criminally harassing, stalking, threatening, intimidating, and slandering me and many others for six straight years now.  You relentlessly targeted my sons until my younger son wrote that this campaign of email harassment (and blogs) made him physically ill.  

You slandered me and Ann Diamond (falsely accusing her of "stalking" Leonard Cohen and lied when you said Mick Jagger obtained a restraining order against her).  You are arguing Spector prosecution theories on that site.  Dennis Riordan's appellate brief is clear - Clarkson's DNA was on the ammunition and gun and Bruce Cutler (in statements to the jurors and Mick Brown) that the gun was not Phil Spector's.  You appear to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecutor and an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal team.  

I am convinced (as are others) that you wrote the "bloody stump" email mocking my son's horrendous accident and falsely accusing Oliver Stone of criminal conduct.  

Cease and desist.  Write Lozzi on your own.  I've copied him in so that he's clear:  I view you as a criminal and have advised you over 20,000 times to cease and desist.  You worked with Michelle Blaine to target my blogs and email accounts.  Your best posting buddy is "Kelly Green" who f&*king hates Bruce Cutler.  That's why I remain convinced that you attempted to infiltrate Phil Spector's defense using me.  You are now targeting Paulette Brandt.  You argue Leonard Cohen's criminal tax legal arguments.  You are aware that Cohen and I have a hearing before Judge Hess on June 23, 2015 and I am filing a federal RICO suit against Cohen and others.  Make no mistake about that.

Ed Lozzi is attempting to advance his career by lying about Phil Spector and using his decease client to do so.  I have admonished Creative Artists Agency to be aware of this activity.  Lozzi could help his buddy Alan Jackson target another innocent human being or celebrity for that matter.  For instance, Eminem.  Pat Dixon and Alan Jackson do fear for their lives over his lyrics, don't they?

Cease and desist. 

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Subject: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court

Dear Ed, 
You latest blog post about the pending Spector “appeal” being mere grandstanding evinces a lack of understanding of the process that is now playing out in federal court. 

Now that the state court appeals (California Court of appeal, petition for review to the California Supreme Court) have been exhausted, Spector may now ask (and has asked) the federal district court to review the FEDERAL issues implicated by the conviction, of which there are several – including the so called “structural error” consisting of the prosecutor playing a Court TV video tape of the trial judge from a prior hearing held outside the presence of the jury in trial #1 indicating where an evidence technician (whose hands could only be seen by the court at the hearing) was testifying that she observed blood on the victim’s hands. (This was a key issue, because blood on the front of the hand would indicate a defensive position of the hand, blood on the back of the hand would suggest a suicide.) 
This is a meritorious issue, and if Riordan is correct that structural error was committed, it will result in an automatic reversal and retrial with no weighing of prejudice.  

It should also be noted that only one appellate court has looked at the case “on the merits” of the issues: The California Court of appeal. The petitions to the California Supreme Court [FN - below] and to the United States Supreme Court [FN] were discretionary (and decided on considerations OTHER THAN the merits of Spector’s arguments on appealTherefore, the fact that the California and United States Supreme Court denied the respective petitions for review is no reflection at all on the merit of Spector’s issues on appeal, including those now pending in the district court.

This issue is now being evaluated by a federal magistrate on the briefs submitted by each side under federal court case law decided under the United States Constitution.  By September of this year the magistrate judge will submit his report and recommended disposition of Spector’s petition (grant or deny) and then the assigned district court judge will sign off. The losing side in that decision may then appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That forum is where Spector appellate counsel Dennis Riordan is best known and respected by the justices, and has also had his highest rate of success – including Mr. Riordan’s recent successful appeal on behalf of Barry Bonds of his obstruction of justice conviction. (Bonds’ conviction was reversed on technical legal grounds, and he may not be retried.)

To write this process off as mere “grandstanding” or to infer from the prior decisions affirming the conviction during the state court appeal process (or from the US Supreme Court’s refusal to exercise discretionary review, which decision was not “on the merits” and was a one and a million shot to begin with) – that Spector has no chance of succeeding in the district court or in the 9th circuit would be a mistake.

Note also that Barry Bonds initially LOST in the 9th Circuit, but that Dennis Riordan convinced the either 9th Circuit to hear the case “en banc”, and it was during this process that Dennis Riordan won the case for his client. (The oral argument is on line, and you can see from the video the tremendous respect the justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have for Mr. Riordan and you can also see how posed and skilled he is arguing before the court.) This video vividly illustrates that with a lawyer of Dennis Riordan’s caliber representing the defendant,  the case truly “ain’t over till its over”.

I am no apologist for Phil Spector, nor do I have an opinion as to his guilt or innocence.

I simply believe that we cannot decide the case until he has had a fair trial, and that he has not had. The trial should have been about one thing only” Who was holding the gun when Lana Clarkson died. Instead, too much of the trial consisted of airing ancient history, 30, 20, and 10 years before Spector even met Clarkson.

Very truly yours,

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

FN- The California Supreme Court’s function is to preside over the orderly and consistent development of California case law. Therefore, the primary ground for granting a petition in a particular case is if review is necessary to secure uniformity of decision among the appellate courts or to settle an important question of law, as stated in California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b) The U.S. Supreme Court gives full consideration to but a small fraction of the cases it has authority to review. With many important categories of cases, the party seeking Supreme Court review does so by "petitioning" the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari." (See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 125412572350.) While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists some of the considerations that may lead the Court to grant certiorari. But the decision to grant or deny cert. is discretionary.