Thursday, June 18, 2015

Stephen Gianelli a/k/a Mongochili Remains On The Payroll

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:05 AM
Subject: Fwd: "Limited powers of attorney" that you claim to be in possession of
To: Dan Bergman <>, Michelle Rice <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>,,

Daniel Bergman and Michelle Rice,

No one on earth, other than Cohen and his representatives, is this interested in his matters.  Mongochili is obviously "Stephen Gianelli."  What's a lie?  That I have limited powers of attorney?  Do you want to prove that false accusation together with the fraud in your Response document?  You don't get it - I had a limited power of attorney and was authorized to sign.  I have also spoken with attorneys about this matter as I have with respect to others.  One commented today that your fraud is now compounding.  That's precisely what I think.

Do I have to produce the limited powers of attorney to Mongochili, a criminal?  No.  If the Court wants to address this issue, I will be more than happy to address them and Judge Hess will get every single witness on the phone and address the criminal witness tampering via proxy because that is a very serious crime which I've discussed with FBI.

False accusations, theft, tactics, slander, fraud upon the court - great work.  I suppose only a judge could really appreciate this.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mongo chilli <>
Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Subject: "Limited powers of attorney" that you claim to be in possession of

We know that this is a lie, because your spontanious reaction on June 1 by email to Bergman, Rice, the FBI and others (then posted on your blog) to the accusation that the declarations contained "fabricated" signatures was to assert that the "declarations were prepared and sent to me" and that "the signatures are genuine".
Those statements are completely inconsistant with your testimony in the reply to the opposition that the witnesses provided you with "limited powers of attorney" and you then signed their names to the declarations. None of which makes sense either.
But the point you don't get is whether you had the witnesses' permission to sign their names or not, a declaration must be subcribed by the witness' own hand to be valid. By signing their names to their declaration, the declarations were worthless as evidenceBut you tried to pass those signatures off as genuine (a claim you made explicit on June 1), and it was only when Lenoard Cohen's attorneys called you on the deception that you admitted that the signatures were not genuine, that in fact you singned the witnesses' names to their declarations.
By preparing those declarations (including subscribing them) you violated Penal Code section 134. By actually filing them you violated Penal Code section 132. One count for each declaration falsely prepared, then fasely submitted, six counts total. (Two of the declarations stated on their face that they were signed by a person other than the declarant and were not misleading.)
Indeed, one signs for another pursuant to a power of attorney by signing THEIR OWN NAME "as attorney-in-fact for [insert name of prinicipal]", e.g., By Kelley Lynch, as attorney-in-fact for Rutger Penick". But you did not do that. You simply signed "Rutger penick" - thereby preparing and then submitting a fabricatred, misleading declaration that pretended to be valid but was in fact useless.
And you have now added PERJURY to your offenses.
If the "limited powers of attorney" - signed before you prepared and filed the declarations - exist, PRODUCE THEM.
Indeed, the fact that you FAILED to submit those (alleged) powers of attorney WITH your reply, and instead submitted INADMISSIBLE and imporper "letters" from the witnesses to the judge really says it all; if the POA's existed, you would have produced them with your reply.
You are digging a deeper hole for yourself with each passing day.
I guess that is what stupid criminals do. You ought to know....