Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Is IRS, FBI, & DOJ Interested In The Criminal Stalker's Swamp Land In Florida Sales Pitch?

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog-posted email dated Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

Hi IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Are you interested in swamp land in Florida also?  In any event, the criminal harassment over my appeals, the fraudulent domestic violence order, etc. continues.  This is a proxy criminal who continues to argue Leonard Cohen legal issues.  He has since hearing from "Michelle Rice" in May 2009.  He also relentlessly harassed both of my sons for over six straight years.  Please review Rutger and Ray's declarations.  I want you to keep in mind how frequently I brought this to the attention of the City and District Attorneys of Los Angeles - including when Ray was a minor.  Also LAPD.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:41 PM
Subject: Your blog-posted email dated Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM

Ms. Lynch,

As I am sure you know, I do not represent and will never represent Leonard Cohen.

One clear indication of this, aside from the facts that you have been expressly so advised ad nauseam and that the Cohen’s counsel on the referenced appeal is Michelle Rice (and not the undersigned), is that I am bothering to point out your failings to you at all.

If I represented Leonard Cohen’s interests I would not have written to advise you of the Department 7 judge’s qualifications and published “pet peeves” nor would I have advised you that you were in default regarding Appeal -  Case Number B265753. Nor would I have bothered to give you any of the other chapter-and-verse primers on the law revealing your various pending legal claims to nonsense.

I would be giving you no “heads up” or assistance at all.

I certainly would not have mentioned certain propensities on your part that annoy the judge you will be appearing in front of on September 1.

As for the appeal, I would have let you simply receive the default notice in Monday’s mail and then let you scramble around trying to figure out what “statement” was being referenced and I certainly would not have pointed out to you a pitfall in filling out the case information statement that could potentially lead to a dismissal of the pending appeals.

You really are quite clueless when it comes to helpful tips. If you were not so obsessed with trying to instantly scream “harassment” every time someone sneezes in your earshot, you might learn something that might make the difference between a hearing on the merits and none at all.

Nothing will win the day for you, however. Your issues are so meritless that even token opposition would defeat them – let alone the polished and spot opposition that you were served with on August 17. But at least you might make it to oral argument in B265753 without the case being dismissed on procedural grounds. If you had the capacity to listen and learn. Which you obviously don’t.

Very truly yours,

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