Friday, September 4, 2015

The Criminal Proxy's Obsession With Leonard Cohen Legal Matters - Including The Fraud Restraining Orders Used As Tactics To Discredit Kelley Lynch

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:21 AM
To: Michelle Rice <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, 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 <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>

Michelle Rice,

The Criminal Stalker is not the attorney of record in the fraud domestic violence matter.  He is clear that there were no findings in the Colorado restraining order matter.  I personally believe that transforming that order into a fraudulent domestic violence order is seriously problematic.  I don't agree with Judge SIlverman because it would have been impossible to raise this issue when I was unaware of it.  Maybe Judge Silverman knows how to address issues he is unaware of but that would be one hell of a skill.

This matter will be appealed and a lawsuit will be filed.

This is blatant harassment and as for his use of the word obscene.  I don't view curse words as obscene material.  Not in the year 2015 when it's part of our venacular.  I do know that your client is considered an obscene author and curses freely and consistently.  I also know that I am not His Holiness Kusum Lingpa whose quote about Cohen was falsely assigned to me.  Gianelli continues to harass me and terrorized my sons since hearing from you in May 2009.

I don't think my federal suits will be viewed as frivolous. 

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blog posted mass emails dated Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM

Ms. Lynch,

Any appeal of judge Silverman’s order denying your motion to set aside the May, 2011 registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order would be an exercise in futility in light of the definition of “foreign protection order” set forth in section 6401 – including any civil harassment order issued by a foreign tribunal under the anti-stalking laws of that state in that definition.

Second, one does not have to consult the boxes checked on the application for civil harassment order to ascertain whether or not the Colorado order was issued under the authority of its anti-stalking law ("Protection order" means an injunction … issued … under the … antistalking laws of the issuing state …”. That definition, by its plain language, refers to whether or not the code section under which the order was issued was intended to address the social evil of stalking and NOT whether the protected person presented evidence of “stalking” to support the order’s issuance. If the legislature wanted to limit the California registration of out-of-state civil harassment orders to orders issued following a factual showing of stalking behavior on the part of the restrained person it could have said so but did not. Instead, section 6401 requires that the order be issued under the law of the foreign state designed to address stalking.

The order registered in California in 2011 was a “permanent protection order”. The temporary protection order (which was superseded when the permanent order was issued) is the order that  was supported by the protected person’s testimony. The  permanent protection order issued September 2, 2008 is the order that was registered with the California court. That order was not supported by a factual showing at all because before that factual showing could be made at the hearing, you stipulated and agreed (indeed, requested) that the permanent protection order be issued.

More to the point, the permanent protection order appended to form DV-600 and registered with the California Court says right on the footer “Permanent civil protection order issued pursuant to § 13-14-102 C.R.S.” (all caps omitted).

Section 13-14-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes states, in relevant part:

“Any municipal court of record…shall have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a…permanent civil protection order…for any of the following purposes: (par) (d) [t]o prevent stalking.”

Therefore, there can be no doubt that section 13-14-102 C.R.S is Colorado’s “anti-stalking law” as that phrase is used in Family Code section 6401.

As such, the 2008 Colorado permanent protection order meets the definition of a “foreign protection order” subject to mandatory registration under Family Code section 6404 using court form DV-600. Nor can you be heard to object to the kind of evidence adduced at the September 2, 2015 hearing, because you interrupted the taking of evidence and requested that the permanent protection order be issued without the further examination of witnesses. The second page of form DV-600 itself explicitly states that it is the proper form to register out of state protection orders pursuant to section 6400.

Of course you can appeal once on the merits as a matter of course. But the propriety of the 2011 registration in California of the permanent protection order issued in Colorado under its anti-stalking law, that any such appeal would be completely and utterly without objective  merit subjecting you to sanctions on appeal under the standards set forth by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637.

Any separate federal lawsuit arising out of the California registration of the permanent civil protection order issued by the Colorado court would be barred by, among other things, the absolute privilege afforded to party litigants and their counsel from civil liability arising out of their court filings and as such would be objectively frivolous and sanctionable under FRCP, Rule 11.

Last, pointing all of this out to you after you chose to go public about your legal affairs and intended filings on your public blog and in mass emails is not “harassment” – not does this email contain obscene or abusive or threatening language that qualifies it as “harassment” under any applicable statutory definition.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: Case Number: BQ033717 - 09/01/2015 at 08:45 AM in Department CE7, Silverman, B. Scott, Presiding Motion DENIED
To: Michelle Rice <>, "*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 <>,
Michelle Rice,

I remain unconvinced that you may use form DV-600 to register an out-of-state order.  I would, however, appreciate the Senate Judiciary's input particularly given the tax implications of this entire situation and your novel position with respect to the Supremacy Clause.  

I intend to appeal this matter and am filing a federal lawsuit addressing the fraud restraining order solely.  There were no findings in Colorado and that includes with respect to "stalking."  It doesn't matter what boxes Cohen checked.  He is a proven and chronic liar - and that includes under oath.

The criminal stalker continues to harass me over Leonard Cohen.  This has gone on since he heard from you in May 2009.  That is not coincidental.

Kelley Lynch