Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. Ongoing Criminal Harassment & Cover Your Ass Operation

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:05 AM
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" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

These are the two latest criminally harassing emails from Gianelli.  Rice was indeed incoherent but this is a cover your ass operation and attempt to elicit information.  The matters are under appeal.  I wasn't served and that's a fact.  Cohen's declaration states that I was and he provided photographs of me.  The Court said Jane Doe was sub-served - not me.  One cannot follow this logic it is so inconceivably rotten.  My motions addressed the procedural and legal issues.  There was no need to argue anything further apart from my attempts to object to Rice's lies.

The corporations, inserted into the fraud default, were suspended.  Suspended corporations may not sell, transfer, or exchange property.  The fact that these corporations were not named as parties, including in Colorado re. the Greenberg suit, is an issue that will be addressed in my federal RICO suit.  The same is true for Cohen's tactics - including the fraud order in Colorado, issued without findings, and the fraudulent registration of that order in California as a domestic violence order.  Los Angeles will not be assigning me a "dating relationship" with Cohen when local government actors clearly have the expectation of affection with respect to him.  In fact, it appeared to be a quid pro quo that involved Cohen's deranged testimony about Phil Spector.  


From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Subject: Your blog post dated October 20

Ms. Lynch,

You had a number of viable issues available to argue on 10/6 that I referenced in my prior correspondence and won’t repeat here. But the corporate status of some of the Cohen related entities referenced in the Complaint and the default J in BC338322 wasn’t one of them.

First, if a corporation is suspended it may not prosecute litigation. That rule only applies to the named PARTIES. As long as the corporate PLAINTIFF in BC338322 was in good standing in 2005-2006, there is no problem at all. The declaratory judgment purports to determine your claims to ownership in those entities – not sue on their behalf, which is a critical distinction but one you are not equipped to understand apparently.

Second, by defaulting, you WAIVED any objections based on the status of the parties and the sufficiency and/or truthfulness of the evidence adduced at the default hearing. If you wanted to assert those issues, the way to do it would have been to enter an appearance and raise those objections in your answer and/or cross-examination or affirmative evidence at trial. The way NOT to do it is to ignore service then allow judgment to be entered by avoiding the  default hearing you were notified of as to time/date/department by the email from Edelman’s office that you acknowledged receiving by replying to it and then waiting until 2013 to file your first motion to vacate the judgment. You learned the hard way where that path leads: To a $14M judgment that is earning $1.4M in  annual statutory interest, and no more procedural cards to play.

Any lawyer will tell you the same thing. But you don’t want to know the legal truth of your circumstances. You simply want to rant and rave.

Very truly yours,

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

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:28 AM
Subject: Your blog post dated October 20 - Part II

Additionally, Ms. Lynch, instead of arguing valid procedural points – like the fact that Judge Hess did not address the merits of your lack-of-service claim on 1-14-2014, because your declaration was unsigned and because of your alleged lack-of-diligence and  that no final, binding or appealable order arising out of the 1-14-2014 hearing was ever signed or entered (thereby calling into question the basis for Hess’ ruling on 6-23-2015, which was ruling also avoided the merits of the lack-of-service claim), as well as pointing out that the court held your 2013 motion to vacate to be untimely, whereas, your motion to set aside the RENEWAL of the judgment,  as long as it was filed within 30 days of mailing of the notice of renewal,   was timely and not subject to due diligence arguments that were available in opposition to your earlier motions to vacate – you simply repeated the claim “I was never served” over and over again, banging against that closed door.

As for Ms. Rice, NOTHING she said made sense. She was basically incoherent. And she got completely sidetracked from the core grounds for her motion for sanctions, the lack of objective merit of the second motion to set aside the judgment, instead getting bogged down with your alleged violation of an order for the production of personal property that was not made a part of the original sanctions motion and also had other, more traditional remedies (e.g. an OSC re: contempt filed in the other proceeding). Nor did Ms. Rice take Hess by the hand and lead him through the 9th circuit case authorizing the very relief under section 128.7 that she was requesting – leaving Hess unsure that Rice was asking for the appropriate remedy.

As a result, both you and Ms. Rice LOST the motions on which you each bore the respective burdens of persuasion. You lost your two affirmative motions, she lost hers.

Your failings at oral argument are understandable. You are not a lawyer.

Rice’s performance, in view of her bragging emails about being at the top of the billing scale for litigators because she is such a hot-shot successful court room lawyer was nothing short of PATHETIC.

Rice may be a member of MENSA and she may have an IQ of 170 (as she brags) but she cannot think on her feet, and her inexperience shows. Moreover, she has no potential as a court room lawyer. She was as clueless in department 24 on 10/6/2014 as you were – only more babbling and less articulate.

The transcript does not lie.