Friday, November 27, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. Her Federal RICO Suit Against The City & County of Los Angeles

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog post of 11/26
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" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The Criminal is now harassing me over my claims against the City and County of Los Angeles.  I simply wanted to put them on record of my intention to file a federal RICO suit.  I haven't been impressed with any government attorney I've seen in Los Angeles.  I'm not particularly impressed with people who set up innocent people; behave like sycophants; lie about others; deceive jurors into believing that lies are truths; and then retaliate.  Does that impress IRS, FBI, and DOJ?

This email is an attempt to elicit details re. the RICO suit I intend to file against the City and County.  Gianelli appears to be affiliated with Phil Spector's prosecutors, has argued prosecution theories online (such as Clarkson's DNA was not on the ammunition when, in fact, it was), and has argued that the defense never said the gun wasn't Phillip's.  Bruce Cutler clearly advised Mick Brown that the gun was not Phillip's.  Gianelli also works as an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal team and engages in witness tampering, witness intimidation, slander, harassment, stalking, and attempts to infiltrate and interfere with IRS, federal tax matters, and so forth.  Beyond that, the man (as many people have noted) is a psychopath.  Many people have reported his criminal conduct to their attorneys, law enforcement, and so forth.  Gianelli has also written that he worked with the City Attorney to have me falsely arrested on two occasions.  He had my prosecutor's email address and began harassing and slandering me with Streeter copied in.  My sons, sister, Paulette, and others were copied in.  The City Attorney retaliated over my grievances and Francisco Suarez,  who was harassed by Gianelli for over a year, advised me to abandon my appeal to put an end to the ongoing prosecutorial misconduct.  Francisco viewed Streeter's conduct re. the Valentine Card sent to FBI and DOJ as criminal obstruction of justice.  He viewed Gianelli's attempt to have my evidence sent to Michelle Rice (or one of Leonard Cohen's legal representatives) as a criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence.  Vivienne Swanigan encouraged this criminal to harass and provoke me.  Rice has done the same.  Swanigan also asked Gianelli to pass along an absolutely moronic official message from the City Attorney to me.  I think I have been clear about these issues.

However, Gianelli has attempted to elicit information recently about Steve Cooley and Bruce Cutler.  Cooley publicly aligned himself with Cohen during my trial and there are now three versions of Cohen's good rock 'n roll gun story about Phil Spector and a gun before LA Superior Court.  I'm not clear on which version the government believes but Cohen's testimony completely contradicts the version the DA used in the Phil Spector matter.  See prosecution motions in limine.  I will, of course, subpoena the Grand Jury testimony/transcripts to determine if the City Attorney also withheld Brady materials related to Cohen's statements being presented to the Grand Jury.  Mick Brown reviewed the transcripts and advised me that they were.  Cooley and his "Major Fraud Unit" (run by Spector prosecutors Pat Dixon and Alan Jackson evidently) elected not to prosecute Cohen for theft from me in the millions, etc.  I want to know if there was a quid pro quo between the DA's office and Cohen that resulted in the testimony about Phil Spector and a gun - during the DA election campaign (when both Alan Jackson and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich were running for that office) and following David Mamet's public comments that he believes Phil Spector was railroaded and is innocent.  I'm certain Mamet's film about Phillip with Al Pacino and Helen Mirren also upset the Spector prosecution.  After all, as my lawyer during my trial noted:  the City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS; they want to discredit you; and the DA (whose investigator was in the courtroom throughout the proceedings) does not want the Phil Spector verdict overturned.  I think that's true.  These dangerous clowns haven't nailed a celebrity since Fatty Arbuckle.  As for Cutler, the three letters he submitted to the Court as evidence will be  presented (with the trial transcripts) to the federal court.  I want the Court to advise me what is harassing in them and why the court doesn't believe Phil Spector had a right to know that Leonard Cohen was on the witness stand testifying about him and a gun.  Streeter elicited perjured testimony when Cohen acknowledged that he was a recipient on the April 18, 2011 email to Dennis Riordan.  That email was not authenticated and Cohen perjured himself when he testified that he was a recipient.  Furthermore, the thread in that email to IRS Commissioner's Staff and with respect to extremely legitimate federal tax matters was willfully concealed by the prosecutor who did this by saying "I misspoke."  She did not "misspoke."  Streeter wanted to elicit testimony about Phil Spector and a gun.  The trial was nothing other than a set up.  

I was advised that the Colorado order expired in February 2009 - by the Boulder Combined Court.  The May 25, 2011 domestic violence order Cohen obtained (which I was unaware of) is evidence of fraud.  That fraud includes VAWA funding fraud.  These issues will be addressed.  

Criminal conduct is evidently "privileged" in Los Angeles.  Gianelli is now covering his ass by saying that his questions are not intended to elicit a response.  I am not communicating with Gianelli.  The man is a criminal who has routinely been advised to cease and desist.  He slanders me in his harassing emails; lies to government officials about me; continues to criminally harass members of my family and friends such as Paulette Brandt.

The federal court will determine if my RICO suit is properly pleaded.  What is the issue here?  A self-represented individual is held to higher standards than a lawyer in federal court because they require a fee waiver?  That sounds totally and wholly unconstitutional and outrageous.  Let the Court decide.  Neither the City nor County have advised me that Gianelli will be their attorney of record.  These are the parties who were given notice that I intend to file a RICO suit against the City and County.  I am anticipating further lies, unconscionable government conduct, and vicious tactics.  That's how these people operate.  

The City Attorney lied about federal tax matters and that would include, but is not limited to, the IRS required tax and corporate (1099s AND K-1s) Cohen refuses to provide me for 2004 and 2005.  The documents in the "IRS Binder" raise very serious legal issues with respect to Leonard Cohen's fraudulent tax returns using the fabricated narrative in the Complaint I wasn't served.

As my appellate attorney wrote - my trial was a federal tax matter and demands an investigation by IRS.  It was also used as an opportunity to further demonize Phil Spector and discredit me.  In fact, when people hear details about my trial, they think I am literally discussing Phil Spector's murder trial.  The jurors evidently thought they were hearing a federal tax case because they wanted to hear from IRS.  Unfortunately, the judge refused to wait two hours to give Agent Tejeda (IRS) the opportunity to meet with IRS/DOJ attorneys about his testimony.  Vanderet intentionally sabotaged my defense and had no jurisdiction over me as there was and remains no domestic violence order.  There is a fraudulent registration of a sister state order, issued without findings, and which was not a domestic violence order.  LA Confidential will not be assigning me a "dating relationship" with Leonard Cohen.  I was never in a "dating" or "engagement" relationship with Cohen and sexual harassment, indecent exposure are not elements of "dating."  Neither is looking at people defecating on one another online in front of your female colleague.  Cohen's conduct was beyond unprofessional.  It was outrageous.  He has merely lied about being my "lover" because he moved offensively and understood that Greenberg raised the fact that Cohen forced me to read legal and business documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths (and exposed himself to me) in the federal lawsuit in Colorado.  The City Attorney and LA Superior Court have a very warped definition of "dating."  The City and County are the individuals with the "expectation of affection" when it comes to Leonard Cohen - not I.  In my mind, Leonard Cohen is nothing other than a chronic liar, thief, and con artist.  He has now stolen from me, Machat & Machat, and probably Phil Spector (according to Machat).  He simply uses awe inspired groupie journalists to advance his inane stories about his participation in CIA's MKLUTRA; role as reconnaissance for CIA (or some agency/military) during the Bay of Pigs (that resulted in Castro's forces arresting and interrogating him as a member of the first CIA landing party); his intention to go to Israel during the Yom Kippur War to join the Israeli Army (without any military training whatsoever), etc.  And, of course, his entire Complaint against me is a fabricated narrative, wholly unsupported by the evidence, meant to defend Cohen against the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  Cohen also evidently believes that he personally was entitled to steal or embezzle approximately $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from Traditional Holdings, LLC (the so-called retirement account).  He signed documents acknowledging that he personally understood that his loans had to be repaid within 3 years at 6% interest.  As Steven Machat has publicly noted:  Cohen falsely accuses his representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts.  Leonard Cohen has stolen from me and the corporate entities.  He has simply decided to falsely accuse me in order to conceal his own wrong-doing.  Canada's National Treasury cannot live in Canada due to residence and tax issues.  I think that really sums up this fraud.  He is, however, in bed with local government actors in Los Angeles and clearly feels protected and emboldened.  Also, LA Superior Court condones fraud and perjury.  Cohen has literally confessed to perjuring himself on the witness stand.  He testified that I never stole from him and we were in a purely business relationship.  That totally undermines and contradicts both his Complaint against me and the fraud domestic violence order.  That's totally cool with LA Superior Court;  they permit contradictory testimony from one courtroom to the next.  

In any event, the Criminal Stalker is on a fishing expedition.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:09 AM
Subject: Your blog post of 11/26

Ms. Lynch,

Why did you bother to transmit to the City and the County of Los Angeles government claims in 2014 if it is your contention that the Government Claims Act is inapplicable to your claims against the City and County?

How is it that you could think that in view of your letter to the City and County dated July 31, 2014 and republished on your blog on 11/26 that characterizes your claims as arising out of your “false arrest” on 1/22/ 2014 (a reference to your remand following an adverse adjudication by the court in your probation revocation matter) and further complaints of the May 25, 2011 judicial registration of a 2008 Colorado protection order does not make explicit that your claims arise out of litigation conduct that is absolutely privileged pursuant to California Civil Code section 47, a privilege that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized operates as a defense to an alleged section 1983 civil rights case arising out of criminal or civil litigation?

These questions are rhetorical and not intended to elicit a response.

Because there is no logical response. Your entire litigation “position” makes no sense at all and will not survive initial judicial screening on the merits when the Central District Court reviews  your application for fee waiver – an element of which is an arguably meritorious claim.

You may fool people with no legal sophistication into believing that you have viable claims but not lawyers and certainly not the lawyers working for the City and County who litigate 1983 claims by disgruntled criminal litigants routinely.

Stephen R. Gianelli
Crete, Greece