Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI, & DOJ Re. the Criminal Stalker's Ongoing Harassment, Etc.Over Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM
Subject: The Criminal Stalker
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, 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 <>,, alan hootnick <>, bruce <>

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The Stalker has decided to bombard me with emails about my federal RICO suit.  He is lying when he says that I am emailing him.  He is emailing me – including about his Mexican holiday with his wife – and has now created a new email moniker, Urgyen Trinley Dorje, with which to harass me with.  That is the name of one of the two 17th Karmapas.  Gianelli creates email monikers related to my teachers, the 17th Karmapa and 14th Sharmapa.  For example, the emails this criminal has sent from the 14th Sheepdog and 17th Shitzu fake email moniker accounts.  The stalker also continues to visit my blog and then harasses me over posts there.  That would include, but is not limited to, posts that represent my email communications with IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

What is on this criminal’s mind at this time?  RICO.  The criminal stalker, a legal representative of Leonard Cohen’s, is now obsessed with my RICO suit, writing legal opinions, arguing in defense of Leonard Cohen, and so forth.  I think the Criminal Stalker would like to know how many individuals are reading my blogs.  Well, it’s hundreds of thousands of people from around the world.  What managed email account is the stalker writing about?  His wife’s?  Why did the criminal stalker copy me on emails – where his wife was included – regarding his trip to Mexico, etc?  The situation remains entirely creepy. 

I find Gianelli’s interpretation of Rooker Feldman moronic.  However, Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have an answer for everything:  theft, copyright infringement, false arrest, perjury, fraud, tax fraud, etc.  The system works beautifully for criminals.  I have indeed mentioned Gianellli’s name throughout my Complaint.  The reason for that is he is Leonard Cohen’s operative, proxy, co-conspirator, and has terrorized my sons and others for approximately seven straight years.  I personally believe the court should take that seriously.  My argument that there is egregious fraud upon the court in Colorado is not premised solely on the fact that the California judgment is evidence of fraud and theft.  There is fraud upon that Court, Rice had my address changed, I was served nothing in that case after I was evicted, etc, and I explained to Judge Babcock my grave concerns about criminal tax fraud.  Leonard Cohen’s argument is this:  he got away with it in his mind.

The state court judgments are products of fraud and that’s an exemption re. Rooker-Feldman.  The 9th Circuit is clear about that fact.  LA Superior Court had no jurisdiction to enter the fraud judgment.  I believe there is ample evidence before the federal court that I wasn’t served.  That would include the declarations of Joan Lynch, John Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, Daniel Meade, and Paulette Brandt.  There is a fraud exemption to Rooker-Feldman even if the criminal stalker argues that there is not.  My reliance on Chevron has nothing whatsoever to do with Rooker-Feldman.  Chevron and my cases are similar in that a fraud judgment was used for the purposes of extortion and with respect to the tactics used.  Chevron relied on Hazel-Atlas as do I.  It is irrelevant if the corrupt persuasion involves submitting fraudulent and fabricated evidence to a judge or bribing a judge.  It seems as though the entire body of law re. fraud is irrelevant in the minds of many courts, Leonard Cohen and his lawyers, and – of course – the criminal stalker.

It would be difficult to “relitigate” something that was never litigated in the first place.  If this court has the audacity to dismiss this case, it will be appealed.  Make no mistake about that.  This court system was not created so that criminals with motive can use it to destroy the lives of others, steal from them, and protect themselves from their own criminal conduct.  This case will also go to the U.S. Supreme Court because I think the courts are ignoring fraud upon the court, fraudulently obtained judgments, and an entire body of law related to those matters.  I also happen to think that egregiously harms the taxpayers.

Does the stalker want to talk about my copyright infringement claim?  Rooker Feldman has a fraud exemption.  The agreements are not oral and the non-revocable assignments, etc. were submitted to the court.  The transfer of ownership of the copyrighted materials was set forth in writing and that’s why the court has the non-revocable assignments.  The 2006 judgment is silent as to the intellectual property.  In October 2015, Rice informed LA Superior Court that the assets are “out there.”  I have no idea where but intend to find out.  Furthermore, the copyright infringement matter is a federal issue – not a state court issue.  The fact that Cohen and his lawyers transferred the property of suspended corporations to Leonard Cohen (and possibly his wholly owned LCI) is also a very serious issue.

I have no idea why the stalker is writing about my false arrests.  I didn’t argue that as an issue.  It is part of the scheme to defraud, discredit, destroy, and extort.  Evidently criminal conduct is entirely privileged in California.  I find that offensive.  The false arrests were nothing other than criminal witness tampering and an attempt to obstruct justice.  LAPD’s report is entirely clear:  my emails were generally requests for tax information that I still do not have although the prosecutor and her witnesses lied about this throughout the trial. 

Gianelli’s subject lines are meant to mislead.  He is not copied on the emails he is referencing.  For instance, email to the “IRS/FBI, Blah, Blah, Blah” with Alan Hootnick copied.  He’s merely referring to an email posted to my blog.  I wasn’t served Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.  Service is not a criminal throwing up an unverified document online.  It also does not involve purchasing a copy of the Complaint.  Gianelli, of course, also wants to discuss Phil Spector.  He has no one who is in contact with Phil Spector and lies publicly that I’ve never heard from Mr. Spector while he has been incarcerated.  He simply wants to see the communications which he is not entitled to see as he doesn’t know me or Phil Spector.  Why shouldn’t the court listen to the interview with Truth Sentinel?  The questions and answers are relevant and material.

The criminal, Stephen Gianelli, who has terrorized my sons and attempts to intimidate witnesses continues on with his crusade.  He is a member of Cohen’s legal defense team and attempts to elicit information about Phil Spector.  That is entirely clear.



From: Urgyen.Trinley.Dorje <>
Date: Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Your RICO suit against Leonard Cohen

We regret to inform you that your RICO complaint will be short lived (what is it the lawyers say? "DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE").

Kelley, you didn't really think that you could magically undue every adverse consequence you experienced since "parting ways" with Leonard Cohen in Octobelr of 2005 by simply filing a 250 page peice of paper with the federal district court, did you?

Have you looked at the attachments to your complaint? Cohen sued you in August of 2005. Declarations you claim are full of "perjury" and their transmission to the Los Angeles Superior Court occured MORE THAN 10-years prior to the date you filed your complaint.

There are no do-overs in life, Kelley.

Urgyen Trinley Dorje

From: Urgyen.Trinley.Dorje <>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Subject: Your spam emails

Your four blog followers can read them on your blog if they wish (YAWN) but the people you cc'd with your latest spam-o-gram have all blocked and/or are ignoring you, Oh, and the spouse you THINK you are emaling does not manage, read, or see the email account you are spamming and never has seen a single email from you. Remember these words my little  dukkh-in-the-ass: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Urgyen Trinley Dorje

Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM
To: blind <>

My “interpretation” of Rooker-Feldman is VERBATIM from controlling case authorities.

But no matter. In a few days the court will rule down the line and agree with my analysis in every single respect.

It’s that obvious.

Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Subject: Legal reality
To: blind <>

You continue to email me. Additionally, you mention my name throughout your prolix 250 page RICO complaint as an alleged “co-conspirator”. Apparently, you won’t be ignored. Fine.

I have extensively laid out for you the various legal principles that are fatal to your federal suit – citing statutes and cases that you could have easily looked up and read for yourself – months before you file it. Statute of limitations, res judicata, Rooker Feldman, and the federal court pleading requirements imposed by the Supreme Court.

Clearly, your complaint is primarily focused on prior litigation proceedings taking place between August of 2005 and October of 2008. Moreover, your contention that “fraud” was committed in connection with the Colorado federal court proceedings in the Agile litigation is premised on the assumption that the May, 2006 California judgment in BC338322 is “fraudulent”, the product of “perjury” and should be set aside.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be empowered to adjudicate if the federal plaintiff seeks to overturn a state judgment.  Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005).  The doctrine “is confined to . . . cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”  Id. at 284. 

You initiated the instant federal proceedings to attack collaterally and to seek enjoinment of a preexisting state judgment in BC338322. present claims arise from the state court proceedings and are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment–i.e., reversal of the state court’s judgment would be a necessary part of the relief requested by you district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review his claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  See Exxon, 544 U.S. at 291; Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995). Indeed, not only is your complaint “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s judgment in BC338322, you expressly ask the district court to set it aside! There can be no doubt – none – that Rooker-Feldman applies.  

Although you contend that the California judgment was procured through “fraud”, “there is no such thing as a ‘fraud exception’” to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  (Truong v. Bank of America, N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 384 n.6 (5th Cir. 2013).)

For these reasons alone your suit will be dismissed. Rooker-Feldman deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction to even entertain it.

Your reliance on Chevron v. Donziger is misplaced.  Rooker-Feldman applies only to state court judgments, not to foreign judgments, as in Chevron v. Donziger, setting aside the lack of a $500,000 bribe to a judge in connection with the entry of the 2006 judgment.

There are the other fatal defects I mentioned (including the statute of limitations --See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001)

(RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury underlying his action).

You may NOT relitigate a state court judgment in federal court, period.

You may not address damages flowing from a 2006 judgment by suing for RICO in 2016 – ten years later (even if you only learned of it in 2010 as you claim in the papers attached to your RICO suit). It is time barred.

Filing papers in court, even declarations you know claim to be perjurious, is not “racketeering activity” without more (e.g., the type of corruption plausibly pleaded then proven in Chevron v. Donziger.)

Under these circumstances, me pointing these things out is not “harassment” nor is it “lying”. It is simply legal reality, a legal reality that will be confirmed in a matter of days (not months) when the district court dismisses your RICO complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 USC § 1915 (e).

After that, IF you can afford a $500 filing fee, you can appeal the judgment of dismissal to the 9th Circuit court of appeal, which court will affirm the order dismissing your case.

It’s just that simple.

The fact that you don’t like the rules of jurisprudence, developed in this country over decades for very important policy reasons that you could not even begin to appreciate, is completely irrelevant to the legal reality of your situation.

Now, kindly shut up until the district court confirms my prior analysis.

Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Subject: Copyright infringement claim
To: blind <>

I have already demonstrated the reasons why your federal suit – which relies on the invalidity of the 2006 judgment – must be dismissed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. I also note that you have a copyright infringement claim, based on your claim of an ORAL agreement with your former employer to assign you 15% of his intellectual property “in perpetuity”.

1. Under federal copyright law, the transfer of an ownership interest in copyrighted material must set forth in a writing, signed by the grantor (Cohen) and describing the interest to be transferred. (17 USC § 201 (d) (2), 204 (a).)

2. Under California law, a contract that cannot be performed in one year or less (“in perpetuity”) must be in a writing, signed by the party to be bound (Cohen).

3. Unless the 2006 judgment in BC338322 is in effect set aside by the district court (which is may not be under Rooker-Feldman), a principle of res judicata known as “issue preclusion” would stand in the way of any claim by you that you are entitled to any interest in any intellectual property owned by Cohen, since the declaratory relief portion of the judgment expressly finds otherwise.

For all of these reasons, your copyright infringement claim is a non-starter, meaning it must be dismissed with prejudice along with the rest of your claims.

The analysis is really very simple.

Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM
Subject: State law false arrest claim
To: blind <>

Setting aside the fact that a criminal conviction (which establishes for res judicata purposes that you were guilty of the crime for which you were arrested beyond a reasonable doubt – way more proof than required to meet the “probable cause” standard for a valid arrest – as well as the fact that a victim’s report to police that an alleged crime has been committed is absolutely privileged under California Civil Code § 47, you are aware, aren’t you, that the California statute of limitations to sue for false arrest is TWO YEARS from the date of the arrest? (See  Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.)

It’s simple math: Arrested in 2012 + two years = deadline to sue expiring in 2014, meaning that (in addition to other fatal defects in your state law false arrest claim against the RICO defendants) your claim is TIME BARRED.

Again, the analysis is very simple.

Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch dated Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:16 PM to the IRS/FBI Blah, Blah, Blah
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Cc: alan hootnick <>

You write: “For the record, I still haven't been served Leonard Cohen's lawsuit so the argument that I knew about it in April 2010 is absurd.”

Ms. Lynch, have you even read your own complaintYou ADMIT that you knew about Cohen’s lawsuit AND the default judgment against you (not to mention the declarations filed in support of the default J) no later than April of 2010 when I posted them on

You also attach hearing transcripts from 2014 and 2015 before Judge Hess wherein he specifically references that admission by you, and holds that you have failed to adequately explain your delay in filing a motion to vacate the default J from 2010 to October of 2013. He also references the fact that you delayed from January of 2014 (when the first motion was denied) more than a year until 2015 to file your second motion asking for an order vacating the default J.

The issue is not the validity of the J, it is the RICO statute of limitations of four years, which if your discovery of the damage caused by the default J was in 2010, expired in 2014.  Meaning, you cannot save the complaint by amendment. Meaning, it will be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

PS: I forwarded an email I just received from my friend who speaks to Phil Spector frequently. He cut off all contact with you in 2004 and has instructed prison staff not to forward your letters to him. He has never responded to you. He “doesn’t even want to hear your name”.

You are utterly clueless about how others perceive you.

Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 12:14 PM
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Cc: blind <>

Ms. Lynch,

You write to the FBI (and your other typical cc recipients):

“Gianelli is not the judge and his interpretations of RICO, Rooker Feldman, etc. are moronic and misleading.”

That is what I love about litigation. We will know PRECISELY  whether my views on the merits of your RICO filing are “moronic”, or, on the other hand are spot-on as soon as there is an order following the Court’s section 1915 (e) merits review.

No more BS, not more bluster.

I was either wrong (“moronic” as you put it) or I was quite right.

Perhaps after being spot-on in analyzing the merits of your legal filings on 10 prior occasions I am wrong this time.

Hope, as they say, springs eternal, but the law I quoted to you is crystal clear and there is no way you will be allowed to proceed with a suit to invalidate a California state court default judgment entered against you 10-years ago on grounds of intrinsic fraud or “perjury” allegedly employed to procure it – for all of the many reasons I cited to you chapter and verse.

And no, it is not appropriate to expect the Court to listen to several hours of podcast interviews by you and your housemate about Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector when deciding whether your complaint has facial merit. In fact, your suggestion to the contrary is absurd.

Finally, since it is obvious that, in view of the four year statute of limitations under the civil RICO statute, your complaint cannot be saved by amendment, I predict that you will NOT be given an opportunity to amend. It will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Since the gravamen of your suit is that a theft was perpetrated against you using a “fraudulent” and corruptly obtained judgment in 2006, which judgment you admit you knew about no later than April of 2010, there can be no doubt at all that your RICO suit is time-barred.

Stephen Gianelli
Writing for myself alone.

Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:07 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <>

The district court properly dismissed Wooten’s Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim because Wooten failed to allege with
sufficient particularity a pattern of racketeering activity.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)
(allegations of fraud must be “state[d] with particularity”); Lancaster Cmty. Hosp.
v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 9(b)’s
requirements apply to allegations regarding fraudulent predicate acts in RICO
claims).  Moreover, the district court correctly found that Wooten’s RICO claim
was untimely.  See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001)
(RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitationswhich begins to run when a
plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury underlying his action).”

The injury underlying your action is alleged to be lost “commissions”, “intellectual property”, “royalties”, and shares in specified business entities. Arguably, that damage first occurred upon your separation from Leonard Cohen’s employ, when he either failed within a reasonable time (or refused) to provide you with that money and property.

But certainly it was  abundantly clear to you by the time your home was foreclosed, you were required to move, you had no money to find alternative housing, and you were required to “live on the beach in Santa Monica for eight months” (see Truth Sentential interview “transcript”) that you had suffered this alleged business injury.

Stephen Gianelli
Writing for myself alone.

Attached:  Wooten v. Countrywide (9th Circuit)