Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Email to Sandra Jo Streeter Re: Appeals, Corporate Matters, Federal Tax Matters, Ongoing Attempts to Infiltrate Her Defense, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:45 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your clueless blog posts
To: "SandraJo. Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>

Ms. Streeter,

Is there something related to any of the four appeals (two are consolidated) before the Second Appellate Court that you would like to discuss?  If so, please let me know.  I'm still unclear if you personally [are] sending me these or if a co-conspirator, such as Stephen Gianelli, is using a fake moniker to impersonate you.

As for the issue related to an alleged request for tax information:  the prosecutor at the last hearing mentioned that the violations related to Kory & Rice who are not part of the Colorado order.  Their former place of business was.  The Colorado court never obtained jurisdiction over Kory & Rice or Kory & Rice, LLP which was not formed at that time evidently.  The California order, which is a fraud DV order, is not the Colorado order.  I have made this perfectly clear to the Court so this email is clearly an attempt to elicit information about my defense.  I take that situation very, very seriously.  

If there are any issues you would like to address related to the corporations, they do not have injunctions.  And, federal tax matters should be argued in the proper venue which would be the U.S. District Court.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sandra <sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:25 AM
Subject: Your clueless blog posts
To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com

While a suspended corporation – as a litigation party – may not appeal an adverse ruling or judgment, no corporation (suspended or otherwise) is the appellant in any of your appeal proceedings; you are the sole appellant. (Nor has any corporate party appeared in any appeal in which you are involved.) Mere ownership of a suspended corporation (even if that was the case here) does not affect a party litigant’s ability to appear in court or to appeal an adverse judgment. Your suggestion to the contrary (e.g., a suspended entity might be "inside the trust" and if it is that somehow defeats the express permission given by the court of appeal for the trustee to appear as respondent of record) is utter nonsense. Nor does any of this change the fact that you violated a restraining order that you were previously convicted in 2012 of violating (and sentenced to 18-months in jail for) based on the same ineffectual "defense" (seeking tax information). Unlike Penal Code section 653M (criminalizing threatening or obscene electronic or telephonic communications), there is no good faith business purpose defense to a charge of violating a restraining order. Either you contacted the protected person in violation of the restraining order or you did not. If you did, that is 1-year in the county jail for each communication. A potential sentence that, given your lack of remorse and prior convictions for violating the same restraining order, you are likely to receive. From the court's perspective, if a sentence of 18-months in jail in 2012 followed by an addition 6-month sentence in 2014 for violating your probation were not enough for you to learn your lesson, what sentence will be justified this time?