From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM
Subject: The Criminal Stalker
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM
Subject: The Criminal Stalker
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>
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 riverdeepbook.blogspot.com 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.
Kelley
______________________________________________________________________________
From: Urgyen.Trinley.Dorje <sender@5ymail.com>
Date: Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Your RICO suit against Leonard Cohen
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Date: Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Your RICO suit against Leonard Cohen
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
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 <sender@5ymail.com>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Subject: Your spam emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Date: Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:21 AM
Subject: Your spam emails
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
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
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM
Subject:
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:07 PM
Subject:
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Subject: Legal reality
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:10 AM
Subject: Legal reality
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Subject: Copyright infringement claim
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Subject: Copyright infringement claim
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM
Subject: State law false arrest claim
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM
Subject: State law false arrest claim
To: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
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 <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Cc: alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>
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 <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Cc: alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>
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 complaint? You
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 Scribd.com.
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
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 <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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 <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
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.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:07 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 1:07 AM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
“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 limitations, which
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)
