From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: My Revised Brief & Blogonaut's
To: "SandraJo.Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, info <info@kibi-edu.org>, "YesheRimpoche@aol.com" <bhakhatulku@yahoo.com>
Cc: ajackson <ajackson@da.lacounty.gov>, "Truc.Do" <Truc.Do@mto.com>, wfrayeh <wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov>, jthompson <jthompson@da.lacounty.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, The Scientist <thescientist@dubmusic.com>
To the IRS and FBI,
See comments below. Gianelli is, once again, offering me legal advice. Truly astounding and deranged. It is interesting to note that he has now lumped himself in the category of "villains" that appear to include - as of this moment in time - Steve Cooley, Alan Jackson, and Leonard Cohen. Leonard Cohen referred to this group of so-called individuals as "villains" - not I. I would not glamorize these people for one moment. That was simply another one of Cohen's carefully crafted garbage comments. I should have a good solid first draft of my replacement brief ready by this evening. At that time, I will send you, Mr. Riordan, Agent Sopko, Doug Davis,
and others copies privately. The arrogance of these people is astounding. Did I "vow" to strike the brief and replace it? I had a conversation with the appellate and trial divisions about this situation. LA Superior Court appointed these lawyers and at least one of them - according to Gianelli - spoke to Gianelli about my witnesses and what they could or could not corroborate. The fact that Kelly wanted my son to testify about the SWAT incident is unconscionable, but utterly predictable. That's one of the reasons people are noting that Los Angeles is corrupt. It's probably routine for someone like Streeter to lie through her teeth about an innocenthuman being. One thing that will be addressed on appeal - the fact that a civil harassment order was fraudulently filed as s domestic violence order in Los Angeles and Cohen and I were NEVER in a dating relationship. Perhaps Cohen's lifelong history of drug and alcohol abuse (well documented by the news media so even the news media should understand that I didn't assail this thief's reputation but he cannot stop lying and embellishing), psychiatric problems, etc. have indeed taken a permanent toll. He's quite fortunate that even sycophants will ignore any and all type of degraded behavior to further their own ambitions.
All the best,
Kelley
Blogonaut said...
Ah, Kelley Lynch ... she never disappoints!
We respond to her latest blog post at once denouncing our editor's views of her Opening Brief posted here as "pathetic" and vowing to "strike" the brief and "replace" her court appointed counsel for filing an "incoherent" brief:
It’s interesting that Gianelli refers to himself in the third person when he states that I am “denouncing our editor’s views” of my opening brief.
Amusing perhaps, but quite absurd.
If you feel you have been denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal under Anders v. State of California 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and seek to replace your court appointed appellate counsel, you can file a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), but you must demonstrate that there are good and arguably meritorious issues that could have been raised in your appeal but were not.
I suppose Gianelli was unclear about my discussion with the appellate division re. replacing my court appointed appellate counsel.
In my personal view, your court appointed counsel should have simply reviewed the record for error then filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1969) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
This man is a true lunatic and continues to believe that I would actually follow his legal suggestions.
Even had the six trial binders of your emails and the transcripts of your intoxicated voice mails in evidence at your criminal trial been fully and fairly summarized in your AOB, that evidence supports a reasonable inference by the jury that you acted with the intent to annoy at the very least.
The voicemail messages, that were clearly tampered with and for which there is no chain of custody, will be addressed on appeal. In any event, Streeter was clear - I was stone cold sober. Someone ought to pick a side of a story and stick to it.
In any event, the distinction between the Los Angeles County City Attorney and the Los Angeles County District Attorney is quite irrelevant to the effectiveness of your court appointed appellate counsel or the outcome of your appeal, because the murder prosecution of Phillip Spector is utterly independent of, and irrelevant to, your criminal trial and your criminal appeal.
The distinction between these offices is NOT an issue on appeal. It is an issue with respect to my court appointed attorney. The DA’s office clearly acted in collusion with the City Attorney against me and I think when I am dealing with powerful foes of this ilk, my attorney should understand the difference. Leonard Cohen testified about Phil Spector. He wrote the Deputy City Attorney about Phil Spector. There are now two different versions of his Phil Spector gun story in my trial and a third in Phil Spector’s matter. Leonard Cohen’s false testimony will be addressed on appeal.
As for having your roommate’s brother, a criminal defense attorney, assist you with filing a motion to vacate the default judgment entered against you on May 12, 2006, you have been threatening to file such a motion since April of 2010.
As I said, consider it a bluff.
You really should get an opinion on the merits of such an untimely and unmeritorious motion from an experienced civil litigator, after full disclosure of (among other things) the voice messages that you left for plaintiff’s counsel in various states of sobriety (and the lack thereof) referencing the suit, shortly after the proof of service of the summons and complaint reflects that you were sub-served with the suit.
What do Leonard Cohen’s lies in my “intent to annoy” trial have to do with his fraud, perjury, concealment, and lies in the retaliatory lawsuit - apart from the fact that Sandra Jo Streeter LIED about TH assets, attempted to prove I was served the 2006 default judgment while homeless, and concealed the existence of corporate books, records, stock certificates, and other evidence that prove Cohen owes me millions. Gianelli should understand exculpatory evidence. Scott Edelman called me to advise me that he no longer represents Cohen. The proof of service is fraudulent. There was no female co-habitant. This is a very serious issue for courts evidently.
In any event, I could care less what you file and if you file it except as a further source of amusement – as I do not represent, nor have I ever represented, Leonard Cohen or anyone associated or previously associated with him, including you.
This man is obsessed with me; has aligned himself with Cohen; and may have found a sympathetic ear with Alan Jackson about me.
I am simply a blogger whom you decided in your own deluded mind was in cahoots with Cooley, Jackson, and all of the other Moriaty-esque alleged villains that, as with Holmes himself, are purely figments of your hallucinations.
Gianelli now uses Cohen’s word “villains” to refer to Cooley, Jackson, and himself. Interesting parties to align himself with. Cooley and Jackson are not figments of my imagination. They are pathetic individuals who targeted a woman due to the fact that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud; they used him against Phil Spector; and I believe Phi Spector is innocent. Their efforts with respect to me are totally unconscionable governmental conduct - as is the fact that Cooley had his private security detail hanging out with Cohen’s PI and lawyers and lunching with Cohen - while he spewed more venomous lies about Phil Spector on the stand and trapped himself in his various versions of the gun stories ... right down to a different weapon from what the prosecutors used in Phil Spector’s matter. Gun victims know if a gun was pointed to their head, neck, or chest. Cohen is simply a pathetic and disgraceful liar with motive.
In any event (again this is my opinion, I am not your lawyer), your pending appeal is utterly and completely lacking in merit and no attorney can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. (See, e.g., Benson v. State Bd. of Parole and Probation, 384 F.2d 238, 241
(C.A.Or. 1967) "'[Counsels'] inability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ought not reflect on their competency. (Citation).'"
Truly enlightening quote.
Oh, and Ms. Lynch, if my views of your brief are so "pathetic" why are you now describing the AOB on your blog as "incoherent"?
The opening brief is incoherent. I could care less about Gianelli but continue to maintain that the IRS and FBI should charge and prosecute him for criminal harassment, stalking, witness tampering, witness intimidation, etc. - even if the man thinks it’s a game and has no qualms lying to the IRS and FBI.
December 29, 2012 3:03 PM
