From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Gianelli's Back On Phil Spector
To: 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>, 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>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>
Hello IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Mr. Riordan,
Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Gianelli's Back On Phil Spector
To: 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>, 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>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>
Hello IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Mr. Riordan,
My stalker has alleged that I have tried to insert Leonard Cohen into Phil Spector's matter. Cohen has told his good rock and roll stories, to advance his career, for over 30 years. The prosecutors in Phillip's matter used Cohen's statements. Cohen's beloved prosecutor raised Phil Spector as an issue in my intent to annoy Cohen trial. The DA's investigator was hanging out with Cohen, and lunching with him, while he testified about a gun story and Phillip - that contradicts the prosecutor's version and the version he emailed Sandra Jo Streeter.
See comments below. The man actually thinks he is writing me. It's like actually reading a chicken running around with its head cut off. Gianelli is speaking for the IRS again.
All the best,
Kelley
Blogonaut said...
Moreover, if this is such a clear reason why your criminal conviction should have been overturned, why then did not the lawyer who you now say you are “fine with” – Francisco Suarez – raise that issue in your opening brief on appeal? The reason he did not is that the Colorado order was issued under the anti-stalking laws of another state, meets the four criteria in Subdivision (d) of section 6402, and was therefore properly registered in California.
I have a news flash for you: Leonard Cohen is not thinking about Kelley Lynch these days.
Seven years have passed since you worked for him and allegedly stole from him.
You are certainly not hurting me or Leonard Cohen.
Blogonaut said...
Ms. Lynch:
As usual, you studiously miss the point. (I refer to your posts of last night but I could be referring to any night).
For instance, you reiterate your oft repeated claim that Family Code sections 6401 and following do not authorize the registration of the 2009 Colorado Protective Order, and in so doing you deliberately ignore the statutory language directly set forth in the post comment you selectively quote from, which appears in the comment section above.
As usual, you studiously miss the point. (I refer to your posts of last night but I could be referring to any night).
For instance, you reiterate your oft repeated claim that Family Code sections 6401 and following do not authorize the registration of the 2009 Colorado Protective Order, and in so doing you deliberately ignore the statutory language directly set forth in the post comment you selectively quote from, which appears in the comment section above.
Gianelli misses the point that I wasn't in a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen and the civil harassment order I requested is not a domestic violence order, cannot be modified, and both Boulder and LA Courts have advised me that it cannot be registered in this manner. California cannot have jurisdiction over me. I wasn't served or notified of the order. The Boulder court can and I absolutely asked Enichen for the Boulder order. After that, I reviewed the file and determined that Cohen - as usual - perjured himself excessively. Judges are quite tolerant of Leonard Cohen and his perjury. In any event, Gianelli's so obsessed with me he is doing further legal research on the issue. It is shocking that Leonard Cohen thinks we were in a dating relationship. The man is quoting law to me. I have spoken to lawyers. I don't take legal advice from stark raving lunatics that target my children, elderly parents, etc. but do read what this lunatic has to say. He's clearly a lying lawyer.
“A person authorized by the law of this state to seek enforcement of a protection order may seek enforcement of a valid foreign protection order in a tribunal of this state. The tribunal shall enforce the terms of the order, including terms that provide relief that a tribunal of this state would lack power to provide but for this section.”
Subdivision (d) of section 6402 spells out the requirements that a Foreign protection order must meet in order to be enforceable in a California court: “(1) Identifies the protected individual and the respondent; (2) Is currently in effect; (3) Was issued by a tribunal that had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter under the law of the issuing state. (4) Was issued after the respondent was given reasonable notice and had an opportunity to be heard before the tribunal issued the order or … in a manner consistent with the rights of the respondent to due process.”
But you selectively quote from the above discussion, editing almost all of it out except for number paragraph 4, directly above.
If your new focus is “due process” in connection with the issuance of the Colorado order, you were present in court when the order was issued, the Court granted you a hearing on the merits of the order, and you then requested that a permanent protective order be issued. Therefore, the due process prong was satisfied
“A person authorized by the law of this state to seek enforcement of a protection order may seek enforcement of a valid foreign protection order in a tribunal of this state. The tribunal shall enforce the terms of the order, including terms that provide relief that a tribunal of this state would lack power to provide but for this section.”
Subdivision (d) of section 6402 spells out the requirements that a Foreign protection order must meet in order to be enforceable in a California court: “(1) Identifies the protected individual and the respondent; (2) Is currently in effect; (3) Was issued by a tribunal that had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter under the law of the issuing state. (4) Was issued after the respondent was given reasonable notice and had an opportunity to be heard before the tribunal issued the order or … in a manner consistent with the rights of the respondent to due process.”
But you selectively quote from the above discussion, editing almost all of it out except for number paragraph 4, directly above.
If your new focus is “due process” in connection with the issuance of the Colorado order, you were present in court when the order was issued, the Court granted you a hearing on the merits of the order, and you then requested that a permanent protective order be issued. Therefore, the due process prong was satisfied
Moreover, if this is such a clear reason why your criminal conviction should have been overturned, why then did not the lawyer who you now say you are “fine with” – Francisco Suarez – raise that issue in your opening brief on appeal? The reason he did not is that the Colorado order was issued under the anti-stalking laws of another state, meets the four criteria in Subdivision (d) of section 6402, and was therefore properly registered in California.
Francisco Suarez is aware that I had to be served and/or notified the California order. The court cannot obtain jurisdiction over me otherwise. Leave it to a lying lawyer to descend into this type of rotten logic.
You also assiduously avoid the logic of my pointing out that the words “Leonard Cohen” appear nowhere in any of Phil Spector’s many post-conviction appellate filings, and (therefore) the entertainer’s alleged “gun stories” are neither relevant to the reasons for Spector’s murder conviction nor do the alleged different versions of these “gun stories” pose a “problem” for Los Angeles prosecutors – since the conviction they obtained is in no way dependent on Leonard Cohen or his credibility on the subject of Phil Spector. Let alone a “problem” so serious that they would try to influence the outcome of your misdemeanor prosecution.
You also assiduously avoid the logic of my pointing out that the words “Leonard Cohen” appear nowhere in any of Phil Spector’s many post-conviction appellate filings, and (therefore) the entertainer’s alleged “gun stories” are neither relevant to the reasons for Spector’s murder conviction nor do the alleged different versions of these “gun stories” pose a “problem” for Los Angeles prosecutors – since the conviction they obtained is in no way dependent on Leonard Cohen or his credibility on the subject of Phil Spector. Let alone a “problem” so serious that they would try to influence the outcome of your misdemeanor prosecution.
I think when Leonard Cohen's statements are presented to the Grand Jury, as Mick Brown has noted after reviewing the transcripts, it helped to indict Phil Spector. I suppose that's why lawyers think Phil Spector should attack the indictment. In any event, Gianelli should bring this up with Phil Spector.
Rather, you have tried your best to artificially inject Leonard Cohen into the Phil Spector prosecution and subsequent appeal to serve your own wacky agenda – the half-baked hope that Phil Spector’s “legal team” will someday “join forces” with Kelley Lynch and sue her perceived enemies, including Leonard Cohen.
Rather, you have tried your best to artificially inject Leonard Cohen into the Phil Spector prosecution and subsequent appeal to serve your own wacky agenda – the half-baked hope that Phil Spector’s “legal team” will someday “join forces” with Kelley Lynch and sue her perceived enemies, including Leonard Cohen.
Leonard Cohen inserted himself into Phil Spector's matter when he used Phillip to advance his career. His statements were used by Phillip's prosecutor and he was testifying about Phil Spector at my intent to annoy this lunatic. I've heard from Phil Spector so what does he mean - join forces?
I have a news flash for you: Leonard Cohen is not thinking about Kelley Lynch these days.
Seven years have passed since you worked for him and allegedly stole from him.
I could care less about Leonard Cohen. It's shocking that he thinks we were in a dating relationship. Cohen stole from me. He has concealed corporate books, records, stock certificates, etc. He has stolen from Marty and Steven Machat. Gianelli seems to be on the front lines defending Leonard Cohen and has a bizarre obsession with Phil Spector.
Whatever IRS problem you thought you could cause for him never happened and never will happen.
Whatever IRS problem you thought you could cause for him never happened and never will happen.
Gianelli doesn't speak for the IRS and the IRS just advised me to file a fraud form re. Cohen's illegal K-1s and fraudulent refund. Leonard Cohen's tax fraud is what led to his tax problems - not I. The man can't live in Canada because of his tax and residence issues. In any event, Gianelli should address with the IRS Commissioner's Staff. Evidently they're engaged in a prank with me.
He has moved on. He is making albums, giving interviews, touring the world to sold out stadiums filled with adoring fans paying up to $400 a seat.
He has moved on. He is making albums, giving interviews, touring the world to sold out stadiums filled with adoring fans paying up to $400 a seat.
And perjuring himself in every court he rolls into or files a document in.
You are still bitterly blogging that he is a bad person and what a bad break you were dealt.
You are only hurting yourself at this point.
You are still bitterly blogging that he is a bad person and what a bad break you were dealt.
You are only hurting yourself at this point.
You are certainly not hurting me or Leonard Cohen.
What is this man talking about? What a lunatic.
March 12, 2013 at 6:19 AM
