Judge Robert Vanderet's Absurd Logic - He Should Have Recused Himself, Admitted He Was Impressed By Leonard Cohen, And Doesn't Believe Phil Spector Is Innocent - Or That Leonard Cohen Lies About Him ... He Does, However, Believe He Has Jurisdiction To Sit Over An IRS Matter

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Judge's Insane Logic Re. The Motion For A New Trial
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, 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>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>

To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,

A relative of mine - who sees right through fraud judges - thinks the judge's logic is RIDICULOUS and pathetic.

All the best,

Kelley

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Riordan,

Since Judge Robert Vanderet had the audacity to call my remarks about Phil Spector (in threads that had NOTHING to do with Cohen but were for my own purposes, written to other parties such as yourself and the IRS Commissioner's Staff) far-fetched (weighing in, I presume, on his thoughts about Phil Spector's innocence which is unconscionably arrogant).  This judge is out of his mind if he thinks my comments are grossly obscene or abusive.  I have someone with me who is nearly just out of their teens who understands that Phil Spector is innocent; I have been railroaded'; had to be served the restraining order; and the IRS binder is NEW EVIDENCE.  The judge is mixing apples and oranges with his logic (which I find rotten and shocking) and his lies about me.  Leonard Cohen's conduct annoys him and  jurors told my public defenders they wanted to hear from the IRS.

Here's the logic from the sentencing memo re. the judge.

The motion contains no new evidence, merely the promise of some new evidence.

Even if it were here and as described, the court believes that the description fails to meet ... the evidence itself is newly discovered.

The defendant herself, from the description, was clearly aware of all facts laid out.  We had discussions about them during the trial so I do not find them newly discovered. 

Second, the court is convinced that they would not render a different result even if admitted on retrial.  In the first placed, they could have no effect on the five 273.6(a) counts, which are violations of court orders.

Secondly, while the two 653m counts of which the defendant was convicted do have a legitimate business reason exception, the evidence presented at trial makes it abundantly clear that the contacts defendant had both in terms of emails and telephone calls were replete with matters that had absolutely nothing to do with any tax issues.

Mr. Riordan, a legitimate purposed is NOT limited to tax issues and there is a legitimate business purpose exemption re. restraining orders so the man should do his research.  LA Superior Court's DMV unit is aware of this.  Beyond that, the IRS binder has NOTHING to do with the emails and/or voice mail messages and the prosecutor handed that to my lawyers and the default judgment was contained in that binder and entered into evidence.  Testimony was also given.  This judge's interpretation of how I write emails and what forms of speech I must use is an outrage.  Has he ever seen the business emails between me and Cohen?  The IRS clearly has since they were given access to my email account and authorized to review each and every email between me, Leonard Cohen, and his advisers.  Leonard Cohen is obscene.  He targeted me.  He retaliated against me.  He did the drugs.  He is the one who was accused - NOT by me - of molesting his daughter.  He is responsible for the illegal K-1s. He concealed corporate books and records from the court.  He lies about Phil Spector.  His fans targeted me.  Gianelli is aligned with him and criminally harassed me with the prosecutor copied in on many many emails. 

I want to sue LA County over this situation and I want Phil Spector to join me in that lawsuit.  I already spoke to the Grand Jury Legal Adviser who instructed me to contact YOU, Phil Spector's appellate attorney.  This was based on evidence discovered at the insane Stalinesque Show Trial that proves to me that the City Attorney will waste taxpayer resources, lie in court, target the IRS and FTB, attempt to prove that Phil Spector held a gun on Leonard Cohen - while concealing evidence that impeaches that insane thought, and my son's accident and my son's custody matter ANNOY a lying fraud thief who perjures himself whenever he sees fit. 

Love,
Kelley

P.S.  When you review Streeter's speech - it is gross, crass, ugly, vial, hostile, and aggressive.  It is my personal belief that she has serious psychiatric problems - as I addressed with Detective Viramontes/LAPD - and one of those involves being a sycophant who finally met a celebrity and would do anything she could to cover for him.  That includes essentially skipping out to tell him the LA Times would take one still photograph.  She sounded excited in the transcripts.  She had something else to talk to Leonard Cohen about.  I see right through these sycophants and many of them are also journalists. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109725879/People-vs-Kelley-Lynch-Transcript-of-Keley-Lynch-s-Sentencing-Hearing-4-17-2012

scur·ril·ous

[skur-uh-luhs, skuhr-] Show IPA

adjective

1.

grossly or obscenely abusive: a scurrilous attack on the mayor.

2.

characterized by or using low buffoonery; coarsely jocular or derisive: a scurrilous jest.