Kelley's Emails To The FBI & Her Appellate Attorney Re. Gianelli's Ongoing Criminal Harassment, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Appeal Arguments; Kelley Lynch email dated Apr 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM
To: "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <stephengianelli@comcast.net>
Cc: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, 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>, 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 FBI,

Please see Gianelli's latest insane email to me.  I am represented by an attorney on appeal and this man has no right to contact me about that; contact my appellate attorney; or to engage in what I believe is ongoing criminal conduct with respect to me.

Gianelli seems obsessed with my appeal.  Well, perjury, fraud, lies, and concealment is not the basis for any legal proceeding or ensuing order, judgment, or verdict.  

All the best,

Kelley

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Francisco,

I have received an email from Stephen Gianelli and have copied in.  He has been advised countless times to cease and desist.  Why is he copying you in on this email?  And, why is he writing  me about legal issues involving my appeal.  Let me repeat this - I have advised the IRS and FBI that I believe this man engages in criminal witness tampering, criminal witness intimidation, harassment, etc.  He also seems dead set on  sabotaging matters and tries to infiltrate situations from what I can tell.  He is aligned with Leonard Cohen.  He has relentlessly targeted me and nearly everyone in my life since 2009 when he heard from Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.  Investigator William Frayeh/DA's office believes he's a shady character who may have found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me.

Please keep in mind that I intend to sue the City Attorney over this situation and have spoken with attorneys about  that fact.  If they want to continue lying to the appellate division, that is their problem.

Please call me.  I would like to discuss the stark raving lunatic Stephen Gianelli's ongoing attempts to harass me with you.  I have no interest in what this lying maniac has to say.  He is obsessed with me.

All the best,

Kelley

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:38 PM, STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@comcast.net> wrote:

Addressing the points raised in Kelley Lynch’s email (published to the world)  in no particular order:

1.      An out of state protection order need not be registered in California to be enforced her through the police power. Registration is only required for civil contempt proceedings. See California Family Code section 6403, subsections (a) and (d): “A law enforcement officer of this state, upon determining that there is probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists and that the order has been violated, shall enforce the order as if it were the order of a tribunal of this state. […] (par.) Registration or filing of an order in this state is not required for the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order pursuant to this part.) (Emphasis added.)

2.      If a fact is not in the record on appeal (i.e., Clerks Transcript or Reporter’s Transcript it may not be referenced at oral argument.

3.      If an argument is not raised in Appellant’s Opening Brief as a separate bullet-pointed argument, it is WAIVED and may NOT be addressed at oral argument.

4.      Therefore, the points you reference, including the City Attorney’s alleged concealment of evidence, anything Mick Brown told you, Cohen’s emails to Sandra Jo Streeter,  evidence of criminal conduct but Carmen Trutanich, as well as your point about the “registration” of the Colorado order may not be discussed at oral argument.

5.      Service of the California registration on you is not required.  Indeed, under Family code section 6403 (d) (paragraph 1, above), registration is not even required for criminal enforcement, let alone service on you of the registration. As to the Colorado order itself, there is a section of the order that reflects you personally SIGNED FOR A COPY in 2008 in open court and the transcript of the Colorado hearing so reflects as well, and in any event personal service of an injunction is never required as long as you have actual notice of the existence of the order and its terms. (See authorities in City Attorney’s Brief, copy sent to you by me.)

6.      Oral argument before the Appellate Division is only 10 minutes per side. It is NOT a retrial. No evidence will be taken or received. No legal authority may be referenced that is not cited in the briefs already on file.

If you have been told anything different Ms. Lynch, someone is humoring you. All of this is Appellate Law 101.