From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Re:
To: "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@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>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, "g.robertson" <g.robertson@doughtystreet.co.uk>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, police <police@cityofberkeley.info>
Hi CIA,
I'll tell you what's a joke - LA Confidential.
All the best,
Kelley
P.S. Please let me know ASAP whether you lend these drones out and who owns this particular drone. I don't know whose drone this is. I didn't create this card; I didn't write the words - they are not mine; and, I sent this to FBI and DOJ as an example of the type of insanity the City Attorney threatens people with. I think I proved that point. The email was NOT to Streeter. Also, the judge in probation lied - I have a right to address grievances with the City Attorney; legal issues; and the harassing emails with me, my sons, sister, Paulette Brandt, and others copied in. Furthermore, the judge in sentencing (for domestic violence and there is no valid domestic violence order) stated clearly that he wouldn't prevent someone from communicating with government. What has the government used here? The unconstitutionally vague "intent to annoy" statute. It doesn't even involve an element that relates to some recipient being annoyed. Many states have nullified these statutes as being unconstitutionally vague. Have you noticed that Streeter and Swanigan evidently think it's fine for me, my
family, friends, and others, to receive harassing emails with them copied in? Do you think cease and desist is an intent to annoy? LA Confidential is out of control. Furthermore, the website that created this image deals with extremely political speech - including Glenn Greenwald's. Of course, my email to Glenn Greenwald (re. Cohen, sexual harassment, and indecent exposure) became an issue in my trial. Streeter felt that annoyed Cohen. She felt his going into Lindsey's office to falsely accuse me of having sex with Oliver Stone, in an attempt to stir up a custody matter, annoyed Cohen. Cohen's past history of publicly documented drug abuse annoyed Cohen. His statements re. Phil Spector annoyed Cohen. My emails to IRS documenting everything annoyed Cohen and the City Attorney wrote in the Appellate Reply Brief that the IRS, FBI, DOJ, etc. were irrelevant parties. These people are blatant criminals. They do not like that. The Anonymous Nut,
who thought she was before the FISA Court, told Barela that I called Streeter a liar. She's a liar and she lied about federal tax and IRS matters. That's her problem. She is a liar and she retaliates. I watched her in action. She also broke the podium, wore skin tight outfits, baby talked to the judges, and lied through
her teeth. I can assure you that I will not be complimenting her and the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a lie is a lie. When you lie, you are a liar. It's very simple plain English. They don't like to be called out on their insanity.
EXCERPT Brady Motion:
Detective Jose Viramontes, LAPD’s TMU, advised Lynch that he felt her drone email was a “joke” and did not agree with the City Attorney that Lynch should be arrested. These, and other, statements, undermine the government’s case against Lynch and should have been memorialized in a report. Lynch seeks access to material documenting relevant conversations, notes, and other reports that may seek to undermine the prosecution’s theory in this case and/or impeach their witnesses. The newly discovered emails between Stephen Gianelli and Vivienne Swanigan clearly impeach her credibility, tend to support a theory of collusion, and Lynch is entitled to know the extent and content of the City Attorney’s communications with this and other individuals. That would include having information as to when Stephen Gianelli began his communications with the City Attorney of Los Angeles with respect to Lynch as well as all information they disclosed to him regarding Lynch, their plans with respect to her, and any and all requests for him to act explicitly in accordance with their direction and in accordance with their needs and desires. This is impeachment evidence regarding at least one of the City Attorney’s proposed witnesses and it raises very serious issues and concerns.
DRONE CARD FOR CIA REVIEW:
