From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:43 AM
Subject: The Frightening Obsession Of The Proxy Stalker
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao@nsa.gov, fsb@fsb.ru, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane@caa.com, blourd@caa.com, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>
Hello IRS, FBI, DOJ & FTB,
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Subject: Straight from statute and 9th circuit authority
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Subject: Your email dated Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM to multiple recipients
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:59 AM
Subject: Statute of limitations for your federal civil rights suit under 42 USC Section 1983
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Subject: Your published letter of July 31, 2014 to the City and County of Los Angeles
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Subject: General rules for out-of-state orders in CA
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Subject: California Family Code Section 6404 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
These are the recent emails the Proxy Stalker has sent to my alternate email account over the past few days. This man is frighteningly obsessed with all legal issues related to Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, and my claims against the City and County of Los Angeles. I would like to know precisely how much money runs through Los Angeles re. domestic violence given the incredible corruption taking place here. While I do not condone DMV, I would say that this is one hell of a racket. In any event, all grants related to domestic violence and the City and County of Los Angeles should be halted and audited.
All the best,
Kelley
The Proxy Stalker Is Getting Ahead Of Himself
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM
Subject: Straight from statute and 9th circuit authority
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
If you proceed in forma pauperis:
28 U.S. Code § 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis
[…]
(e)
[…]
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
[…]
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In all cases under FRCP Rule 8 (from McHenry v. Renne (9th Cir. 1996) 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996):
Rule 8(e) requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct. Even if the factual elements of the cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the complaint and are not organized into a “short and plain statement of the claim,” dismissal for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) is proper. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178. Complaints that are “prolix in evidentiary detail” are not permitted under Rule 8(e). Ibid.
Call it “psychopathic” if you must, but these are federal court procedures to which all litigants are subject – even you.
The Proxy Stalker
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:47 PM
Subject: Your email dated Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM to multiple recipients
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Dear Ms. Lynch,
Before I retired I was a Californian trial lawyer for 35 years, during which time I jury tried in excess of 200 criminal and civil cases to verdict and court tried over 400 cases to judgment. That litigation includes prosecuting claims against cities and counties, including but not limited to false arrest claims.
I was neither a “plaintiff’s attorney” nor a “defense attorney” – I prosecuted when my clients were plaintiffs and defended when my clients were sued. I never conducted cases in a “traditional” manner. Probably due to my extensive criminal law experience, I tended to lay my cards on the table more than most trial lawyers.
That said, I am quite familiar with how defense lawyers operate. They do not show their cards to the other side of the counsel table – especially to pro se plaintiffs unless and until required to do so by the rules of formal discovery.
If I represented, or was a “proxy” for, the city and county or Leonard Cohen as you have suggested, I can assure you that I would not be communicating with you, especially about the weaknesses in your claims, and certainly not on the subject of probable defenses.
If you file suit (still a big “if” here), it would be highly unusual for defense counsel to communicate with you at all except as to matters related to scheduling and required joint statements required under the federal rules.
They would typically communicate their defenses for the first time in a motion to dismiss, then to the court at the first cases status conference, and then in their motion for summary judgment (if your cases survived that long).
So as I said, you can either take the things I am telling you about the weaknesses in your claims and the pleadings rules under Rule 8 to heart, or you can chose to ignore them – as you did to your detriment during post-trial appellate proceedings following your conviction. Since I represent no one in any matter related to you, it’s all the same to me.
But you can bet that if I did represent any potential defendants in your articulated claims, you would not be hearing from me at all. That’s just how it works in the real world.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law
Crete, Greece
Kelley Lynch Federal Lawsuits Against City & County of Los Angeles
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:59 AM
Subject: Statute of limitations for your federal civil rights suit under 42 USC Section 1983
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Because section 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, it is “deficient” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 1988. Under the provisions of that statute, where federal law is deficient, federal courts are to apply the relevant law of the forum state, unless the relevant law of the forum state is inconsistent with federal law or policy or discriminates against federal claims.
As a consequence of section 1988, statutes of limitations issues arising in section 1983 cases constitute an unusual amalgam of federal and state law regarding the choice of the proper limitations period, accrual and tolling.
The leading case is Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), which held that the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations governs.
California is the “forum state”, and its general personal injury statute of limitations is two years. (Code of Civil Pro. § 335.1)
The “accrual” of a section 1983 civil rights case (the question of when the clock starts running) is a question of federal law. The statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim begins to run when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury. See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979).
It is hard to imagine that what you have characterized to the City and County of Los Angeles as an ongoing course of conduct did not cause you perceptible injury before the time period expiring 24 months before today, either with, as you have claimed ad nauseam, your “kidnapping” by LAPD SWAT in 2004, or what you have characterized as the “fraudulent” entry of a default judgment against you in 2007, or (at the very latest), what you have characterized as the “fraudulent” registration of the Colorado protection order in May of 2011 or (as concerns your recent criminal proceedings) your conviction and remand to the Los Angeles County Jail on April 17, 2012.
Even looking at it most generously, it would appear that the 2-year statute of limitations for a California federal civil rights suit (even if filed in federal court) ran in April of 2014 at the latest, and probably far earlier.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
Kelley Lynch Federal Lawsuits Against City & County of Los Angeles
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:17 AM
Subject: Your published letter of July 31, 2014 to the City and County of Los Angeles
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
If you are really serious about suing the City and County of Los Angeles in federal district court, you are going to quickly encounter several daunting obstacles to a trial on the merits.
First, you have a tendency to tell your life-story in every pleading. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) require all complaints to consist of “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”. (FRCP, Rule 8(a)(2).) This means only those ultimate facts necessary to show you are entitled to relief; dense complaints that contain argumentative statements or a thicket of evidentiary facts that the court is required to spend hours wading through are not permitted. (See e.g., the linked federal court order dismissing a pro se lawsuit with prejudice for failing to adhere to Rule 8 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
Second, suing a City or County based on alleged misconduct of their employees while performing official duties is a daunting task.
A team of experienced lawyers who do nothing but defend against such claims will be assigned to defend against your lawsuit, and the primary tool in their defense arsenal consists of various common law and statutory privileges that apply to any state law theories of tort liability. Many of those same common law immunity provisions are recognized by federal law (including United States Supreme Court authority) in defense to a federal civil rights claim under 42 USC Sec. 1984. (See, e.g., Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349 [state court judges – like Judge Hess - have absolute immunity against 1983 claim for their judicial actions]; Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) 424 U.S. 409 [city and county prosecutors - like Sandra Jo Streeter - have absolute immunity against 1983 claim]; Briscoe v. LaHue 460 U.S. 325 (1983) [witnesses – like Cohen, Rice and Kory - have absolute immunity against 1983 claim for alleged perjury committed in judicial proceeding];
For example, California Government Code Section 820.2 provides for qualified immunity from liability for public employees while engaged in discretionary acts. Also see California Civil Code Section 47 and cases construing it – providing absolute immunity for statements made on connection with a judicial proceeding, including perjury by testifying witnesses.
Defense counsel will be well versed in the complexity and application of these various privileges – which cannot be mastered, even by a lawyer, in just a few hours. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief will be filed within 20-days of service of your complaint. In addition to pleading issues – including those arising under Rule 8, the City and County will be raising any affirmative defenses that may arguably appear from the face of the complaint, and chief among those defenses will be the statute of limitations and privilege. The time period for you to filed and serve written opposition to the motion will arrive quickly in federal court, and learning about these privileges and/or the complex rules governing the application of statutes of limitation only at that late stage of the case will put you at a distinct disadvantage. I have been there and done that and I know firsthand of what I speak
Regarding federal court law and motion practice, brief length and other formatting requirements are strictly enforced, and if you file a brief that is too long or using a font size that is too small, your opposition may not be considered. In addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to all cases, the judicial district may have its own applicable local rules, and the particular judge to whom your matter will be randomly assigned when you filed the complaint will have his or her own courtroom rules that must be strictly adhered to. You will be expected to be conversant with all of these rules of procedure, even as a pro se litigant.
If your complaint survives the pleading stage, the defense will file motions for summary judgment, asking the court, based on the evidence adduced during depositions and other discovery to dismiss the case, unless you can marshal and present sufficient facts, in admissible form, to support each required element of each claim for relief of your case and a “triable factual issue” as to at least one element of each of the defendants’ asserted affirmative defenses – again likely to include the applicable statute of limitations and privilege.
Forewarned is forearmed, but I seriously doubt you will get it together to even file a federal lawsuit – let alone a complaint that is Rule 8 compliant. But if you do, I am predicting that the case will be dismissed with prejudice prior to trial – most likely in the pleading stage in response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
My theory is that you get more gain out of the psychological response you expect to elicit in those you threaten to sue, than in actually filing suit. I say this because you have threatened to sue scores of public entities and private persons since 2006, when in fact you have followed through with suing exactly none of them. And of course, you have been threatening to sue the County of Los Angeles for almost a decade, which is a big part of your statute of limitations problem.
But we shall see.
If you do sue I will be following the case closely on pacer strictly for my own amusement, and I have found your courtroom antics as a civil and criminal defendant and criminal appellant and petitioner to be highly amusing, so I am looking forward to see if you really do follow through with your litigation threat and if so how many days transpire before the suit is summarily dismissed with prejudice.
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
Kelley Lynch Federal Lawsuits Against City & County of Los Angeles
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:34 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Prior to filing any Section 1983 civil rights claim, you may wish to review the following Supreme Court cases; Stump v. Sparkman (1978) 435 U.S. 349 [state court judges have absolute immunity against 1983 claim for their judicial actions]; Imbler v. Pachtman (1976) 424 U.S. 409 [prosecutors have absolute immunity against 1983 claim]; Briscoe v. LaHue 460 U.S. 325 (1983) [private persons have absolute immunity against 1983 claim for alleged perjury committed in judicial proceeding].
Your alleged federal civil rights claims concerning your arrest, criminal conviction, and the $7.9M civil judgment against will therefore be dismissed.
Your state law tort claims have similar problems.
Leonard Cohen, Tax Fraud, IRS & City Attorney Corruption
The Sick Stalker continues to criminally harass Kelley Lynch's sons and sister.
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Subject: FW: Re: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Karen Lynch, sanneka@esenet.dk, Rutger Penick, Ray Lindsey, "Vivienne A. Swanigan" <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Subject: FW: Re: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: Karen Lynch, sanneka@esenet.dk, Rutger Penick, Ray Lindsey, "Vivienne A. Swanigan" <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>
Ms. Lynch,
If you habitually author emails expressly accusing named persons of criminal conduct (e.g., employees of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office, Susanne Walsh, the undersigned, a public relations firm that has done work for Leonard Cohen) and then post them on your Google indexed blog, it is neither surprising nor sinister when the persons you are slandering on the World Wide Web show an interest in your blog.
Indeed, if it weren’t for the people you are slandering reading your blog, you would have virtually no blog visitors at all.
So please, don’t pretend that you are not getting exactly the attention you wanted or that visits to your blog by persons expressly mentioned therein evinces anything illegal or improper.
Your assumption that the IRS is interested in your blog readership is another issue altogether. Suffice it to say that that it is emblematic of your mental illness and evidence that you are not taking your medication – as is your email reference that is (typical for you) wholly unrelated to the subject matter of your email (below).
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
GIANELLI WAS NOT COPIED ON THIS EMAIL. EVIDENTLY OBTAINED IT FROM RIVER DEEP BLOG.
-----------------------
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request
To: ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.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>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.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@firstlook.org
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request
To: ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.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>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.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@firstlook.org
Hi IRS,
The criminal stalker has been on my blog quite a lot today. So has Cohen fan, Susanne Walsh. What is Gianelli at? It seems as though he is focused on the IRS and federal tax matters. In any event, you might want to review these posts and emails. I'm sure the next round of lies will be fascinating. And, there are the liars at the City Attorney's office. Their lies and responses to my federal lawsuit should prove fascinating.
All the best,
Kelley
Leonard Cohen Fraudulent Domestic Violence Order
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:29 AM
Subject: General rules for out-of-state orders in CA
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Source: WomansLaw.org http://www.
Can I get my out-of-state protection order enforced in California? What are the requirements?
Yes. Your out-of-state protection order can be enforced in California as long as:
· It was issued to prevent violent or threatening acts, harassing behavior, sexual violence, or it was issued to prevent another person from coming near you or contacting you.*
· The court that issued the order had jurisdiction over the people and case. (In other words, the court had the authority to hear the case.) and
· The abuser received notice of the order and had an opportunity to go to court to tell his/her side of the story.
o In the case of ex parte temporary and emergency orders, the abuser must receive notice and have an opportunity to go to court to tell his/her side of the story at a hearing that is scheduled within a "reasonable time" after the order is issued.*1
Your protective order from a different state can be enforced both by judges as well as police officers in California.*2 A judge is required to even enforce parts of your order that could not legally be included in a California DVRO.*3 A California police officer can immediately enforce a protective order from another state so long as you have a copy that the officer believes is legitimate (valid).*4 So, it’s a good idea to always keep a copy of your order on you so that you can show it to a police officer if you need to.
Leonard Cohen Fraudulent Domestic Violence Order
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:53 PM
Subject: California Family Code Section 6404 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: blind <distribution@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
The Judicial Counsel form application and order for the registration of the Colorado protection order was authorized by Family Code Section 6404, which section number appears at the bottom left of form.
That section, linked above, requires the California registration of ANY out-of-state protection order, not just a domestic violence order.
The form is mandatory for both types of orders and it's use does not change the character of the registered order.
Nor does the clerk's summary in the court docket govern.
You are simply wrong.