From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Subject: Fwd:
To: "irs.commissioner" <irs.commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, "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>, 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>, sedelman <sedelman@gibsondunn.com>, JFeuer <JFeuer@gibsondunn.com>, "kevin.prins" <kevin.prins@ryan.com>, rwest0@gmx.com, Sherab Posel <poselaw@gmail.com>
Hello IRS, FBI, DOJ and FTB,
See Swanigan's email to Gianelli of September 27, 2013, directly instructing him to continue criminally harassing me and advising him to communicate a psychotic message from her re. the legal conspiracy this email tends to prove. Swanigan testified that she doesn't know Gianelli so who's delusional and what authority does she have to make that claim - while encouraging someone engaged in criminal conduct to target me? She doesn't want to unwittingly encourage him but does. Why do the taxpayers pay for this insanity?
I am now being criminally harassed over my claims to the City and County of Los Angeles. See attached letter confirming the dates and pattern of conduct I was addressing. I've attached some other evidence including another party's complaint about identical issues with the City Attorney, LA Superior Court, and others. I have also attached the declaration I provided re. these claims. I don't care what Gianelli is writing me about. I am documenting the harassment. He is providing me with legal opinions re. Leonard Cohen and now the City and County of Los Angeles. I didn't have to address all federal claims. I just had to give an indication of the issues. I think I did that fairly well - including in my declaration. Does someone engaged in fraud and potential criminal conduct have absolute immunity? I don't think so. What witnesses? Leonard Cohen's paid lawyers who willfully lied on the witness stand - including with respect to IRS and federal tax matters.
See Swanigan's email to Gianelli of September 27, 2013, directly instructing him to continue criminally harassing me and advising him to communicate a psychotic message from her re. the legal conspiracy this email tends to prove. Swanigan testified that she doesn't know Gianelli so who's delusional and what authority does she have to make that claim - while encouraging someone engaged in criminal conduct to target me? She doesn't want to unwittingly encourage him but does. Why do the taxpayers pay for this insanity?
All the best,
Kelley
From: Vivienne Swanigan <vivienne.swanigan@
Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Emails to Kelly Lynch
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Emails to Kelly Lynch
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Since you are still intent on "poking the lion", could you please send emails (several) to Kelly Lynch stating that you are not connected to Sandra Streeter, have never met her, and you are not involved with a conspiracy with her? Because, unfortunately, your poking at Lynch and defending our prosecutor is making her focus more and more on Ms. Streeter and a delusional belief that Streeter and you are cohorts in a conspiracy against her.
Also, could you please not give Lynch any further information about what we are doing/planning? My intent in emailing you about the hearing was just to let you know what happened as a courtesy, not to give you more ammunition to throw at Lynch. I do not like the fact that I have unwittinglin fueled the fires of Kelly Lynch's imaginary Gianelli-Streeter conspiracy by giving you information about what happened at the hearging. - Vivienne
*****************Confidentiality Notice ************************* This electronic message transmission contains information from the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ****************************** ****************************** ********
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 12:26 PM
Subject:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
You don't know what I am talking about?
I cited you three US Supreme Court cases discussing the three categories of federal claims you assert in your letter to the City and County that you are about to file - holding that the actions of - respectively - prosecutors judges and witnesses all have "absolute immunity" from liability under Section 1983.
If you don't immediately see the import of that dispositive authority then you don't have the legal reasoning ability to shepherd even a case of excellent merit through federal court - let alone the substantively and procedurally flawed dog of a caseyou claim to be poised to file.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
