From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch and Linda Carol emails of today
To: "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: OPLA-PD-SFR-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@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>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, 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>, "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>, "USLawEnforcement@google.com" <USLawEnforcement@google.com>, Feedback <feedback@calbar.ca.gov>, mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>
ICE,
I have relentlessly advised this Criminal Stalker to cease and desist. He is amused and sees himself as immune due to the Greece/US extradition treaty. This man is a bald faced liar, an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen's legal team, and appears to be moonlighting for the Phil Spector [prosecution]..
So, let me ask you this question since we have freedom of speech in America. Can someone be deported for fraud? I will remind you that I do not know Von Watteville who started a campaign of slander about me and was advised to cease and desist. I created no third grade wanted poster. I didn't write Linda Carol's declaration that I sent you under separate cover. Stephen Gianelli is a criminal and he routinely lies to IRS, FBI, DOJ, FTB, and others.
I intend to submit this declaration to the Small Claims Court, Judge Hess, the Court in the fraud domestic violence restraining order court, and will send ICE a signed copy. Robert Kory advised Von Watteville (who contacted him after receiving Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter) to sue me. And voila - she's represented by Gianelli and he's threatening me with legal action. I don't think Von Watteville should pursue that angle but these people are out of control. In any event IRS, FBI, and DOJ were copied in on my handful of cease and desist letters so they must know that Von Watteville is lying.
Gianelli has once again been advised to cease and desist. Linda Carol advised him to cease and desist earlier today. He just sent more emails to us. The man belongs in prison. Unfortunately, we're not celebrities, wiling to lie to LAPD's TMU, so evidently this conduct is completely acceptable to local LA government actors when it comes to ordinary citizens.
All the best,
Kelley Lynch
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Cease and desist Gianelli.
Ms. Lynch,If (as you have already stated in writing) you did not draft Linda Carol’s declaration, and Linda Carol provide the declaration at the request of Ms. Brandt in aid of her small claims dispute with Ms. Von Watteville, then how did you obtain a copy of the declaration in word format in order to post it on your blog, and also to allow you to cut and paste the declaration in the text fields of your many mass emails – all in aid of republishing the declaration on the web and to the national media (including to two reporters at the Los Angeles Times)—if not from Ms. Brandt?The logical inference is that Ms. Brandt provided it to you for that purpose, unless you removed it from the documents file of her computer without her permission (which I don’t believe). Additionally, I brought to Ms. Brandt’s attention your posting in 2013 of Ms. Brandt’s declaration that disparaged me, and the declaration did not come down from your website. It’s reasonably clear that Ms. Brandt encouraged you to republish the declaration, especially in light of the libelous flier disparaging of Ms. Von Watteville that features a unique and identifiable photograph of her take by Ms. Brandt that was also stored on Ms. Brandt’s computer as well Ms. Brandt’s other “fingerprints” on the flier (including a receipt for the copy charges paid by Ms. Brandt).Unfortunately for you, Ms. Carol, and Ms. Brandt, the rest of the world (including potential jurors) are not all mindless pot-smoking morons that are incapable of connecting the logical dots. One can begin to see, though, why you tend not to do well in front if judicial officers or juries where your credibility is at issue.You are doing Linda Carol no favors by continuing to email me and others on this subject, including your additional emails of today time stamped 8:36 AM, 8:38 AM, 8:41 AM, 8:44 AM, 8:55 AM, 8:58 AM, 9:15 AM, and 9:21 AM. You may thrive on constant conflict and court proceedings, Ms. Carol may not have realized what you and Ms. Brandt were getting her into.Additionally, your copying your disparaging correspondence to the Immigration and Nationalization Service after you have already threatened Ms. Von Watteville with deportation merely underscores the malicious state of mind of you and your co-actors as well as the fact that none of this serves any litigation purpose. The Department of Homeland Security (“ICE” as you refer to it) is not going to allow you to attempt to use the threat of deportation to serve your petty grievances against lawful resident aliens of this country.Last, even if the litigation privilege operated to immunize its filing in the many court proceedings you referenced (keeping in mind that to qualify for immunity all statements in the declaration must legitimately serve the purposes of the litigation as stated in Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1145-1146) the litigation privilege DOES NOT apply to shield those who publish disparaging statements OUTSIDE THE LITIGATION, including but not limited to the media, in your blog, or in emails to persons who have no direct interest in the litigation you reference. (See Rothman v. Jackson, supra.)Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceFrom: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 8:36 AM
To: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; USLawEnforcement@google.com; Feedback; mike.feuer@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti
Cc: Paulette Brandt; linda carol; Karina Von Watteville; OPLA-PD-SFR-OCC@ice.dhs.govß
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch and Linda Carol emails of todayCease and desist, Gianelli and Von Watteville.àPaulette Brandt didn't allow me to do anything. Linda Carol advised you to cease and desist. Paulette Brandt has done the same. I am not involved in this matter and have every right to put a factual declaration, that will be submitted to more than one department at LA Superior Court, on my evidence blog. This declaration is covered by the litigation privilege and the mediator (after hearing Von Watteville ranting about Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory) advised me to bring this to the attention of the Court. Von Watteville clearly condones this criminal harassment since she has been copied in on many emails. I do not know this woman who has lied about and slandered me. Is she now providing you with photographs? How vile. A woman Paulette helped who was about to end up homeless joined forces with you and Robert Kory and then defrauded Paulette Brandt of $6,700.You have not entered a formal appearance in the fraudulent domestic violence order. I have provided Judge Hess with evidence that Cohen/Kory planned to use fraud restraining orders to discredit me as early as June 2005. LA Superior Court already advised me that Cohen was not permitted to register a non-domestic violence order (I requested prior to reading his perjured declaration) as a domestic violence order in California. Share your research with Cohen's lawyers since you are clearly an informal member of his defense team.Tell it to the Judge, Gianelli because the declaration will be presented to the judge in Small Claims Court, Judge Hess, and the fraud restraining order matter. Von Watteville's targeting me over this issue (and contacting Cohen's lawyer) is a serious legal issue.Cease and desist.KelleyLynchOn Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:48 PM, STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
Ms. Lynch,1. If, as you say, Linda Carol prepared a declaration at the request of Paulette Brandt, and Ms. Brandt allowed you to post it on your blog and then to email it to the media and to others, Ms. Brandt is legally responsible for the unprivledged publications of the email.2. You previously stated that Ms. Carol’s declaration was prepared for you to file in support of your “motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence order” (as you put it) issued by a Colorado Court in 2008 and registered in California pursuant to Family Code §§ 6401 and 6404(a), and you did not claim that the Carol declaration was filed in support of Paulette Brandt’s small claims proceeding until I pointed out to you that registration of the Colorado order in California on May 25, 2011 was a ministerial act, and that expunging it from CLETS would turn on a legal question not a factual one, let alone the alleged character of a third party who you did not even know until two years later. Therefore, should Ms. Watteville file suit as I have advised her she has a right to do, your transparent change of stories about why the declaration was created will be damaging to your credibility.3. At the time the declaration was created, there was no small claims action involving Ms. Von Watteville pending, and Ms. Brandt’s rent claim against Ms. Watteville had already been dismissed “with prejudice” by the court pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations. Moreover, even if Ms. Von Watteville’s alleged propensity to live in filth and to infect her living quarters with bugs was somehow logically connected to Paulette Brandt’s prior claim for back rent (it wasn’t), the litigation privilege would not apply to its publication outside the litigation, including to Kelley Lynch, and its foreseeable republication by Ms. Lynch in emails to the national media and to others and on her blog. (See Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1145-1146 [The “communicative act . . . must function as a necessary or useful step in the litigation process and must serve its purposes.” Statements outside the litigation to the press are not subject to the privilege either.]4. Ms. Carol (according to your email communications, copied to her – which she has not denied) - additionally published to you additional scurrilous and defamatory statements about Ms. Watteville, which, as you helpfully point out, were not included in the declaration at all. There is therefore no arguable litigation privilege for Ms. Carol’s defamatory assertions that Ms. Von Watteville is a prostitute, involved in the porn industry, is guilty of fraud and (allegedly) habitually fails to pay her bills or your foreseeable republication of them on your blog and in mass emails to the media and to others.5. Some of these allegations predated Ms. Carol’s move into Ms. Brandt’s apartment and appear to have originated with Ms. Brandt, including the allegation that Ms. Von Watteville brought garbage and cockroaches into the apartment and that Ms. Von Watteville was defrauding the estate of an elderly man, which is also false. Moreover, the attached false and malicious flier was distributed in Ms. Von Watteville’s neighborhood and has a unique photograph embedded in it taken by Ms. Brandt that could only have been supplied by her. A copy service receipt formerly in Ms. Brandt’s possession for the production of the flier (52 known copies of which were gathered and returned to Ms. Von Watteville, with many more distributed) also establishes Ms. Brandt’s involvement not only in the production and distribution of the flier, but in the larger effort to damage Ms. Von Watteville’s reputation in aid of persuading her to pay the alleged back-rent. The allegations in the flier are very similar to the general allegation that Ms. Carol, acting through Ms. Lynch, have made in mass emails and in blog posts that Ms. Von Watteville is guilty of “fraud”.6. For all of these reasons, I have advised Ms. Von Watteville that she has a good and meritorious cause of action against Paulette Brandt, Kelley Lynch and Linda Carol for libel per se. Whether or not Ms. Von Watteville decides to devote the time and energy to pursuing this meritorious cause of action in a court of general jurisdiction is up to Ms. Von Watteville and remains to be seen. Because I am retired and living abroad I cannot appear in any such action on her behalf, but have offered my technical legal assistance with any such lawsuit until such time as she retains counsel.7. As for the small claims action, for the reasons stated in Ms. Von Watteville’s Answer to Ms. Brandt’s “motion for a new hearing” filed and served by mail on Ms. Brandt yesterday, that proceeding has been finally determined and is over. The court lacks jurisdiction to hear, let alone grant Ms. Brandt’s new trial motion.8. Regarding Ms. Carol’s emailed statement of today, stating: “I don’t have any idea what you are talking about”, playing dumb and denying the obvious are not likely to immunize Ms. Carol from a likely substantial damage award for her participation in the malicious effort to damage Ms. Von Watteville’s reputation.Very truly yours,Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, GreeceFrom: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:40 AM
To: linda carol; Stephen Gianelli; *IRS.Commisioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Division, Criminal; Doug.Davis; Dennis; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; a; wennermedia; Mick Brown; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; Harriet Ryan; hailey.branson; stan.garnett; USLawEnforcement@google.com; Feedback; mike.feuer@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti
Subject: Re: (no subject)Stephen Gianelli,I am advising you to cease and desist harassing me and my friends. I do not know Karina Von Watteville. You have no idea where I live. I view this email to Linda Carol as blatant witness tampering. Your slander, threats, intimidation tactics, etc. will now be brought to the attention of the Court. Linda Carol prepared a declaration for Paulette Brandt and you have relentlessly harassed us over this matter. Karina Von Watteville did not know you. She contacted Robert Kory, after receiving Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter, and ended up being legally assisted by you - in defrauding Paulette Brandt. Linda Carol's declaration will have litigation privilege as it is being submitted to the Court in the Small Claims matter. It is factual.Your threats are also going to be reported to the State Bar since you are the individual, with Von Watteville, who is lying and who has targeted me (and others - including my sons) for six straight years now. You definitely appear to be part of Cohen's informal defense team. That would explain your legal research and opinions I am constantly harassed with related to Cohen matters.Cease and desist.Kelley LynchOn Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:53 PM, linda carol <lindacarol184@gmail.com> wrote:---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: May 5, 2015 11:10 AM
Subject:
To: <lindacarol184@gmail.com>
Cc:Ms. Carol,1. The fact that some of the more salacious defamatory statements you have uttered were omitted from your “declaration” does not affect your civil liability. Even verbal, nonprivileged, defamatory statements published to a third party can get you sued for libel – especially when made to someone like Kelley Lynch who is notorious for maliciously using her blogs and mass emailing’s (routinely copied to the national and Los Angeles media and others) as a platform to attempt to ruin the reputations of those who she feels have crossed her in some way (in this case by “calling Robert Kory”). Stated another way, a reasonable person who has been living in close quarters with Kelley Lynch since 2013 would have foreseen that your verbal and written defamatory statements about Karina Von Watteville would be re-published by Ms. Lynch to a mass audience in mass emails and on the world-wide-web – which is exactly what happened, and Google, as they say, is forever.2. Do you really want to spend the next years of your life slogging it out in court with Kelley Lynch, as Ms. Lynch has for the past few years? For what? To get even with Ms. Von Watteville? Respectfully, where is the upside for you in all of this?3. If you do get sued, you only have yourself to blame.Stephen R. GianelliAttorney-at-Law (ret.)Crete, Greece
