The Proxy Stalker, Stephen Gianelli, Continues To Criminally Harass Kelley Lynch Over Leonard Cohen

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW:
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, "*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>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>
Cc: Dan Bergman <dbergman@bergman-law.com>, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

Stephen Gianelli,

I don't care about your lies and pathetic excuses.  You have criminally harassed me, my sons, sister, elderly parents, friends, and others, for over six straight years now.  You are the individual that publicly stated that you spoke with Michelle Rice/Kory-Rice in May 2009.  I think that is more than obvious.  It doesn't explain the fact that you are now arguing Phil Spector prosecution theories online at Truth Sentinel.  It doesn't explain why you worked with Spector's former assistant, Michelle Blaine, to target my blogs and email accounts.  She publicly congratulated you over that situation.  It doesn't explain why you work in tandem with Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh, who copied Michelle Rice on many of her emails.  

I do not want to hear from you - regarding the appeal I am about to undertake in case no. BC338322, the fraudulent domestic violence order, or anything else for that matter.  You have also criminally harassed, targeted, stalked, slandered, insulted, threatened, and attempted to intimidate my witnesses.  You lured my then minor son into privately communicating with you.  I don't know if you are a sexual predator or serial murderer.  I do not know you and your obsession with my sons is frightening.

You advised me that you worked with the City Attorney to have me falsely arrested on two occasions.  I find that beyond unconscionable after their conduct throughout my trial - including lying about IRS and federal tax matters.  The fact that a prosecutor would take the position that employees have the tax information IRS requires employers to provide someone is beyond deranged.

And let's not forget that Investigator William Frayeh, District Attorney's office (Phil Spector case), thought you may have found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson.  Steve Cooley publicly joined forces with Leonard Cohen who then took the stand, in my so-called trial, and testified about Spector and a gun incident.  There are now three versions of that gun incident before LA Superior Court.  

Cease and desist.  You are not attorney of record in any of these cases and you are nothing other than a two-bit hustler and common criminal.

Kelley Lynch

When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy  and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" -- he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesn’t reread his emails to see what kind of message they actually convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.

He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense"  -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5.  They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.

Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “visiting her in jail”, posting photes of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to  professional suicide.

But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of  cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team.  I think the latter.

I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? 

This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.

Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic:  if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.

He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.

If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.

I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.

I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.

I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and profit from it. 

Ann D.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: FW:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Lynch,

First, there were two emails from Alan to me, the first INFORMING  me about your email the second FORWARDING it.

Second, Alan and I are both in different time zones from you and each other. Chile is 4 hours ahead of LA, Athens is 10 hours ahead of you.

My email went out at 9:33 PM Athens time, which is 11:33 am California time. Alan’s first email was received by me at 11:09 am California time. Your email to Alan was time stamped by his computer at 1:50 PM Chile time, or approximately 9:50 am California time.

No wonder you have such a consist (losing) track record in court. You are utterly incompetent at drawing correct inferences.

Not that it even fucking matters who told me about your email, then forwarded it to me – but, obviously it was Alan, not Dan Bergan or Michelle Rice, who have reported nothing to me at all.

And if one of them (Bergman or Rice) was going to inform me what happened in court, they would simply have told me,  instead of couching it in terms of “I just received a rant email from Kelley Lynch saying she lost the motion”. That interpretation makes zero sense.

But this is a prime example of how you jump to incorrect conclusions based not on logical inferences, but what you want to believe, and how you then rigidly cling to your ill formed and false conclusion no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary.

This trait on your part is a serious handicap that dooms you to failure in any legal forum – even if you had legal knowledge and skills, which you clearly do not.

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:51 PM
To: alan hootnick; 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; mike.feuer@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti; OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov; Kelly.Sopko; whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov; AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov
Subject: Re: FW:

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Alan Hootnick didn't forward my email to Gianelli until 9.26 PM.  Gianelli wrote me about the hearing yesterday in the mid-afternoon.  In fact, he knew the outcome as I walked in the door.  I would assume his State Bar colleagues were on the phone to him as they were leaving court.

Kelley

From: alan hootnick [mailto:ahootnick@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Fwd:

Stephen, this is the message she sent me:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

I wouldn't call Gianelli's harassment legal advice actually but do review Ann Diamond's latest piece on him.  I have no idea what Alan Hootnick and Stephen Gianelli are up to here but Alan Hootnick was NOT cc'd on my email and Gianelli wrote me before Alan Hootnick evidently received a copy of that email.  Gianelli is, of course, lying again.  

Kelley Lynch

When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy  and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" -- he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesn’t reread his emails to see what kind of message they actually convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.

He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense"  -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5.  They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.

Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “visiting her in jail”, posting photes of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to  professional suicide.

But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of  cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team.  I think the latter.

I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? 

This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.

Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic:  if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.

He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.

If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.

I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.

I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.

I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and profit from it. 

Ann D.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Alan Hootnick,

I received emails harassing me over my motion hearing BEFORE you evidently forwarded this email to Stephen Gianelli.  You were not copied on my email to IRS, FBI, and DOJ and I didn't copy Gianelli.  They must have been on their cell phone with him immediately following the hearing.  Do read Ann Diamond's piece about Gianelli.  He has harassed and slandered her for years now.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: FW:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

You FORWARDED it to him after initially sending it – for whatever reason. Moron.

How else could Alan mention it in his earlier email and later send it to me? Could you possibly be that dumb?

-----Original Message-----
From: alan hootnick
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Fwd:

èStephen, this is the message she sent me:

--- On Tue, 6/23/15, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

à From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
> Subject: Fwd:
àTo: "alan hootnick" 

> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 1:50 PM
>
> ---------- Forwarded
> message ----------
> From: Kelley
> Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50 AM
> Subject:
> To: "*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>, Harriet Ryan
> <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson"
> <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>,
> mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>,
> OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko"
> <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov,
> AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov
> Cc: Dan Bergman <dbergman@bergman-law.com>, Michelle Rice
> <mrice@koryrice.com>

MESSAGE TRUNCATED

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:26 PM
To: 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; mike.feuer@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti; OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov; Kelly.Sopko
Cc: Dan Bergman; Michelle Rice; alan hootnick
Subject: Fwd: FW:

Stephen Gianelli,

I didn't cc Alan Hootnick on my email so whether or not he forwarded it to you is irrelevant.  He wasn't a recipient.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:07 AM
Subject: FW:
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

BTW, idiot, you now owe Dan Bergman and Michelle Rice an apology.

-----Original Message-----
From: alan hootnick
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 9:26 PM
To: Stephen Gianelli
Subject: Fwd:

Stephen, this is the message she sent me:

--- On Tue, 6/23/15, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

à From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
> Subject: Fwd:
> To: "alan hootnick" <ahootnick@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 1:50 PM
>
> ---------- Forwarded
> message ----------
> From: Kelley
> Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50 AM
> Subject:
> To: "*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>, Harriet Ryan
> <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson"
> <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "stan.garnett" <stan.garnett@gmail.com>,
> mike.feuer@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>,
> OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov, "Kelly.Sopko"
> <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov,
> AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov
> Cc: Dan Bergman <dbergman@bergman-law.com>, Michelle Rice
> <mrice@koryrice.com>
>
>
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The judge, whose demeanor was reprehensible, denied the motion.  He
evidently didn't read the documents or declarations and argued that I
might have had a co-occupant.  That's not what Cohen argued.  I intend
to appeal immediately.  I am going to the U.S. Supreme Court over this
if necessary.

I will now file my motion to vacate the fraud domestic violence order;
object to the seal; respond to the Motion for Sanctions (left at
Paulette's while we were at court and handed to me by Robert Kory);
and, the appeal.

The court said I did not prove extrinsic fraud. He refused to address
the fraud and perjury used to obtain the default and his January 2014
order.  He did not address the declarations or clarify the ambiguous
judgment.

t's my burden to prove that Cohen had him seal publicly available
documents.

The judge acknowledged that he does not have jurisdiction over federal
tax matters but he's hearing one.  He said his seal relates to the 
public and not Tax Court.


As Paulette just noted - "Why are we here since he didn't bother
reading anything?" and "LA works beautifully for the criminal."
That's factual.

The judge said I chose to represent myself.  In any event, the man's
conduct is appalling and this will be appealed.  They do not like to
admit their own screw ups either.  Their procedural problems are
evidently my issue.  When I mentioned that he was violating my rights
to due process, the judge said I tell everyone that.  How would he
know?  I don't know this man.

Kelley