Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Subject: Your latest hyperbolic blog post
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
The first thing a competent lawyer does is research the biography, quirks and preferences of the judge he or she is going to be in front of. (You can bet that your opponent already has.) Sending you a concise summary re same published by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. is not “harassment”.
You will note from his bio that Judge Silverman worked for a California Supreme justice (Ray Sullivan) for30-years as a staff research attorney. (Staff research attorney is a full time, paid legal position. They work matters up for conference and draft bench memoranda for their justice that analyses the issues raised, sets forth a recommended disposition [e.g., “affirm” or “reverse”] and that often form the basis for the ultimate majority or concurring opinion resulting from the matter.) This indicates two things.
2. His take on the 2011 California Registration of the 2008 Colorado civil harassment order is likely to be exactly the take that court of appeal staff will have should you elect to appeal the (anticipated) denial of your pending motion.
Finally, since “personal attack” of the opposing party as well as of opposing counsel are you stock-in-trade, and 90% of every declaration you have ever filed has consisted of “argument” as distinguished from admissible facts, you would do well to heed Judge Silverman’s “pet peeves”.
Good luck on at the hearing.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
