Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
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 <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>, tips@radaronline.com, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Hello IRS,
I'm being criminally harassed over Cohen - and have (together with my sons and friends) for six years - and this gives Rice ammunition? How twisted, predictable, and perverted. IRS should seize their computers, etc. I would assume Gianelli's not communicating with Rice right now. These emails will be used in my federal RICO suit. No one is this obsessed with a stranger. And, he remains obsessed with Paulette Brandt, etc.
Kelley
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Subject: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Subject: Your blog posted email to Michelle Rice dated Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Ms. Lynch,
I am not trying to “elicit information” about your appeals. Based on my 37 years’ experience in drafting, presenting and arguing civil and criminal writs and appeals in the California Court of Appeal (the first two as a law clerk during law school at a firm representing the California Medical Association and other appellate savvy clients) as well as my familiarity with the legal and factual context of the underlying orders you have discussed appealing on your blog, I know far more about the appeals process in general and YOUR pending and threatened appeals than you ever will. I already know what you will file and what the outcome will be.
My email simply points out that your habit of arguing contested facts from your own perspective (as you did in your direct appeal from the 2012 criminal harassment conviction) in the face of a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard of review (which is the standard applicable to orders denying a motion to set aside a default judgment) is a direct path to appellate failure.
So is IGNORING the applicable standard of review in your opening brief.
Of course, you prefer to talk about what you want to talk about, and the applicable court rules and procedures be damned.
But legal rules and procedure do not operate the way Kelley Lynch thinks they should. They operate the way they always operate for policy reasons that are more important that a pro se litigant’s self-serving conception of “justice” in a given case.
Last, regardless of what you obviously prefer to believe, Michelle Rice is the last person in the world that I am communicating with right now. Therefore, by forwarding my emails to her you are simply giving her more legal ammunition to use against you in the trial court and court of appeal. That is the real irony. Since you are not about to do anything I suggest as the proper way to go about presenting something in court, you are only aiding the opposition.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
______________________________
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.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
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Fwd: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.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
Michelle Rice,
I continue to be criminally harassed by the proxy stalker. If you have any questions about my appeals, please hit reply all or wait for me to file them. Gianelli has not entered his formal entry of appearance in these appeals.
Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM
Subject: Your multiple recent blog posts regarding various appeals
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Your focus on contested facts leads me to wonder whether you have given any thought to the applicable standard of review in each of your pending and contemplated appeals.
“‘Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.’ Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit.” (Sonic Manufacturing Tech., Inc. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465 [citations omitted].) “In every appeal, the threshold matter to be determined is the proper standard of review — the prism through which we view the issues presented to us. [Citation.]” (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 36, fn. 12.)
Failing to provide a fair statement of facts based on the relevant standard of review - as typically occurs when a person without appellate experience prepares the opening brief - risks not only having the justice set aside the brief, but also risks waiving any arguments based on the defective statement of facts. As the appellate courts have stated, “It is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.”(Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [Internal quotation marks omitted].) Appellants are “required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence. Unless this is done the error assigned is deemed to be waived.” (Ibid. [emphasis in original].) The failure to provide a fair statement of the facts waives any issue relying on those facts. (County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274.)
Where the trial court’s order granting relief is within its sound discretion, it should not be disturbed “in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478.) “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” (Id., at pp. 478-479.) Reversal is unlikely where the standard of review is abuse of discretion.
The standard of appellate review of an order refusing to set aside a default judgment is always an abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 118.)
This is rarely a winning argument.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli