Date: Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:42 PM
Subject:
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@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>, 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 <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
Now that the "party at interest" is in his helpful mode I will put together a private blog with all emails I have maintained re. his, Susanne Walsh, et al's criminally harassing emails. Third parties are evidently now supposed to view Gianelli as "helpful." Does it really "help" me to quote a case I raised in my motion? I'm referring to Fidelity Creditor Service v. Browne. Did it help when he assisted Paulette's former roommate in defrauding her of $6,700 (after the woman spoke to Robert Kory)? DId it help when this criminal attempted to insert himself into Rutger's Whole Food matter? Did it help when a stranger, who could be a sexual predator, attempted to lure my then minor son into communicating with him and then offered his services in his alleged custody matter although he doesn't know my sons? Did that help? Was he being helpful when he began lying to my alleged prosecutor? Was he being helpful when he attempted insert himself into the Tax Court matter and contacted Mr. Fabian?
Perhaps Gianelli has being helpful when he attempted to insult, slander, intimidate, and threaten witnesses? I don't think my witnesses really found it all that helpful. This man is a pathological liar with motive. He is now attempting to appear helpful so that people don't assume he's in a "legal conspiracy" with Cohen, Kory, Rice, et al. His interest in the process server and witnesses who will offer oral testimony is fairly unique. Perhaps he would like to criminally harass them also. I'm sure Judge Hess would approve of that if he believes I was served.
None of this resolves the fact that Cohen used the fraud Complaint narrative to obtain fraudulent tax refunds and defend himself with IRS. Those issues have not been litigated and are federal tax matters. The same is true for Cohen's willful refusal to provide me with IRS required tax information, rescind the LCI K-1s, and provide me with information about the secretly rectified mistake about my ownership interest in TH. I would also like to have answers to all the questions Kory raised in the January 2005 memorandum with Ira Reiner copied in. Where did they conveniently arrive at all answers that benefited Cohen? Did the evidence change?
All the best,
Kelley
Kelley
From: Stephen R. Gianelli [mailto:stephengianelli@gmail.
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:48 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:48 PM
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion
See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:
1. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case does not address that issue.
2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.
3. There is no “due diligence” requirement in filing the motion “earlier” (e.g., after learning of the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the date mailing of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within that statutory time or it is not.
4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED – so the moving party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in favor of proper service.
5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS’ JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or filed – let alone served. (See the on-line docket “case summary”.) A proposed order was lodged, but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered – and (arguably) therefore there was no prior finding of proper service.