Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM
Subject:
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>, "*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>, 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 <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov
Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,
The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who continues to argue Cohen's legal positions, has sent me yet another criminally harassing email. I will reply to the two of you as you serve as Cohen's general counsel, personal manager, and business manager.
If you don't know the difference between RICO and Hazel-Atlas, I would strongly recommend that you research the differences. Since federal courts do follow Hazel-Atlas, including Tax Court, when Cohen's legal team lies in federal court (or perjures himself, commits fraud, etc.), I will file a motion re. fraud upon the court. That's a simple fact. I am extremely clear that California condones the tampering with the administration of justice and seems to feel that perjury, fraud, and litigation misconduct results in a fair legal proceeding. I completely disagree. You have lied about serving me the summons and complaint in Case No. BC338322 and continue to do so. Or, you have lied that I was served but the proof of service lists a third party Jane Doe who does not exist.
The state court judgment vis a vis federal tax matters will be at issue. That will include, but is not limited to, the fraudulent tax refunds Cohen obtained six months prior to the entry of default.
Everyone takes a chance going to the U.S. Supreme Court so I don't feel as though I'm in the minority here.
I won't be starting with your alleged arguments since you don't have any. You have fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured statements, and litigation misconduct and tactics.
This conduct should cease and desist.
I still have not received a copy of the "declaration" filed in Case No. BQ033717. Is there something you forgot to lie to the court about during the hearing?
Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Hazel-Atlas
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:17 AM
Subject: Hazel-Atlas
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
PS:
Do yourself a favor, before you drive into another blind litigation alley in front of a far less forgiving federal bench.
When asked to apply, assess, or set aside a state court judgment the federal district court must apply the procedural law of the state in which the judgment was issued.
As explicitly set forth in Cohen’s opposition to your 2015 motion to set aside the 2006 judgment, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. That was conclusively established by the California Supreme court, California does not follow Hazel-Atlas and will only set a judgment aside in the case of extrinsic, as opposed to intrinsic fraud on the court (including alleged perjury underpinning the judgment). And even when a judgement is issued by a federal trial court (Cohen’s judgement isn’t) the Federal Rules now place a strict time limit on motions to set aside judgments procured through alleged fraud.
So it is not a question of how a federal court will “interpret” Hazel-Atlas – the issue is that the case is inapplicable to an attack on a California state-court judgment based on alleged intrinsic fraud.
As for your off-hand statement that you guess “The Supreme Court: will be considering whether Cohen’s judgment will be set aside, no they will not.
This term the Supreme Court granted a mere 18 petitions for review out of the many hundreds filed. There is zero chance of the United States Supreme Court granting a pro se petition for review in your case. And even if it did, the result would be the same: Hazel-Atlas does not apply to a California state-court judgment.
This is easy enough to research – start with the cases cited in Cohen’s opposition on this point.
