Date: Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:52 PM
Subject: Fwd:
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>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, 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 and Robert Kory,
The Criminal Stalker, Stephen Gianelli, appears to be tripping out right now. He is harassing me over Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, Leonard Cohen legal issues, and someone who evidently wrote or advised him of a "blotter acid" print Steve Lindsey kept in his home when my son was visiting His obsession with me is frightening. I was placing his emails in a file as LAPD's TMU advised me to maintain them. I came across this email about my RICO suit. Gianelli has set forth his perceptions of my RICO arguments and then provided some case he researched in support of his arguments. The case relates to litigation misconduct in an Idaho case. I am aware of the litigation privilege. I am also aware that LA Superior Court condones fraud, perjury, theft, and falsely characterizes motions for fraud upon the court as motions to reconsider when they are not. I understand you have inserted "intrinsic fraud" arguments, based on the statements and false accusations you submitted to the court, into various matters and feel you are protected when you submit perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations to the court. I've addressed this rather extensively with LA Superior Court.
If you would like to discuss these matters, as Cohen's attorney of record, or with respect to my RICO suit, please hit reply all. I view this email as an attempt to infiltrate my legal matters by an operative who appears to work as an unofficial member of Cohen's legal team. I will let the federal court know why I feel that way.
Kelley Lynch
P.S. The Civil Appeal Unit didn't receive Bergman's withdrawal of counsel information. Evidently you are supposed to notify them. I haven't heard from you re. the two "Proposed Orders" you've delivered to me. I'll let Judge Hess know that I have no idea which Proposed Order you want me to submit. He can then decide what Order to use.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
Statute of limitations issues aside, your stated intention to file a “RICO suit” arising from your contentions that Kory, Rice and Cohen engaged in acts of “perjury,” “fraud,” and “extortion” in respect to the entry of the default judgment in Los Angeles case No. BC338322 in May of 2005, their statements and pleadings made and filed in opposition to your serial motions to set aside the judgment in 2013 and 2015, and in connection with the renewal of the judgment and to add post judgment interest to through the filing of a memorandum of costs in 2015, is precluded by California’s so called “litigation privilege” codified in Civil Code section 47.
As stated by US Magistrate Judge Williams in his memorandum decision dismissing pro se plaintiffs’ civil RICO claims against parties and their attorneys based on alleged litigation misconduct in Christonson, et al, v. United States, et al, 415 F. Supp.2d 1186, 1312 -1313 (D. Idaho 2006):
“Plaintiffs' second series of claims are based on events that would not be barred by res judicata, i.e., that a massive RICO conspiracy existed in the federal Utah judicial system and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, these claims are barred by the judicial proceedings privilege. In California and Utah, an "absolute privilege attaches to any publication that has any reasonable relation to the action and is permitted by law if made to achieve the objects of litigation, even thought the publication is made outside the courtroom and no function of the court or its officers is invoked. Rader v. Thrasher, 22 Cal.App.3d 883, 887 (Cal.Ct.App. 1972); accord Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Utah 1997); Beezley v. Hansen, 286 P.2d 1057, 1058 (1955); see also Krouse v. Bower, 20 P.3d 895, 898-99 (Utah 2001). The absolute privilege applies to judges, jurors, attorneys, parties, witnesses and any others involved in the litigation. Kachig v. Boothe, 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 641 (Cal.Ct.App. 1971); see also Price, 949 P.2d at 1256. This privilege is not limited to defamation claims; rather, it extends "to all claims arising from the same statements." Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook McDonough, 2003 UT 9, ¶ 67, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (citations omitted.). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has noted that RICO was not intended to circumvent judicial immunity even when the allegations involve general allegations of conspiracy. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
“Plaintiffs have alleged the various Defendants have committed abuse of process and made fraudulent statements to courts in California and Utah in arguing that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. However, any legal arguments made by Defendants or their representatives are absolutely protected by the judicial proceedings privilege. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims based upon allegations against the above-named Defendants that they filed fraudulent pleadings and made fraudulent representations as part of a larger RICO conspiracy during the course of any judicial proceedings.” (Id, italics added.)
Simply stated, your alleged civil RICO claims arising out of the 2006 default judgment in BC338322 and related post judgment litigation activity are barred by privilege.
California’s litigation privilege is absolute, and applies even in the face of alleged “fraud” and “perjury” to completely immunize Kory, Rice and Cohen from any and all civil liability arising from their testimony and pleadings filed in BC338322.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
