Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Subject: Fwd:
To: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.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 <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, Fabian Paulmikell A <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>
Stephen Gianelli,
I have relentlessly advised you to cease and desist. Lying to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other government agencies, while slandering me, is not providing me with information. Furthermore, you do not represent me. You attempt to infiltrate matters, elicit information, threaten and intimidate witnesses, and are engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment that involves overlapping legal conspiracies related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. You, Michelle Blaine, Susanne Walsh and others have engaged in witness tampering by proxy and targeted witnesses. That would include, but is not limited to my sons whose declarations (signed by them personally) have been submitted to numerous courts. You continue to attempt to interfere with the Tax Court case and are now criminally harassing me over the RICO suits I intend to file against Cohen a well as the City and County of Los Angeles. No one is offering you any advice apart from advising you to cease and desist. Other people have gone to law enforcement, sought legal advice, or had their attorney advise you to cease and desist. I suppose you were offering Francisco Suarez legal advice when you criminally harassed him for over a year.
You are the individual who began writing and lying about me to Streeter - not I. She used it as an opportunity to retaliate. Swanigan then instructed you to continue harassing me. Rice has instructed you to harass and provoke me.
You belong in prison and I have been clear with IRS, FBI, and DOJ about that fact.
Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Subject: Re:
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Ms. Lynch,
It seems to me that I am supplying you with information, and not the other way around.
Clearly, you have no clue what you are doing - especially when it comes to court proceedings. You literally know nothing, and I therefore have nothing to learn from you.
If you chose to ignore the legal principles and authorities that stand in the way of your pending tax petition and threatened RICO action, that is up to you.
But you are absolutely the last person on Earth I would consult regarding anything legal.
Stephen Gianelli
Crete, Greece
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,The Criminal Stalker wants information. This is how he operates. He's moved on from harassing me over the Tax Court matter for a moment. I haven't received notice from Cohen, City, or County that this Criminal will formally represent them.Kelley
Stephen Gianellli,
Cease and desist. I have no evidence that you are formally representing Cohen, City of Los Angeles, or County of Los Angeles re.the RICO suits I will be filing in the near future. It is overwhelming obvious that you are attempting to elicit information and working on Cohen, et al's defense.I have been very clear with IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others that you belong in prison for this ongoing criminal harassment, targeting of my sons, and so forth.Kelley LynchFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:28 AM
Subject: Personal harm or injury does not give rise to standing to sue for an alleged RICO VIOLATION
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Cc: ahootnick@yahoo.comMs. Lynch,Another point you have over looked concerns the fact that any business or economic injury you suffered (e.g., alleged “theft” of intellectual property rights, lost commission income, the loss of your alleged corporate shares and/or partnership interests) occurred no later than May of 2006 – when the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a $7M judgment in Cohen’s favor (well outside the 4-year statute of limitations period for private RICO actions). The alleged “illegal tax refunds” – regardless of when you discovered them – could not be considered damages that you sustained and even if “fraudulent” as you allege any injury flowing therefrom was suffered by the Unites States Treasury, not Kelley Lynch. The alleged injuries to your liberty interest (e.g., the “false arrest” and “wrongful conviction” and incarcerations you suffered in 2012 and in 2014) in connection with the criminal harassment and restraining order violation case against you and/or allegedly as a result from the alleged) “fraudulent” registration of the 2008 Colorado protection order against you in May of 2011 are in the nature of personal injury damages and not “business or property” in nature. The same is true of any reputational damage that you suffered in connection therewith.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was created to combat the anticompetitive invasion of legitimate business interests by organized crime. As part of its legislative scheme to battle racketeers, Congress established criminal and civil penalties for RICO violations. Section 1964, the civil penalties section of RICO, permits both the government and private citizens to bring federal causes of action for RICO violations. Subsection § 1964(c) provides that a private citizen may file suit for treble damages when he is “injured in his business or property.” This “business or property” clause has generally been construed as a standing requirement, limiting the availability of RICO claims for potential plaintiffs. A personal injury that does not affect a business or property interest—emotional distress, for example—does not give rise to standing under § 1964(c) See Doe v Roe, 958 F2d 763, 767–68 (7th Cir 1992) [“[A]ll other courts construing this language have likewise concluded that a civil RICO action cannot be premised solely upon personal or emotional injuries.”] and See Martin Marietta Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 1124-1125 [the term “personal injury” embraces an injury flowing from or arising out of false arrest, detention or imprisonment as well as malicious prosecution].)The above principles and authorities provide yet another basis for the dismissal of any “federal RICCO suit” you initiate as threatened against Cohen, Kory, Rice, the City of Los Angeles and/or the County of Los Angeles, based on lack of a plausible claim to “business or property” injuries and the resulting lack of standing to pursue a RICO claim.Stephen GianelliCrete, GreeceFrom: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Subject: fyi
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.comTo state a claim under RICO, a plaintiff must allege (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C § 1961, et seq.; Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 557-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal of pro se plaintiffs' RICO claim for lack of pleading predicate RICO violations). A RICO "plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation." Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 493 (1985).Separate and apart from your allegations of “theft” regarding your alleged intellectual property and corporate and/or partnership interests through the default judgment in BC338322 in 2006 (well beyond the 4-year limitations period for civil RICO) you have no economic damages.From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Subject: FYI - Impremissble to collaterally attack the judgment state court judgment in BC338322 in a federal filing
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com““As courts of original jurisdiction, federal district courts have no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1995). This legal theory, commonly referred to as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, precludes federal adjudication of a claim that “amounts to nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on prior state court decisions.” Id. (citing MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir.1987)). The doctrine also precludes constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with the forbidden appeal.[…]“Accordingly, because the complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California superior court's determination in Ignacio's domestic case and the related determinations made by the federal courts that they lack subject matter jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the case.“The district court's dismissal of Ignacio's lawsuit is affirmed. We conclude that under the rule of necessity we may entertain Ignacio's appeal. We conclude also that the district court determined properly that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to consider the action because Ignacio's claims amounted to collateral attacks on a state court determination.”Source: Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir.2003). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/ 1301225.html#sthash.N4PCMvi3. dpuf
