Date: Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 8:00 PM
Subject:
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>
IRS, FBI, and DOJ,
This lawsuit, which I have not been served, demands an investigation. Robert Kory advised this woman to sue me, following my cease and desist letters and Paulette Brandt's demand for rental arrears, and this woman ended up represented by Gianelli. The lawsuit, Small Claims case, and all fraudulent emails to IRS, FBI, DOJ, ICE, etc. also warrant an investigation. That includes, but it not limited to, Kory, Gianelli, et al's communications with the DA, City Attorney, LAPD's TMU, and everything before LA Superior Court including the fraud judgment and fraud DMV order. Cohen testified before that court that I never stole from him and we were in a purely business relationship so what is going on?
Stephen Gianelli is writing legal opinions about the KVW matter now? If this woman sued for $1 that is extortion. I am asking, in my RICO suit, that Cohen, et al. pay any and all damages awarded with respect to this suit to KVW.
Kelley
P.S. I'm dying to see the damages. KVW probably asked for millions. David Geffen was sued for $2.5 million recently and, as Gianelli wrote, he has a net worth of approximately $7 billion. In any event, Cohen, Kory & Rice will pay any damages this woman manages to extort from me through "LA Superior Court." By the way, if you look at articles on David Geffen, you can prove that Gianelli lied when he wrote that he doesn't meet with writers, etc.
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:08 AM
Subject: Your incorrect claims in mass emails and on your blog about the applicability of the litigation privilege to your libel about Ms. Von Watteville
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Cc: ahootnick@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:08 AM
Subject: Your incorrect claims in mass emails and on your blog about the applicability of the litigation privilege to your libel about Ms. Von Watteville
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Cc: ahootnick@yahoo.com
Ms. Lynch,
The litigation privilege applies to the publication statements and writings inside the courthouse and among parties and their lawyers – but only if the communications are reasonably related to the issues at stake in the lawsuit.
Posting those same statements and writings on a blog, in the media or verbally outside court to third parties is NOT privileged – even the publication would have been privileged if made in court. If it made outside the court proceedings to non-parties to the litigation, NO PRIVILEGE APPLIES.
Therefore, even IF Linda Carol’s declaration was filed in the small claims action, the emailing of that unsigned declaration by you, the posting of that declaration on the internet, and the transmission of that unsigned declaration to opposing counsel to Ms. Von Watteville’s opposing counsel in the (entirely unrelated) probate case were not privileged – none of those many communications were.
In addition, if the publications are false, everyone who subsequently republishes the libelous claims (prostitute, dominatrix, bug infested, con, cheat, rent deadbeat, dirty) is just as libel as the person who originally made them. Meaning you are just as libel as Linda Carol (if she is the one who made them first). (Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 10, 26 [“[W]hen a party repeats a slanderous charge, he is equally guilty of defamation, even though he states the source of the charge and indicates that he is merely repeating a rumor.”].
Therefore, the litigation privilege does not protect or immunize any of YOUR publications of the draft declaration or your mass emails or blog posts repeating some of these allegations to third parties and the public.
As a final observation, it is doubtful that even Linda Carol’s signing of the declaration or Paulette Brandt’s (or your) publication of the declaration in the small claims action would be privileged either, because 1. It was filed after the case was over and 2. None of the allegations about Ms. Von Watteville was reasonably related to any issues in the small claims action – which was a breach of contract action that did not turn on Ms. Von Watteville’s character, whether she had ever worked as a prostitute or a dominatrix, was dirty or had defrauded others. The only issues were was a contract made, what were its terms, was it breached and was it time-barred. Since the allegations in the declaration were totally irrelevant to those issues, there was no privilege even as to Linda Carol’s and Paulette Brandt’s involvement in it. (See Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 205, 212 ["any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action. [Citations.]"
YOUR republication of the accusations OUTSIDE the litigation to non-parties were not even arguably litigation privileged. (Silberg v. Anderson, supra, at 2012; GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 141, [litigation privilege does not apply to communications made to non-participants to the litigation, such as the general public through a press release]; Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1138 [litigation privilege does not protect statements made to non-litigation participants]).
Therefore YOU are the one who needs to learn a thing or two about the litigation privilege afforded by Civil Code section 47, not I.
However, if no doubt you will learn an important lesson about making vicious, false statements concerning people you are angry with and want to wound in the pending litigation.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS EMAIL ARE MINE ALONE AND ARE NOT EXPRESSED ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER PERSON, ASSOCIATION OR ENTITY. THEY ARE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ATTEMPTS TO TRY YOUR VARIOUS CLAIMS AND LEGAL ISSUES IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND INTENDED TO CORRECT YOUR PUBLIC MIS-PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE LAW.