Kelley Lynch Email to Alan Hootnick, IRS, FBI, and DOJ Re. Stephen Gianelli's Ongoing Criminally Harassing Emails

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:44 AM
Subject:
To: alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>

Alan Hootnick,

Gianelli did represent Karina Von Watteville when transmitted fraudulent information to federal agencies.  I have all the emails.  She was also copied.  Let me repeat myself:  I intend to attach Von Watteville's complaint (which I have not yet been served) to my RICO lawsuit.  I have explained my reasons for doing so.  One of those reasons has to do with her call to Robert Kory.  Another one has to do with the unconscionable situation with respect to Linda Carol and her declaration.  That's normally referred to as criminal witness tampering.  We shall see what a federal court says.

For the record, I do NOT take legal advice from people attempting to dissuade me, mislead me legally, terrorize my sons and others, and who I believe are in a blatant "legal conspiracy" with Cohen, Kory, Rice, et al.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: your emails of today threatening to append email communications and Ms. Von Watteville's defemation complaint to a future RICO complaint against someone else
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com
Cc: ahootnick@yahoo.com

I DO NOT REPRESENT OR SPEAK FOR KARINA VON WATTEVILLE OR ANYONE BUT ME.

That said, see below case excerpt apropos to your ever expanding “federal court RICO complaint” contemplating scores of evidentiary exhibits, including emails:

“Federal Rule 8(a) provides that a pleading ‘‘shall contain  (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’’  FED R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).  Rule 8(e) further provides that ‘‘[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.’’  FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)(1). ‘‘Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.’’  In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting 5 WRIGHT & MILLER § 1217, at 169 (2d ed. 1990)).  Enforcing these rules is largely a matter for the trial court’s discretion, 5 WRIGHT & MILLER § 1217, at 175 & n.8 (2d ed. 1990);  Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Federal Rules ‘‘or any order of court,’’ FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The district court granted the defendants’ motion to strike Ciralsky’s initial complaint on the ground that it was ‘‘neither short nor plain,’’ but rather a ‘‘repetitive, discursive and argumentative account of the alleged wrongs suffered by the plaintiff.’’  Feb. 2001 Mem. & Order at 8;  see supra note 5. As the initial complaint weighed in at 119 pages and 367 numbered paragraphs, that was hardly a harsh judgment.”

--Adam J. Ciralsky, Appellant, v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al., Appellees, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004)