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>
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
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)