Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:08 AM
Subject: Phil Spector's Prison Romance?
To: tips@radaronline.com, tips@dailymail.com, epl@lozzipr.com
Cc: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, 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>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>
Radar Online and Daily Mail,
I was reviewing this email from my criminal stalker, Stephen Gianelli, to Ed Lozzi [bcc to me], Clarkson's former publicist. You can read more on Gianelli here. This was written by a journalist, former girlfriend of Leonard Cohen's, who has been targeted by Gianelli as well.
I have received information from and about someone who claimed to have had a prison romance with Phil Spector. In fact, Piper Balle claimed to have been his fiance. Have you heard anything about that? Perhaps Ed Lozzi who appears to hunt down everything online about Phil Spector - who he then trashes (often in tandem with Gianelli - has some information.
The City Attorney with LAPD are now targeting me once again over federal tax matters. They have used fabricated evidence to insert Phil Spector into the case. I now have an investigator and forensic computer expert investigating these matters. Why do you think the City Attorney and LAPD are demanding I remain non-compliant with respect to federal tax laws? Any thoughts about their motive? I'm pursuing the possibility that Cohen was an "informant' of sorts against Phil Spector. See two motions I've filed. I've asked the Court to sever all insanity re. the information inserted into my alleged case through fabricated email evidence I didn't send. These people are clearly desperate.
Kelley Lynch
From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@
Date: Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Subject: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court
To: epl@lozzipr.com
Date: Sun, May 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM
Subject: Phillip Spector - pending petition for habeas corpus in the federal district court
To: epl@lozzipr.com
Dear Ed,
You latest blog post about the pending Spector “appeal” being mere grandstanding evinces a lack of understanding of the process that is now playing out in federal court.
Now that the state court appeals (California Court of appeal, petition for review to the California Supreme Court) have been exhausted, Spector may now ask (and has asked) the federal district court to review the FEDERAL issues implicated by the conviction, of which there are several – including the so called “structural error” consisting of the prosecutor playing a Court TV video tape of the trial judge from a prior hearing held outside the presence of the jury in trial #1 indicating where an evidence technician (whose hands could only be seen by the court at the hearing) was testifying that she observed blood on the victim’s hands. (This was a key issue, because blood on the front of the hand would indicate a defensive position of the hand, blood on the back of the hand would suggest a suicide.)
This is a meritorious issue, and if Riordan is correct that structural error was committed, it will result in an automatic reversal and retrial with no weighing of prejudice.
It should also be noted that only one appellate court has looked at the case “on the merits” of the issues: The California Court of appeal. The petitions to the California Supreme Court [FN - below] and to the United States Supreme Court [FN] were discretionary (and decided on considerations OTHER THAN the merits of Spector’s arguments on appeal) Therefore, the fact that the California and United States Supreme Court denied the respective petitions for review is no reflection at all on the merit of Spector’s issues on appeal, including those now pending in the district court.
This issue is now being evaluated by a federal magistrate on the briefs submitted by each side under federal court case law decided under the United States Constitution. By September of this year the magistrate judge will submit his report and recommended disposition of Spector’s petition (grant or deny) and then the assigned district court judge will sign off. The losing side in that decision may then appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That forum is where Spector appellate counsel Dennis Riordan is best known and respected by the justices, and has also had his highest rate of success – including Mr. Riordan’s recent successful appeal on behalf of Barry Bonds of his obstruction of justice conviction. (Bonds’ conviction was reversed on technical legal grounds, and he may not be retried.)
To write this process off as mere “grandstanding” or to infer from the prior decisions affirming the conviction during the state court appeal process (or from the US Supreme Court’s refusal to exercise discretionary review, which decision was not “on the merits” and was a one and a million shot to begin with) – that Spector has no chance of succeeding in the district court or in the 9th circuit would be a mistake.
Note also that Barry Bonds initially LOST in the 9th Circuit, but that Dennis Riordan convinced the either 9th Circuit to hear the case “en banc”, and it was during this process that Dennis Riordan won the case for his client. (The oral argument is on line, and you can see from the video the tremendous respect the justices of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have for Mr. Riordan and you can also see how posed and skilled he is arguing before the court.) http://www.ca9.
I am no apologist for Phil Spector, nor do I have an opinion as to his guilt or innocence.
I simply believe that we cannot decide the case until he has had a fair trial, and that he has not had. The trial should have been about one thing only” Who was holding the gun when Lana Clarkson died. Instead, too much of the trial consisted of airing ancient history, 30, 20, and 10 years before Spector even met Clarkson.
Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
-----
FN- The California Supreme Court’s function is to preside over the orderly and consistent development of California case law. Therefore, the primary ground for granting a petition in a particular case is if review is necessary to secure uniformity of decision among the appellate courts or to settle an important question of law, as stated in California Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b). The U.S. Supreme Court gives full consideration to but a small fraction of the cases it has authority to review. With many important categories of cases, the party seeking Supreme Court review does so by "petitioning" the Court to issue a "writ of certiorari." (See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254, 1257, 2350.) While a decision to deny cert. lets the lower court's ruling stand, it does not constitute a decision by the Supreme Court on any of the legal issues raised by the case. Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists some of the considerations that may lead the Court to grant certiorari. But the decision to grant or deny cert. is discretionary.
