Kelley Lynch's Grievance to the City Attorney of Los Angeles Re. Leonard Cohen, Fraud Domestic Violence Orders, Harassment & Stalking, & Phil Spector

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:16 PM
Subject: Retaliation Case No. 6CJ03685
To: "SandraJo. Streeter" <SandraJo.Streeter@lacity.org>, stephengianelli@gmail.com
Cc: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@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>, 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 <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, alan hootnick <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, bruce <bruce@brucecutler.com>

Sandra Jo Streeter,

I am unaware if you remain on the above referenced case that involves restraining order violations related to a restraining order that does not extend to Robert Kory or Michelle Rice.  I do believe a full faith and credit analysis of the Colorado order is indicated.  I have provided your office with evidence that the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order.  The Boulder Combined Court never obtained jurisdiction over Kory & Rice.  Their former business property was included solely as an excluded place.  The Boulder Combined Court confirmed that Kory & Rice, as well as the corporations, have never applied for restraining orders.  I think this is relevant.

In any event, I have now received yet another email from "sandra123@gmail.com."  I do not know if this was sent by you or if this is the ongoing work of Stephen Gianelli who has relentlessly harassed me, my sons, elderly parents, sister and her husband, friends, witnesses who have submitted declarations, and Paulette Brandt for years now.  Stephen Gianelli uses monikers and creates fake email accounts and names to harass me through electronic communications and online.  

The purpose of this email is to communicate a legitimate grievance to you and the City Attorney's Office.  Paulette Brandt forwarded this email to me.  It falsely accuses me of violating the fraudulent domestic violence orders issued to Kory & Rice.  Those orders will be heard by the trial court as Judge Lui confirmed during the last hearing.  I have not contacted Kory & Rice and Leonard Cohen is deceased so I have made no attempts to contact him directly or indirectly including through a Ouija Board.

I suppose the author of this letter views me as the "food stamp queen."  Do I need to be "incarcerated in the Los Angeles County jail before" I get "the message" that I have no "lawful reason" to contact "any of the people" I currently harass?  I have harassed no one and you have no authority to determine what is or is not legitimate.  That would include anything related to federal tax, corporate, and IRS matters.  I also do not believe enforcement jurisdiction permits you to expand the scope of the Colorado order.  I am not harassing anyone and that includes in my emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ documenting everything that has unfolded since reporting the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS.  This was specifically raised in my letter to former DDA Alan Jackson.  In September 2009, Investigator William Frayeh hand delivered that letter to Cooley, Jackson, and Do.  It was then revised in September 2010 and sent electronically to Cooley, Jackson, and others.  Please see attached.  It also addresses the harassment on the part of Stephen Gianelli.  

The author has written Paulette Brandt falsely accusing her of encouraging unlawful conduct when there is no evidence - let alone a fact - to prove that false allegation.  This email relates to both my retaliatory prosecution and Phil Spector.  It does not appear that the two issues are mutually exclusive.  My son, Ray Charles Lindsey, was able to determine that.  He has been harassed by Gianelli since he was a minor.  Please feel free to review his declaration and the declaration of my older son, Rutger Penick.  

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/07/declaration-of-john-rutger-penick-filed.html

Does Ms. Brandt know that Phil Spector's last chance petition was denied by the Supreme Court?  How would individuals who do not know us have that information?  Is Phil Spector in failing health and will he die in prison?  

Am I on a list of letters that Phil Spector instructed the prison authorities to toss in the trash?  I would assume that type of statement requires evidence although I do understand, based on Leonard Cohen's testimony, that evidence is not required at LA Superior Court.  Fabricated narratives work perfectly well particularly when the best evidence rule is repeatedly violated.  

Are Paulette and my emails to Dennis Riordan going unread?  I know Dennis Riordan interested you throughout my 2012 trial.  In fact, an April 18, 2011 email -that Cohen was not copied on - permitted you to elicit testimony about a Phil Spector gun incident while concealing requests for IRS required tax and corporate information and my email to the IRS Commissioner's Staff.  The IRS Commissioner is the head of IRS.  Do you have any evidence that the IRS Commissioner, his staff, or IRS itself would agree with this assessment that was repeated in news stories about the 2012 case?  If so, would you kindly maintain that evidence.

Streeter said Lynch continuously called and wrote Cohen, accusing him of tax fraud and other wrongdoing, as revenge. "This is nothing more than the unraveling of a con," Streeter said.  

For the record, you still have not confirmed if these emails are being generated by you personally.  If they are not, I will assume that Stephen Gianelli is sending them in an attempt to elicit information.  That's his M.O.  He transmits lies to slander me, Paulette, and others and in an attempt to elicit information.  This particular harassing communications relates to the present prosecution and Phil Spector.  I don't view any of it as "extraneous."  I view the matters as "intertwined."  I have relentessly advised Gianelli to cease and desist.  I want you to be very clear about that fact because not only is he interested in Spector, me and my sons, but he argues Leonard Cohen's legal positions.  He appears to be one of Cohen's attorneys although not an "attorney of record."  If he was an attorney of record, he would probably be disbarred by now if a Court actually reviewed the totality of circumstances.  Please see Ann Diamond's piece on Stephen Gianelli, below.

Kelley Lynch

Ann Diamond on Stephen Gianelli

When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy  and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" --  he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread his emails to see what kind of message they actually convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.

He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense"  -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5.  They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.

Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “writing her in jail”, posting photos of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to  professional suicide.

But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of  cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team.  I think the latter.

I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.

Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of  irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic:  if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education.

He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.

If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.

I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.

I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.

I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit from it. 

Ann D.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/06/ann-diamond-on-stephen-gianelli_25.html

From: Sandra <sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM
Subject: 
To: Paulette Brandt

How many more times does the food stamp queen need to be incarcerated in the Los Angeles County jail before she gets the message that she has no lawful reason to contact any of the people she currently harasses?

Are you really that stupid that you cannot see that truth? Why then do you encourage her to get herself in trouble time after time?

This is not exactly rocket science.

You do know that Phil Spector's last chance petition was denied by the Supreme Court, with no more appeals available, and that with his failing health, he will likely die in prison? Meaning that your play using Kelley Lynch to get back on the Spector dole is over.

Not that it had any chance to begin with. Kelley Lynch has been on the list of letters that Spector has instructed the prison authorities to toss in the trash unread since day-one. Nor are any of her or your emails to Dennis Riordan getting read either.

What a pair of losers.