Stephen Gianelli, A Stalker's Tale

Scott, as you know, Stephen Gianelli has now removed his comments/statements about Agent Tejeda, IRS, etc. This happens routinely. He publicly attacks and lies about me to elicit information. I have now reviewed the trial transcripts, that Gianelli has frequently stated he has reviewed, and here is a Sidebar excerpt from April 11th. This case, which is evidence of inconceivable fraud, went to the jurors on April 12th. On April 9th, although the prosecutor met with Kory and her witnesses two weeks earlier, handed my lawyers an "IRS Binder." At that time, I discovered Cohen's fraudulent tax refunds and Kory's letters lying to IRS and Agent Tejeda. Agent Tejeda was raised as an additional witness at side bar on the 10th but here's an extensive discussion about him with the Court on the 11th: My son, who Gianelli just targeted over a declaration he submitted to Court, was also raised during a Sidebar. I'll send you the transcript pages so you can verify for yourself that Gianelli lies so that he can obtain information, etc. There was no way I could know that the City Attorney planned to sabotage IRS, lie about federal tax matters and forms, falsely inform the jurors that I was in possession of the 1099 and K-1s, etc., lie about corporate assets, and/or argue that I am not in legitimate need of that information. The Court permitted Cohen and the witnesses to fabricate testimony unsupported by evidence. As a friend of mine notes, they don't follow their own laws, rules, or anything else for that fact. Public Defender: We received a binder from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory's anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. [IRS Binder.] He's an agent of the RS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information [IRS Binder] on Monday [April 9th]. We subpoenaed him, he's received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the Agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys, and as I said, they'll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday ...Trial Transcript, Page 385

Scott, I have to scan the trial transcripts and will then send you the pages where Agent Tejeda, the subpoena issued to him, confirmation that he received same, and requests to permit him and Rutger to testify, were discussed with the Court. Here are quotes from the LA Times where it is confirmed, and the journalist was present during the proceedings, that Cohen and his lawyers testified that I was in possession of the K-1s and 1099. I'm not and Gianelli has now argued that, according to the IRS Tax Crimes Manual, the statute of limitations has run. The IRS Manual cannot be used as a legal citation so I don't think LA Superior Court will be able to rely on the IRS Criminal Tax Manual re. the fact that Leonard Cohen and the corporations he controlled were obligated to provide me with the IRS required tax and corporate information. Leonard Cohen read emails to third parties, which is hearsay and they were unauthenticated emails, into the record, the City Attorney concealed information, the witnesses fabricated testimony, Cohen confessed to perjuring himself under oath, Cohen confirmed that - although he testified that he was - he was not actually a recipient on the email to Dennis Riordan re. Phil Spector and a gun, etc. The entire trial appeared to be designed in response to my letter to former DDA Alan Jackson and in order to obscure the actual situation, confuse issues re. the emails to IRS and other federal agencies, and sabotage IRS and me. That activity continues and at this time Kory has submitted a declaration expressing concerns that he could be implicated in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. The City Attorney is now using fabricated evidence. You have never witnessed people like this in your life. It should shock the conscience and it does when people are aware of what is actually going on. Gianelli is sending his arguments to third parties on his so-called email distribution list. He spends 24/7 on these matters. Stephen Gianelli is a criminal operative and proxy. Cohen testified that there is an IRS holding re. his fraud default judgment. That was perjured testimony. There is no such IRS holding. His insane Victim Impact Statement lied excessively about IRS, federal tax matters, and me. LA Times Excerpts: Lynch's messages contained legitimate requests for financial documents that she needed to complete her taxes, Ramnaney said. Voicemail messages played by the prosecution included references to K-1 and 1099 tax forms. "She's desperate to get these critical documents to clear her name and get on with her life," Ramnaney said. "They never gave her what she asked for. They kept stonewalling her and stonewalling her." Kelly said Lynch's emails concerned "legitimate purposes," including questions on how to get information for her taxes. Attorneys for Lynch argued throughout the trial that Lynch's messages contained legitimate requests for tax documents. Cohen and his attorneys, however, said Lynch has long been in possession of documents she requested.

No lies on my part at all. Your PD told me Tejeda was not under subpoena, said you refused to waive time to allow to adequately prepare, and they could not get him subpoenaed prior to trial. this is consistent with your new trial motion, the judge's remarks when he denied it, your appeal briefs, and the appellate decision in the case. You cannot lay this off on Judge Vanderet. If you want to procure a government witness you need to locate and serve a subpoena 30days before trial, successfully fend off a motion quash, and have your ducks in a row regarding a showing of materiality and why a lesser IRS witness won't do. Do all that, and you just might get him on the stand. He might not say what you think, though.

Scott, Stephen Gianelli is lying. These are direct from the Trial Transcripts which I will scan and email you. Gianelli clearly wants to discuss my Public Defender. He attempted to obtain information about witnesses and what they potentially would testify about. I can assure you that I didn't waive attorney/client privilege with my lawyers. In fact, Gianellil's conversation with my public defender shocked the Supervisor from that office. The potential witnesses were Agent Tejeda, my son, and Steven Machat. Machat had a conflict of interest. That is confirmed in the attorney notes I have that also concluded that Kory testified in the manner in which he did because he could be criminally implicated. Agent Tejeda did receive a subpoena. See the conversation that took place on April 11th with the Court below. Judge Vanderet sabotaged my defense, permitted Cohen to fabricate testimony unsupported by evidence, sat there while the prosecutor misstated and lied about federal tax laws and statutes (as well as compliance with same), and heard a federal tax case with slanderous, salacious, fabricated details. The jurors were lied to and, at least some of them, wanted to hear from IRS. One jurors, possibly a juror plant according to my lawyer (who seems to understand who he was dealing with), relied on the prosecutor's lies about corporate assets and felt sorry that Cohen only had $150,000 left from his so-called retirement account. That was a corporate account and Leonard Cohen was obligated to repay his over $7 million in "loans" with interest to that entity. The IRS didn't file a motion to quash and, as noted in the Sidebar, Agent Tejeda was meeting with attorneys from DOJ/IRS. My appellate attorney discussed the subpoena with the DOJ attorney during my appeal. The criminal proxy known as Stephen Gianelli is lying to elicit information and they want to know what I've discussed with Agent Tejeda, IRS Criminal Division, and so forth. Gianelli attempts to infiltrate my defense and elicit information. He's a multi-purpose criminal. Public Defender: We received a binder from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory's anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. [IRS Binder.] He's an agent of the RS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information [IRS Binder] on Monday [April 9th]. We subpoenaed him, he's received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the Agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys, and as I said, they'll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday ...Trial Transcript, Page 385

Scott, one other point. I have my attorney notes, that I'll scan for you as well, confirming that they didn't need me to waive time because they felt they were in a position to go to trial. Unfortunately, many facts were misrepresented by my lawyers to jurors, the bailiff himself noted that the lawyers weren't actually meeting with me, issues (such as motions filed) were not brought to my attention, and there were no objections to the endless prosecutorial misconduct, etc. There were endless objections to hearsay, best evidence rule, and so forth. These matters were irrelevant to the Court. I have no idea what the materiality will be re. Agent Tejeda at this time. The prosecutors, who lied throughout all current proceedings, handed me binders that contain hundreds of emails from Stephen Gianelli. Someone is reviewing those binders extensively at this time. The other evidence is fabricated and not sent by me. One does wonder why LAPD has an elite stalking unit at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/business/dealbook/martin-shkreli-jury.html"

Stephen Gianelli, since your harassing posts and lies are being broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed to me, I have advised you to cease and desist. See email below. Kelley Lynch From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:47 PM Subject: Fwd: New reply on "Life’s hard jury lessons (a little humility goes a long way).Martin Shkreli, a juror at his fraud trial said on Monday, was “*his own worst enemy*.”He faces up to *20 years in prison*; a sentencing date has not been set.“*All he had to do was to tell everyone, ‘I’m sorry*, I lost the money, all I can say is I’m sorry,’ and that would be it,” said the juror, Lois Pounds, who was contacted Monday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/business/dealbook/martin-shkreli-jury.html" To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, ": Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, 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> Stephen Gianelli, I have advised you to stop lying. You attempted to elicit information about my witnesses from my public defender. It shocked the PD's supervisor. Your lies are being broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed to me. Cease and desist. IRS was copied although I am aware that you wrote me, and provided evidence, that IRS has blocked your emails as harassing. Kelley Lynch Public Defender: We received a binder from Ms. Streeter that was provided to her by one of the witnesses that includes, you know, we believe a highly relevant witness that goes to Mr. Kory's anticipated testimony based on what she provided us. [IRS Binder.] He's an agent of the IRS and we have subpoenaed him. We received that information [IRS Binder] on Monday [April 9th]. We subpoenaed him, he's received that subpoena, but pursuant to federal regulations he has to clear that before he can testify with the appropriate authorities. I spoke with the Agent this morning. That request is being considered and evaluated by their attorneys, and as I said, they'll give me an answer by this afternoon regarding whether or not he will be able to testify and as to what he will testify to. Based on the fact that we received the binder on Monday ...Trial Transcript, Page 385 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: YouTube <noreply@youtube.com> Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:33 PM Subject: New reply on "Life’s hard jury lessons (a little humility goes a long way).Martin Shkreli, a juror at his fraud trial said on Monday, was “*his own worst enemy*.”He faces up to *20 years in prison*; a sentencing date has not been set.“*All he had to do was to tell everyone, ‘I’m sorry*, I lost the money, all I can say is I’m sorry,’ and that would be it,” said the juror, Lois Pounds, who was contacted Monday.

To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Scott, I've located where my lawyers, with the prosecution present, discussed my son's potential testimony with the Court. Agent Tejeda was also discussed at this Sidebar. The Court refused to permit Agent Tejeda or my son to take the stand and testify. The Court heard a federal tax case and sat there while the prosecutor lied to jurors and misled them about IRS and federal tax laws, compliance with same, and permitted Cohen and other witnesses to fabricate testimony unsupported by evidence. Stephen Gianelli is simply lying about IRS, Agent Tejeda, federal tax matters, my son (who he continues to target and just did over his declaration), etc. He is an operative arguing Leonard Cohen's legal issues and someone who has routinely lied to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other authorities. I have no idea what the juror said in the Shkreli trial but I know this. Leonard Cohen could have testified that he owed one corporation alone (the so-called retirement account) over $7 million plus interest; corporate assets weren't his personal assets; his own conduct is not the fault of others; he had an extraordinary disdain for paying ordinary income taxes; and this is how he generally operates while promoting himself on the world stage as a religious sage. He also promoted himself on the world stage as CIA recon during the Bay of Pigs, etc. Since this trial took place in 2012, and Gianelli has written me that he's reviewed the transcripts, his posts here are merely meant to elicit information about Agent Tejeda, IRS, etc. For the record, Leonard Cohen didn't lose any money. He embezzled corporate assets. The prosecutor simply lied that corporate assets belonged to Leonard Cohen and I was in possession of the IRS required information that Gianelli is now arguing Cohen didn't have to provide because of the IRS Tax Crimes Manual which cannot be cited as legal authority including re. the so-called statute of limitations. Public Defender. The other potential witness I've been trying to speak with is her son Rutger. He's tried to get out of work today but says he's off tomorrow. Court: And what testimony can he offer? Trial Transcipt Pages 528-529

1.Subpoenas must be physically handed to the witness. If you simply mail the subpoena and the witness "receives it" the witness is not bound to testify. He is not "under subpoena". Tejeda may have been in "receipt" of your subpoena by the 9th (when the trial was almost over) but that is not the same thing as being "under subpoena".2. If a continuance is sought, personal service must occur well in advance of trial*. Note that IRS guidelines require a minimum of 15 days in advance of the appearance date, and transmitting a subpoena t a witness *during trial is not "due diligence", i.e., continuance denied. 3. Materially of the testimony must be ascertained before you seek to subpoena then compel a witness to testify. That is the standard by which the court will decide whether to compel the testimony over objection by the prosecution or the IRS. "I don't know if the testimony is material or not" = motion to quash granted. The subpoenaing party has the burden to show materiality in the face of an objection or motion to quash.

No, the court refused to delay the trial where no due diligence was shown to justify a mid trial continuance request. Big difference.

Scott, Gianelli wants to talk about subpoenas. I'm not talking about the subpoena Agent Tejeda received. It's preposterous. One person I intend to subpoena, who Gianelli recently he contacted and spoke to, is a woman by the name of Betsy Superfon. I'll provide you with more details privately.

No. Scott, the Court sabotaged my defense by refusing to permit Agent Tejeda and Rutger to testify. No one needs to glorify a lawyer on the bench permitting people to fabricate testimony, lie and mislead jurors about federal tax laws and compliance with same, etc.

Scott, I will say this: Betsy Superfon was named as a co-conspirator in the Natural Wealth with Cohen, Kory, et al.

Stephen G 23 hours ago

If you cannot acknowledge your mistakes, and learn from them, you are doomed to repeat them. Sure, you can always subpoena witnesses at the last second, or even mid trial and hope they show up. But unless you can demonstrate due diligence, that you attempted to cause a subpoena to be served on the witness as soon as you learned that the witness was material to your defense, the continuance will be denied. Second, you need to make some showing of what you intend to prove through the witness, and how that evidence will aide your defense. And if you send a witness a subpoena a day or two before closing arguments are to begin, and you knew of the witness long before trial and waited until the last minute to try and procure their presence to testify, you are going to be out of luck (as you were during your 2012 trial). BTW, if you serve a witness (like Rutger) with a trial subpoena, his employer not only must allow him to take off work, at a large firm like HOK they will pay him for the day. But what you cannot do is fail to act diligently in getting all of your witnesses under subpoena, and then blame the judge.

Trying to intimidate me over my son? I know you just attempted to intimidate him directly. That is being addressed with the Court, criminal.

Scott, the ambulance chaser is clearly out of control.

Scott, I'm focused on Betsy Superfon. She was named as a co-conspirator in the Colorado court so extremely material. She also advised me that Kory refused to fax through the "deal"/settlement they had in mind. She thought it was due to the fact that the deal was illegal.

Stephen G 23 hours ago

I am sorry, I am not following you. You just posted that Judge Vanderet would not "allow" Rutger to testify in 2012. But the transcript excerpt you paraphrase shows you PD made an 11th hour (right before closing arguments) request to delay conclusion of the trial because you had not heard whether Tejeda would testify or what he would say if he did, and that Rutger could not get the day off work until the day after the trial was schedule to be over. IF you had served Rutger with a subpoena, his employer would have had no choice but to have allowed him to leave work and to testify - and probably would have paid him for the day. How is that "intimidation" on my part?

Stephen G 23 hours ago

In my view, the 30+ emails that you copied me with yesterday addressed to the CIA, IRS, DOJ, Bruce Cutler, and many other irrelevant 3d parties, with each successive email a reply to your prior email, so that each new email was layered on top of all the preceding emails (as if you were afraid everyone on the email chain would only read the last email and miss one of your bizarre comments) seems pretty out of control. And then claiming all 30 emails were sent to me in error? Then sending me seven more this morning? Not to mention continuing to email Cohen, Kory and Rice in 2016 when you were ordered not to (and actually did 18 months in 2012 for harassing the same people). No, not crazy, totally normal and in control....

Scott, one thing is clear, Gianelli received the cease and desist emails yesterday. That doesn't explain the thousands upon thousands of emails in my possession (and the possession of others) from this criminal. Sorry I don't have time to get into more details. I am working on subpoenas and write now focused on Betsy Superfon who thought Kory attempted to engage me in an illegal deal. I have written CIA about Cohen's position that he was in MK ULtra, CIA recon during Bay of Pigs. As for Bruce Cutler, the criminal stalker has to find a way to call him on his own, lie about me, and infiltrate the Spector case.

Kelley Lynch 16 hours ago (edited)

Gianelli, you were advised to cease and desist yesterday, The IRS, FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc. should be very clear about that fact. You have an issue with CIA? Well, you lied to them also, criminal.

Stephen G 21 hours ago

It will be fascinating to read at some point how you articulated the materiality (that is, the ability raise reasonable doubt as to your guilt re offenses committed in 2016 an 2017) of a witness (Superfon) that you have not spoken to since 2004 (13-years ago). "Superfon thought that Kory tried to engage me in an illegal deal"? I doubt she would so testify, but if she did, how in the world would that be a defense to you emailing Leonard Cohen (and his attorneys) 39 times 13-years later in violation of a restraining order issued in 2008? (No need to answer, I am being rhetorical. Obviously, it would not be a defense. Not even close.)

Scott, the only point I would like to address about Betsy Superfon is the fact that Stephen Gianelli recently wrote me that he called and spoke to her. As someone at the DA's office concluded, he also functions like an "investigator." I think Betsy Superfon can shed light on who Kory really is and what he was up to behind the scenes. That's both relevant and material.

Stephen G 15 hours ago

I have never called or spoken to Ms. Superfon. But yea, I am a curious guy, especially when it comes to how you have gotten away with so much for so long with relatively little punishment. Hopefully, that will change this fall. As for "what Kory was up to" in 2004, if you can persuade your trial judge that is relevant to criminal charges against you stemming from 2016-2017 restraining order violations I have grossly underestimated you and I know nothing about the California Evidence Code in practice.

Kelley Lynch 15 hours ago (edited)

Scott, Stephen Gianelli's excuse for relentlessly harassing me, my sons, family members, friends, colleagues, and targeting witnesses is that he's "curious?" This is a job for Stephen Gianelli. Superfon's testimony could impeach Robert Kory's character. Steven Machat wrote that Kory is an evil liar and referred to him as Satan. Not everyone in reality believes this situation or these individuals. I haven't violated a restraining order.

Stephen G 15 hours ago

" Superfon's testimony could impeach Robert Kory's character." Nope, sorry. Evidence of alleged bad character is not admissible to impeach a witness, unless it consists of a prior felony conviction - provable through a certified copy of the judgment of conviction. See Evidence Code section 787 and 788.

Kelley Lynch 15 hours ago

Scott, I think it's relevant that Superfon understood that Cohen/Kory were attempting to enter into settlement agreements with me. In fact, as of May 2005, after speaking directly with Cohen, Superfon called to inform me that he was offering me whatever I wanted (specifically mentioning that Cohen would pay me the value of my share of corporations, etc.). She also advised me that Cohen told her he was remorseful and I was the love of his life. As for Kory, Superfon asked him to fax through the type of deal they had in mind. Kory advised her that it wasn't the type of deal that could be faxed. We'll see what the Court has to say about this potential witness. Kory, like Gianelli, doesn't have a prior record because these are true professionals. Or, as Machat noted - evil liars.

Stephen G 15 hours ago

"I haven't violated a restraining order." That will be determined at your upcoming trial. However, if (as documented by Cohen's statement to TMU + copies of 39 emails from you to him, you emailed Cohen for any reason in 2016, you have indeed violated a restraining order.

Kelley Lynch 15 hours ago (edited)

Scott, I haven't violated a restraining order - fraudulent domestic violence order or otherwise. At this time, I'm more interested in the fact that Gianelli wrote LAPD's TMU, lied to them about me, and threatened me over my mother's death and funeral with that unit copied in. This is one hell of an elite stalking/harassment unit.

Stephen G 14 hours ago

What a witness "understood" - let alone in 2004, whether Leonard Cohen was "remorseful" 13 years ago, and whether or not you received a settlement offer that you turned down before you were sued and judgment entered against you for $7M in 2006, is neither relevant nor material to your guilt or innocence of your alleged criminal violations in 2016 and 2017. Admissibility is a function of relevance and materiality not your curiosity. The judge will no doubt try to be patient with you as a pro se defendant, to a point. But you waived your right to court appointed counsel and elected to represent yourself, after being advised it was a bad idea and of all the things that could go wrong. Ultimately, it is up to you to follow the rules and court and the Evidence Code.

Kelley Lynch 14 hours ago (edited)

Scott, the prosecutors have brought sham, retaliatory charges related to my so-called "intent to annoy" Kory & Rice re. communications sent to them (and not Cohen). The prosecution has provided no basis whatsoever for their preposterous positions that my communications with Kory & Rice were not legitimate, had no business purpose, and/or were not made in good faith. The content of all emails to them is therefore at issue and this raises very serious First Amendment issues as I have addressed with the Court. Kory & Rice, LLP make a living lying about and targeting me. They have benefited financially from their conduct. They will be reviewing every single email the prosecution successfully enters into evidence and will be going through what is not legitimate, from their so-called perspective, line by line. Therefore, impeachment evidence and witnesses are relevant, material and necessary. I will also note that I intend to confront their bias and motive. Kory has already expressed concerns about being implicated in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. Perhaps he will find a way to use the IRS Tax Crimes Manual to his advantage but, from what I can tell, it cannot be cited as legal authority. I received settlement offers of millions of dollars. In fact, I have a memorandum memorializing Kory's offer of 50% community property and there were witnesses present for that offer. This case is not simply about fraudulent domestic violence orders including those issued after the death of the so-called protected party which is nauseating at best. And, I will point out that certain self-styled "victims," co-conspirators actually, have lied under oath previously and that should absolutely be admissible evidence. In fact, I look forward to Rice's testimony, under oath, as to how she lawfully converted a non-domestic violence order (Colorado) into a domestic violence order (California). The Colorado Court maintained exclusive modification jurisdiction and, although Kory & Rice unlawfully attempted to modify the order after Cohen's death (Rice has testified that they are not parties to the order), it has never been modified. Gianelli doesn't want to harass me over impeachment evidence that goes to credibility and/or Kory/Rice's honesty (including their own prior testimony) because he's a pathological liar and criminal operative. Finally, Gianelli is a dangerous clown and ambulance chaser and he's not the judge.

Kelley Lynch 14 hours ago

Scott, Gianelli can now start researching these statements in appellate decisions in California: "relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding."

Stephen G 13 hours ago (edited)

You are quoting a part of Proposition 8 (the "Truth in Evidence' provisions) that abolished the exclusionary rule in California. Meaning, it allows for the admission of illegally obtained evidence that would have been previously excluded under California law. (It is not a provision that benefits criminal defendants.) Moreover, Proposition 8 (now California Constitution, Article I, sec. 28, section (f) (2) goes on the say that "Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or to Evidence Code sections 352, 780, or 1103." Proposition 8 was voted into law by California voters in 1982, two years into my career as a criminal defense lawyer, it had a major impact on my profession, and I don't need to "research" it. Nor does it aid your defense in any way. It simply makes it harder for you, as a defendant, to exclude improperly obtained evidence at trial. It certainly does not affect the limitation of admissible evidence to that which is relevant or material. *You act like you have made a major legal discovery, when in fact every criminal lawyer in California is well familiar with the Truth in Evidence provisions of Proposition 8 - which became law 34 years ago*! And clearly, you don't understand its significance at all. Not even a little. *You are in way over your head*.

Kelley Lynch 13 hours ago

Keep studying, Gianelli. I'm not interested in your insanity.

Kelley Lynch 13 hours ago (edited)

Scott, the only legal discovery I have made is the fact that Gianelli spends 24/7 on these issues, researches matters, argues Cohen's legal defenses online, and is an absolute criminal moron. It's not actually a discovery however. Just reconfirmation. This criminal stalker has sent me legal research about all matters having to do with Cohen for over eight years now. He is presently defending Kory & Rice, LLP.

Stephen G 13 hours ago

I'll tell you what is insane: showing a lack of remorse at your 2012 sentencing, showing a complete contempt for orders of the court, violating the very same orders in 2016 that landed you in jail for 18 months in 2012, and continuing to arrogantly exhibit a distain for your judge's, your prosecutors, your victims, and the orders and rulings of the court. It is in fact legal suicide. You are doing everything exactly the opposite of what any criminal defense attorney of any skill level would advise you to do. You are your own worst enemy.

Kelley Lynch 13 hours ago (edited)

Scott, why should I have exhibited remorse during my 2012 trial? The Boulder Combined Court advised me and others that their permanent order expired in late February 2009. I believe they even confirmed this for an attorney I consulted. I'll have to check with him. I was unaware that Cohen and his representatives fraudulently obtained a California domestic violence order. That's due to the fact that I wasn't served. I also was unaware that the prosecution would attempt to sabotage IRS, lie about federal tax laws and compliance with same, fabricate testimony throughout the proceedings, and so forth. I have disdain for any court that condones and/or promotes the use of perjury, fraud, misconduct, etc. and further permits blatant lying to jurors. I believe everyone in California should feel disdain over that issue. Why are people commanded to serve jury duty? So that a prosecutor and witnesses with motive may blatantly lie and mislead them? The argument is obscene in the extreme. The argument appears to involve a belief that conning judges, baby talking them, and lying through one's teeth is the way to win your trial. I didn't violate any order. I think the prosecutors and co-conspiring lawyer/witnesses should be disbarred. I just spoke to the State Bar about these and other ethical violations and was advised to file State Bar Complaints which I intend to do.

Stephen G 13 hours ago

Your 2012 jury did not believe you when you testified you thought the protective order had expired. (Probably because the copy you signed says right on the front, in big bold type in a prominent rectangular box "*This Order Never Expires*".) The appellate opinion affirming your 2012 conviction cites case authority establishing that service of the order is not required to prove a violation of it. In any event, clearly you knew the order was in effect by 2015 (prior to the current, charged offenses in 2016 and 2017) because you were convicted of violating it in 2012, went to jail for violating it, lost your appeal in 2013, and in 2015 your motion to set the California registration of the protective order was DENIED. So what is your excuse this time?

Kelley Lynch 12 hours ago (edited)

These harassing posts, lying about many matters, continue to be broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed as well. I was advised that the order expired in February 2009 and so were others. The jurors were instructed that I violated the Colorado order and not provided any details about the fraudulent California domestic violence order that the Court took judicial notice of. It doesn't matter what the order says. It matters if the violation was willful and knowing. The answer is no. Furthermore, the Colorado order is not the California order and the situation is reprehensible, including the issuance of additional fraud domestic violence orders after the death of the protected party. The jurors evidently guessed - wrong, I might note - that I was in possession of IRS required tax information and corporate property belonged to Cohen. The prosecutor also argued that the "tax fraud," evidently my intent to annoy Cohen, was a "ruse." Cohen and his representatives failed to report $8 million in income on one corporate return alone. I didn't handle tax preparation, IRS and/or tax matters, etc. This was brought to my attention by my accountants and lawyers in the fall of 2004. For years, Cohen funneled income off-shore, had a Swiss bank account, and appears to have a lifelong history of tax fraud in the U.S. and Canada. The prosecutor had no legal authority to argue let alone lie about federal tax matters, compliance with federal tax laws, and/or any insanity re. the failure to file corporate returns. Cohen's filing/amending fraudulent personal returns and applying for/obtaining fraudulent tax refunds (now challenged with IRS and other authorities) has nothing to do with corporate returns. The argument is farcical in the extreme. The appellate record is completely fraudulent. Cohen's own conduct annoyed him and that includes indecent exposure, drug use (meth, etc.), lying that I had sex with Oliver Stone, lies about IRS holdings re the default judgment, and it just goes on and on. That's part of the reason why I didn't appeal further. It's obscene that prosecutors and so-called witnesses can lie to jurors, fabricate testimony unsupported by evidence, mislead jurors and someone wants to refer to that as an actual record. LA Superior Court cannot take responsibility for its own fraud orders and judgments usually issued without jurisdiction and that includes over corporations. I don't have an "excuse." I didn't violate any order and all my communications were lawful and legitimate. Kory & Rice can benefit further from their unlawful conduct by billing Cohen's "trust' when they go over every email the prosecutor has attempted to argue is not legitimate. During the trial, they will be going over single email line by line and explaining precisely what is not legitimate and why. Lying about these matters is not an appropriate legal standard. I haven't seen your idol, Bruce Cutler, engaged in the type of activity you are involved with 24/7 for over eight straight years. That includes arguing Cohen's legal positions, defending Kory & Rice, publicly attacking and lying about me, harassing countless people, and targeting witnesses. I attempted to abandon my appeal, due to prosecutorial misconduct, and refused to appeal further because the appellate record is evidence of fraud and my appellate attorney, who was harassed by you for over a year, concluded that the 2012 trial was an IRS federal tax case that demanded an investigation by IRS and other federal authorities. The Colorado order also states that the order cannot be modified. Since the Colorado order is not a fraud domestic violence order, it was modified in California - unlawfully and without due process, another serious problem with LA Superior Court.

Kelley Lynch 9 hours ago (edited)

Stephen Gianelli, are you attempting to "friend" me on Facebook as probable alter ego "Piper Balle," Phil Spector's alleged former jail house "fiance?" Take your alter ego insanity elsewhere, Kelly Green, Mongochili, 14th Sheepdog, 17th Shitzu, sandra123, et al.

Kelley Lynch 9 hours ago

Scott, a new and fascinating witness has come forward with information from behind the scenes re. Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, et al. I'll keep you posted as this develops.

Stephen G 2 hours ago (edited)

No, I have not tried to friend you on Facebook. I have blocked you and that airheaded housemate of yours.

Stephen G 2 hours ago (edited)

Ha! Classic Kelley Lynch! If you did manage to discovery anything useful, it would take you about a day to tell the entire world rendering the information useless. Like your 2007 meeting with Kelly Sopko.

Kelley Lynch 31 minutes ago

Scott, give me a call quickly. I have some swamp land that comes with a gang of con artists on it and would love to unload it on you. Gianelli wants to know details about Agent Sopko who he ended up slandering as my federal pet, etc. If I have anything to share, I'll send it to you privately. Why does Gianelli write and harass me so frequently if the criminal has blocked me. He also responded to my cease and desist the other day. He harassed my roommate for years. She advised him to cease and desist once or twice. Well, as people have noted - Gianelli is a psychopath and a criminal.

Kelley Lynch 23 minutes ago

Scott, Gianelli doesn't know my roommate so he is simply slandering her. The man is a vile clown.

"Gianelli wants to know details about Agent Sopko". Everything there was to know about your single meeting and her follow up email containing her referral to Agent Tejeda (which you republished a zillion times in mass emails and on your blog, which destroyed the IRS's element of surprise in the investigation, and which allowed Kory to preemptively meet with Tejeda and prove Cohen innocent of tax fraud) has already been out there by you in 2007. That was Sopko's last contact with you. (I spoke to her on the phone in June of 2009, learning that the IRS does not take you seriously as an informant and that I need not ever fear prosecution from the IRS as a result of any claim or report by Kelley Lynch. Ain't nothing more to tell.

Scott, the criminal is desperate for information about Agent Tejeda, Agent Sopko, IRS, and so forth. He will have to find a way to contact them, lie to them, attempt to infiltrate (as he has previously done), and see what information they personally will provide him. I don't think the IRS is all that into the element of surprise. I believe Gianelli is an embarrassing ambulance chaser who spends 24/7 targeting people, lying about them, and intimidating witnesses. When Gianelli writes that 2007 was Sopko's last contact with me, he wants me to correct his lies and provide information. When he says that Kory proved Cohen innocent to Agent Tejeda, he wants me to provide any details IRS CID may have given me recently. Agent Tejeda did not exonerate Cohen, there is no evidence to support that statement, the tax fraud is egregious, and Kory has now expressed concerns about his role in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. Do you really believe Agent Tejeda, a Special Agent with the US Treasury, would provide Gianelli with actual information? Who knows what this criminal needs to "fear?" He wants to know if he is being investigated as well. Gianelli is as transparent as the day is long. I remain convinced he is affiliated with the Spector prosecution, Cohen and his legal team, Michelle Blaine, and others. He can lie about it but it doesn't mean people believe him. I do believe he is Piper Balle lying that he was Phil Spector's fiance while he has been in prison. He uses monikers such as Kelly Green, Mongochili, 14th Sheepdog, 17th Shitzu, Truth Teller, and he's probably other "people" on this very site. This is a job for this criminal but it might not work out according to their plan. These dangerous clowns are very very fortunate that LA Superior Court churns out fraud orders, judgments, verdicts, permits people to lie under oath, obtain decisions based upon fraud, and appears to literally condone and promote misconduct on the part of lying lawyers. Perhaps the US DOJ should place the court under a Consent Decree if it wants to function like a criminal enterprise per the RICO Racketeering Act.

I know that your roommate believes that you are going to give her a generous slice of the "millions" you delusionally thought you were going to get one day from Cohen (now his estate) - which is all I need to know to conclude she is a moron. But let's face it. She gave free room and board to KVN on the promise of a % of a far lesser windfall than your "Cohen gold". I know that she continues to provide you room, board and internet, even though you were convicted of harassment in 2012, jailed for 18 months, had your probation violated for sending your trial prosecutor 2,500 emails, given 6 months in jail on that, have lost the last 18 court proceedings (and won none), and are again charged with harassment and restraining order violations (31 counts so far) enough to earn you 23 years in jail if maxed out, and yet you continue to harass your investigating detective (hundreds of emails), your prosecutors, and your victims. And I know she does not understand a simple statute of limitations on an oral contract, and (as many small claims actions as she has filed) does not understand that a losing plaintiff has no right to contest a small claims action. Like I said, airhead.

You don't know anything my roommate believes. I know what I believe - Cohen defrauded me of millions of dollars. He did the same thing to Machat & Machat and appears to have stolen Spector's royalties and master tapes. Do you want to know if I'm filing claims against Cohen's estate? I believe IRS should investigate potential probate fraud. The corporations, suspended and/or otherwise, were not inside the Cohen Family Trust. I don't want to discuss your so-called client. What's the gold? That Cohen owes me money and is a thief? Well, the situation with LA Superior Court is far from over. Do the co-conspirators and their government litigation branch want me in jail for 23 years? The stakes must be really high. They should be arrested over all of this. I'm not interested in discussing any Small Claims case, your client's insanity, or her communications with Robert Kory. This has all been documented. You slander strangers. You are a true psychopath, Gianelli.

Scott, I haven't harassed LAPD's elite "stalking" unit. Gianelli wrote and lied to them, threatened me over my mother's death and funeral, and is the individual who began writing my prosecutor while harassing me and many others. That includes my appellate attorney who has never seen anything like this in his entire career. I'm not interested in Gianelli's "client" or the Small Claims case. Cohen felt entitled to steal and misogynists want to lie about what I have or haven't promised people. It's preposterous. These people have revenge fantasies and, as a lawyer recently noted, spend 24/7 conjuring up lies.

"Scott, the criminal is desperate for information about Agent Tejeda, Agent Sopko, IRS, and so forth." All I need to know on those subjects is in the public domain (thanks to your publication of the IRS binder and PACER). But if I was looking for information, you would be the last person in the world I would ask about the IRS because you are clueless.

Scott, maybe Gianelli would like to discuss Pat Dixon's fear that Eminem dedicated Puke about him - including the lines about "dry humping." He likes to go around and around in his attempts to elicit information, publicly attack me and others, and generally behave like the common criminal he is. Let's see what he wants to "address" next.

That's good, Scott, because I would be the last person to give Gianelli information about Agent Tejeda, Agent Sopko, IRS, etc. Kory contacted Agent Tejeda after discovering Agent Sopko's email. He didn't find that on Pacer. He then began lying to the iRS fraud unit, transmitted endless fraud and perjury to the IRS, and argued that fraudulent personal tax returns filed by Cohen were an excuse for willful failure to file corporate returns, I suppose. Stephen G4 minutes ago "Scott, the criminal is desperate for information about Agent Tejeda, Agent Sopko, IRS, and so forth." All I need to know on those subjects is in the public domain (thanks to your publication of the IRS binder and PACER). But if I was looking for information, you would be the last person in the world I would ask about the IRS because you are clueless.

Stephen G 1 day ago (edited)

Scott, perhaps the Stalker would like to discuss Cohen's probable "informant" status with the Los Angeles DA, his insane testimony about Phil Spector, his three contradictory versions of the alleged gun incident before LA Superior Court, and a possible quid pro quo that led to the deranged Command Performance. It appeared self-evident that the DA and City Attorney attempted to sabotage IRS and intimidate me. After all, they had some sleazy investigator in the courtroom from Cooley's office. I think these people lie so often, they actually think intelligent people believe them.

On the contrary, at one time - while KVN was under her roof and she was confiding in KVN (about the man she was doing work for, her prior wardrobe job and why she lost it, her ex-husband, her BK, her strained relationship with her family, etc.) - she talked freely to KVN and KVN saw and observed everything a roommate in a small two bedroom apartment would see/hear. And after Lind Carol moved in (on KVN's recommendation), Linda continued to be quite friendly with KVN (telling her everything she saw/heard) for months. And I know everything KVN knows. Which is not "nothing". Far from it. As for "clown" I have been right about predicting the outcome of your last 18 legal proceedings and I am on records as predicting you will shortly lose the two pending appeals and your pending criminal case. We'll see who the "clown" is the day of your remand.

Kelley Lynch 3 minutes ago

Scott, is Gianelli bragging about his connection with people that lie routinely about others? I'm not interested in any of these people. Gianelli and his so-called spy, who called Robert Kory, terrorized Linda Carol over her declaration. That's how these people operate. I don't think Gianelli's client would survive on the witness stand but she did attempt to insert herself into my case and lied to the prosecutor about issues raised with LA Superior Court. Lying is the way to prevail before LA Superior Court. The Court routinely hands out judgments, orders, and verdicts based upon fraud, perjury, misconduct, etc. It's unconscionable and the US Department of Justice should investigate because they are also hearing federal tax cases while the prosecutors lie about federal tax laws, compliance with those laws, corporate malfeasance, and many other things. Linda Carol documented everything for me at the time in emails as it was unfolding with Gianelli, his client, etc. You're looking at one of the criminal clowns: Stephen Gianelli.

Kelley Lynch 3 days ago

Scott, I've reviewed some of Gianelli's harassing communications to me and others. In the above thread, he states: "I have never called or spoken to Ms. Superfon." However, in 2016 he wrote me and others as follows: "I had a long discussion with a former friend of your mothers, Betsy Superfon." This is just one example of how this man lies. He lies 24/7 about all matters related to Leonard Cohen and this situation.

Stephen G 8 hours ago

I have never spoken to Superfon on the telephone, as I said. BTW, re your continuance of the reply to the appeal from Silverman's order, it won't delay your trial necessarily, because registration of the CO order was not necessary to its enforcement. (Fam. Code sec. 6403.) That means the counts alleging violations of section 273.6 (making violations of "Any order issued by another state that is recognized under Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) of Division 10 of the Family Code" - which the CO order is see Fam. Code 6401 - a misdemeanor) may go to trial whether or not the 2011 registration was valid. Which of course is its (see Respondent's brief + RJN.) As for Cohen being an alleged "informant" telling contradictory gun stories, who cares? It is not going to keep you from being convicted of 31 criminal counts nor will it mitigate your probable sentence of years in jail at your sentencing - given your criminal history, poor performance on probation, prior 18-month sentence on 1/6 the number of counts, and express lack of remorse.

Hi Scott, just updating you. Gianelli continues to harass me through emails, wants information about Betsy Superfon (who can speak for herself), remains obsessed with a deceased protected party's fraudulent restraining orders, and wants to know "who cares?" if Cohen was an informant telling contradictory "stories" about Phil Spector? Will I be serving years in jail because lying prosecutors have targeted me, the Court system is incapable of vacating their own fraud, the co-conspirators are concerned about their role in criminal tax fraud, and fabricated evidence continues to be submitted to the court? That's one hell of a system. Sounds like major investigations are warranted.

Stephen Gianelli, you've already sent a harassing email to me about your contradictory statements on Betsy Superfon. I didn't respond. Try to infiltrate and elicit information in some other manner.

Stephen G 40 seconds ago

Ha! "major" investigations! Please. You are embarrassing yourself with this fandango of nonsense. If you want to squander your limited investigative budget on red herrings and irrelevant BS that is your prerogative. But please know that you look ridiculous doing it.

Kelley Lynch 1 minute ago (edited)

Scott, Gianelli's obsessional posts continue to broadcast onto my computer screen and emailed to me. Yes, I believe major investigations are warranted and was clear about that when I testified about former DA Steve Cooley during my 2012 show trial. That trial was nothing other than an attempt to sabotage IRS, discredit me, and elicit testimony about Phil Spector. When Gianelli states "If you want to squander your limited investigative budget," etc. what he means is "Who is investigating the situation?" I didn't say anything about my investigator and/or what he is investigating. My stalker wants to elicit information. Right now, he appears obsessed with Betsy Superfon, Phil Spector, Cohen's contradictory gun stories about Phil Spector (there are now three contradictory versions before LA Superior Court), the validity of the fraudulent California domestic violence order, and attacking me publicly.

Scott, Gianelli intentionally insults people, including my witnesses, when he calls them idiots and morons. The reason for this is to provoke a response. If that doesn't work, Gianelli normally harasses or terrorizes my family, friends, etc. and transmits lies to federal agencies, LAPD's TMU, and so forth. Gianelli uses fake monikers, fake email accounts, fake Facebook accounts, fake YouTube accounts, and so forth. Someone just asked me to provide them with an overview of his activity over the past eight years. That's how he operates. The people who belong in prison are the people targeting me.

Stephen G 50 seconds ago You are a complete idiot. There is no polite way to put it. You just don't get it, you have never gotten it, and you never will get it. I am sure that when Christmas rolls around, and you find yourself in a small jail cell with a roommate, you will find your circumstances to be quite puzzling, when in fact it is quite predictable.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2017/08/kelleys-email-to-internal-revenue.html

Scott, while Gianelli publicly attacks me on this blog (and elsewhere), obsesses over my riverdeep blog, attempts to elicit information, and so forth, he continues to send me harassing emails. His latest harassing email referred to this post on my blog. That post related to a recent review of my blog by the IRS in Washington, DC. Gianelli has written attempting to elicit information about Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office. That was one example of Gianelli's attempt to infiltrate a federal Tax Case. That led the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office to inform him that they understood I was self-represented and could not provide him with the requested information. Gianelli spends 24/7 targeting me, witnesses, slandering people, publicly attacking them, intimidating witnesses, and has extensively communicated with Kory & Rice, LLP. He has also communicated, blatantly lied to, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, District Attorney of Los Angeles, LAPD's TMU, and so forth. This man is a criminal and psychopath. I believe he attempted to befriend me using yet another fake Facebook account yesterday. He impersonates women and one of those women appears to be Kelly Green, a persona that hates Bruce Cutler.

Stephen G 2 hours ago (edited)

"Review" and "reviewing" (as in "I am currently reviewing the kelleylynchfactcheck.com website with a division of the IRS") seem to be one of your most misunderstood vocabulary words. The short response is no they are not. An occasional random 5 second visit to your blog by one of 88,000 Treasury employees (who may or may not work for the IRS*, or may work for one of the other *16 agencies comprising the US Treasury*) does not mean that you have the ear of the IRS, anymore than your single meeting with Agent Sopko in *2007 (ten years ago) does. As for your making a conspiracy out of my one line email request for a copy of Fabian's motion to dismiss, his polite no, and my "no problem, have a nice weekend" that is a prime illustration of the major disconnect between your perception and reality. Unfortunately for you it is by no means the only example, and pretty much exemplifies what you believe passes for logical inference. Which is why judges and juries never share your warped views of events. Which is why you would be much better off at your criminal trial letting an attorney speak for you and just keeping your mouth shut. You would be convicted anyway, but at least it would not be a total freak show with you the star....

Stephen G 2 hours ago

Given your long and malicious history of on-line and email harassment (and the jail time to prove it) you forfeited the right to claim harassment long ago. I sincerely hope your extended stay in the Los Angeles County Jail is as unpleasant as possible. God knows you deserve it.

Kelley Lynch 1 minute ago

Scott the message about IRS employees is another attempt on Gianelli's part to elicit information. I am reviewing the utterly obscene Fact Check blog with a division of IRS. The legal pleadings are almost entirely fraudulent, have been used to defraud the US government, me, and others, and the fraud restraining orders are tactics. Gianelli is a criminal operative.

Kelley Lynch 7 seconds ago

Scott, I haven't harassed anyone. This is a fabricated narrative that Leonard Cohen, his representatives, and government actors came up with. Stephen Gianelli has harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, slandered, and targeted countless people who have generally concluded that he is a member of Cohen's legal team, affiliated with the Spector prosecution, and a criminal and psychopath.

Kelley Lynch 1 minute ago

Kelley Lynch 7 seconds ago

1 day ago

"I
am reviewing the utterly obscene Fact Check blog with a division of IRS."
I don't think that "reviewing with" means what you think it means. It
does not
include you unilaterally
communicating half-baked complaints to anonymous IRS
helpline personnel about how Cohen et al allegedly "committed tax
fraud" by suing you for embezzlement and declaratory relief in 2005 and
then obtaining a valid, final and binding default judgment against you (with
interest now totaling $15M).  Your fantasy of the IRS coming to your
rescue and attacking Cohen's judgment hatched by you in 2007 remains nothing
more than a deluded fantasy. "Reviewing with" is a mutual process, as
were IRS personnel would sit down with you at a conference room table and
jointly read and discuss the civil pleadings from Cohen vs. Lynch. But that
case is ancient history, the judgment is written in stone, and in any event,
the IRS has absolutely zero statutory authority, budget or assigned
personnel to get involved. And no, this is not an attempt to get information,
because I am an attorney with common sense. I know full well that you do not
have the IRS's ear, and that they are reviewing nothing concerning Kelley Lynch
except maybe your past due tax bill.

Scott, Stephen Gianelli is someone who has stalked, harassed, terrorized, threatened, intimidated, and slandered me and many people in my life. He cannot make any statement about my communications with Internal Revenue Service and that includes, but is not limited to, whether or not IRS and I are unilaterally communicating or not. Cohen, after spending months trying to coerce me into a deal, retaliated against me once his investor filed a lawsuit against him and his lawyer and revealed that I provided them with evidence which they reviewed extensively and discussed with me. Cohen's lawsuit, nothing other than a fabricated narrative, is his defense to criminal tax fraud. He used the complaint to file/amend his tax returns, apply for and obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and ultimately defend himself with IRS. All of this has been challenged with IRS. Robert Kory, who is a co-conspirator that Steven Machat referred to as an evil liar, has raised concerns that he could be implicated re. his potential role in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. Leonard Cohen did not obtain a valid default judgment. The renewal of same is under appeal. Gianelli wants to know if the IRS will come in after Cohen's estate over the fraud default judgment. Let me put it this way: he filed fraudulent personal returns, willfully and knowingly disregarded corporate forms, and every word in every legal document is a lie. Gianelli knows nothing. He's a criminal co-conspirator. The judgment is not written in stone and that's why the renewal of same is under appeal. Gianelli represents Leonard Cohen's legal interests, and those of his estate, vis a vis federal tax matters as well. That's why he attempted to infiltrate IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office and was not provided any information he obtained to obtain.

Scott, I don't have a past due tax bill. Leonard Cohen wasn't my husband so his lawyers were unable to coerce my accountant into providing them with my federal tax returns which, of course, illegal and which Cohen's accountant confirmed they had attempted to do. Stephen Gianelli doesn't know me and has no information about my personal tax returns either. The City Attorney attempted to elicit information about my tax matters which is a very serious legal issue - while lying about federal tax and corporate matters to jurors.

Stephen G 22 seconds ago

" I haven't harassed anyone." I don't think that "harass" means what you think. It includes offensive, obscene, abusive, or repetitive and unsolicited electronic communications (telephonic, email, VM) that are made or sent with the intent to annoy the recipient. Your many communications to Cohen (including berating his penis size, accusing him of crimes, calling his daughter "disgusting", over and over and over, sometimes 40 times a day, from October 2004 to his death in 2016 more than meets the definition of harassment. Your 2012 jury agreed, and convicted you of 5-counts of criminal harassment. Your sentencing judge agreed, calling your communications vile, and sentenced you to 18-months in jail. From your release from jail in 2012 to the revocation of your probation in 2014 you sent 2,500 abusive and threatening emails to your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter. Judge Henry T. Barela - presiding over your probation violation case - made those findings after listening to you and your witness (that is, he found you guilty of sending harassing emails in violation of the condition of your probation that you "obey all laws", revoked your probation, and remanded you to serve another 6-months in jail. Your 2012 criminal harassment conviction was affirmed on appeal. You never appealed Judge Barela's harassment finding. Both findings are now final and binding and establish that you indeed harassed people as a matter of law. You are now charged in California with multiple additional counts of criminal harassment. Under these circumstances for you to claim "Scott I have not harassed anyone" is as ridiculous and clownish as it is offensive to your many harassment victims (me included).

https://www.kelleylynchfactcheck.com/orders/minuteorder08012017.PDF

Scott, I won't be getting into a long winded discussion about the lies Gianelli is posting while attacking me. Cohen has exposed his penis to me routinely and, after a friend of mine read the Natural Wealth allegations, he asked about Cohen's taking bubble baths and forcing me to read legal/business documents to him while exposed himself. That is called indecent exposure. I have said that Lorca Cohen is the individual who accused her father of molesting her. She made those comments publicly at Concordia. I even have Cohen's emails about this issue that was brought to the attention of Ann Diamond by someone whose child was present. The entire 2012 trial record is evidence of fraud and that remains at issue. I didn't harass Cohen until his death but I know this is how our justice system works: call a cop, lie to them, get a report, and head into court and lie further. I didn't threaten Streeter. She freaks people out literally. Gianelli began writing her, using his communications to lie about me while harassing people in my life, and she used the opportunity to retaliate. I have no idea what Judge Barela was doing other than refusing to review evidence, hear a Brady Motion, and so forth. I never appealed Barela's decision. It stands on its own and so does his conduct that was witnessed by others. The Deputy City Attorney lied to Barela that I've never met with FBI and about other matters. They will lie about anything and everything. I haven't sent any communication to co-conspirators Kory & Rice that is not legitimate. I haven't violated any order. And, Gianelli's harassment of countless people is well documented. Many of those people have filed complaints with the police, brought the harassment to the attention of law enforcement, submitted declarations to courts, and/or maintained all harassing emails.

Stephen G 11 seconds ago

Interestingly, to me anyway, I note from the recent additions to the kelleylynchfactcheck site that not only will the court be considering Lynch's "motion to dismiss for outrageous governmental conduct and infiltration of the defense" (e.g., a DCA overhearing Lynch gabbing loudly on her cell phone in a public cafeteria) on August 8, but the court will also be reviewing Lynch's bail status at that time, meaning, it is possible that the court will revoke Lynch's OR status based on a "change in circumstances" (presumably the second amended complaint and Lynch's 200+ harassing emails to the lead detective assigned to her case and God only knows what else). Meaning, if the court follows the published LA Superior Court misdemeanor bail guideless, Lynch is looking at being required to EITHER post $50,000 cash bail or a $50,000 bail bond OR await trial behind bars. BTW, for her to obtain a bail bond in any amount, she would need a responsible third party with an actual job to co-sign and put his or her home as collateral + pay an up front and nonrefundable %15 percent annual bond premium in cash (in this case $7,500). Of course, Lynch may dodge another bullet and retain her OR status, but if not, I do not feel at all sorry for her since all she had to do was keep quiet about her case until trial and refrain from spamming folks - investigators, victims, prosecutors and whomever. As I have said many times she is her own worst enemy.

Scott, as I've noted, these people are completely out of control. I personally believe the prosecutors should be investigated and brought to justice together with their co-conspiring witnesses, etc. In any event, I am already aware of the fact that the prosecutor has lied routinely throughout all proceedings, introduces fabricated evidence, and feels completely comfortable lying relentlessly. This was the case during my 2012 trial. The Fact Check Blog refers people to Michelle Rice. It was clearly established, with Leonard Cohen's blessings (as he was obsessed with blaming his own conduct on others until the moment of this death), to influence jurors, news media, and other third parties. The co-conspirators continue to benefit financially from their activity. In any event, I do have some news I want to share with you privately in the near future. It's potentially huge. I haven't spammed anyone including LAPD's TMU who Gianelli contacted, lied to, and threatened me over my mother's death/funeral and/or any prosecutor who has routinely lied to and mislead jurors, courts, and others.

Scott, I am curious to see what the Court does with the Outrageous Government Conduct motion which also addresses all the cumulative misconduct. It's not harmless. And neither is the prosecution sending one of their colleagues to spy on me and my witnesses and then blatantly misstate what was "overheard" to the Court. The Court has declarations from the witnesses who Gianelli has continued to harass and target.

Stephen G 3 hours ago (edited)

1 day ago (edited)

"Scott,
I am curious to see what the Court does with the Outrageous Government Conduct
motion " Easy : *DENIED*. No prosecution misconduct of any kind, let
alone infecting the entire case rendering a fair trial unlikely. If you want to
keep your cell phone conversations private, don't talk in a loud voice in a
public place. No reasonable expectation of privacy = no constitutional
violation by eavesdropping. And, even if there was an improper search and
seizure, the remedy is exclusion not dismissal. Ridiculous motion not worthy of
serious consideration.

"The witnesses who Gianelli has continued to harass and target"? Like Rutger Penick?"

REDACTED UNAUTHENTICATED EMAIL. SEE RUTGER PENICK’S DECLARATION FOR HIS POINT OF VIEW.

Stephen G 33 minutes ago (edited)

Kelley Lynch should heed her own words posted on her blog tonight:"“Indeed, unwarranted personal attacks on the character or motives of the opposing party, counsel or witnesses are inappropriate and may constitute misconduct.” In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 412, citing Chong and Stone v. Foster (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 334, 355.)"*Accusing her prosecutors*, who are civil servants just doing their job, *of criminality*, is not only wrong, there is no upside to it. As for downside, judges (especially judges who are former prosecutors) don't like it and find it offensive, as do most jurors. And it severely tarnishes what credibility she could be said to possess at this point. Judges strive to be fair, but they are only human beings, as are jurors.

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

Scott, I have evidence that my son planned to find out what Gianelli was up to. His declaration - not an unauthenticated email - contain his own words. By that time, he understood LAPD TMU and others advised me to maintain all emails and advise them if Michelle Rice, etc. were copied on the emails. I also, as advised by my attorney, forwarded every harassing email from Gianelli to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. When Gianelli contacted Rutger at that time, he attempted to scare him about the City Attorney's plans to retaliate against me over communications he began submitting to them - lying about me and other matters.

Kelley Lynch 4 seconds ago

Scott, I think after 12 years of being relentlessly slandered, lied about, etc. in ever legal pleading and declaration Cohen and his lawyers have submitted to courts, I have every right to address their ongoing misconduct. Actually, certain conduct the prosecutors have engaged in is a felony in California now. I don't believe the City Attorney is the only entity in America permitted to speak about criminal conduct. When prosecutors are lying and engaged in the type of conduct they have been with me, they are not doing their job. The judges routinely permit these prosecutors to engage in misconduct. Federal courts in California have concluded that state court judges are turning a blind eye on misconduct and therefore it is rampant. I don't know what jurors find offensive. They should find any prosecutor that lies to them offensive.

Stephen G 29 minutes ago

Except, that is not Rutger's explanation, but do go with that, because if you read his email, calling you sick, that you need help, that everyone else sees things differently than you, saying my emails make him laugh, and thanking me for my emails 1. does not call for a response, and is therefore not plausibly designed to elicit information; 2. all that is gratuitous and unnecessary unless he meant it and 3. he emailed me in response to my forward of the email to you (you certainly thought it "authentic" enough at the time to get mad at him for sending it) and 4. he admitted to me two weeks ago (copied to TMU) that the email was authentic and that he authored it. But please do stick with that explanation. He can explain from the witness stand (if he testifies) that you singed his name to the probation violation declaration in 2014 or that he lied, take your pick. Good luck with the motion to revoke your OR status on 9/8!

Stephen G 27 minutes ago

When you are an adjudicated embezzler per a final and binding Judgment and an adjudicated criminal harasser per a final and binding judgment of conviction after jury trial, it is not "slander" it is "truth".

Scott, that is Rutger's declaration. Stephen Gianelli, who harassed him for years, is not in a position to say otherwise. He doesn't know any of us but felt comfortable terrorizing my sons to the point where he, and his cohorts, made my younger son physically ill. He relentlessly harassed my sister, brother-in-law, other relatives, friends, elderly parents, and targets witnesses. https://racketeeringact.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/declaration-of-ray-charles-lindsey/

Scott, I didn't embezzle anything and did not "confess" to fraud transmitted to courts by Cohen and his lawyers. The fraudulent renewal of judgment is under appeal. A default judgment proves nothing and the Court was provided with six declarations proving that I wasn't served Cohen's lawsuit, didn't resemble the Jane Doe in the process server's documents, and no Jane Doe exists. I can assure you that the situation with respect to this judgment, any allegations in the complaint, and federal tax matters remain at issue.

Rutger can take the stand, Scott, and explain anything about these matters, Gianelli, and LAPD's TMU.

Stephen G 1 hour ago (edited)

17 hours ago

Correction
- this is Rutger's declaration that Kelley Lynch admitted in 2015 that *she
composed*, typed up, and *signed Rutger's name to*. And it contradicts the
declaration that Lynch wrote and signed for Rutger in 2014.

Stephen G 5 hours ago

The 2015 order denying Lynch's motion to vacate the renewal of the 2006 judgment (which was strictly routine) is under appeal, but not for long. This appeal will soon denied - along with every other she has filed. The court has twice rejected her "I wasn't served" ground to set aside the 2006 J, and in any event, before hearing her motion to vacate (now under appeal) in October of 2015, she WAIVED all jurisdictional issues, including objections re lack of service, by making a general appearance.

Stephen G 1 hour ago

"A default judgment proves nothing." Wrong. "A judgment by default is res judicata as to all issues aptly pleaded in the complaint." Kahn v. Kahn 68 Cal. App. 3d 373

A court may take judicial notice of court pleadings to establish the *applicability of res judicata*. Stafford v. Ware (1960) 187 Cal. App. 2d 228. Res judicata applies to prior criminal as well as civil proceedings, if litigated to decision. Pease v. Pease (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d at 34. This is a *non-hearsay purpose*. Soninsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565. More to the point, though, I was talking about you following your own advice in refraining from personal attack on opposing counsel (i.e. your prosecutors), since calling them criminals and co-conspirators does not enhance your legal position and is likely to offend your trial judge (a former career prosecutor) and your jury. I was not addressing your (erroneous as it turns out, see above cases) objections to the RJN filed in LC vs. KL. Nice try changing the subject and deflecting, though. (Not really, pretty clumsy attempt at deflection.) Good luck with your bail hearing on 9/8!

9 hours ago

I strongly suggest you study these Constitutional provisions carefully, and then bring a bail bondsman with you to court on 9/8:California Constitution ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 - SEC. 32] SEC. 28. (a) The People of the State of California find and declare all of the following: (1) Criminal activity has a serious impact on the citizens of California. The rights of victims of crime and their families in criminal prosecutions are a subject of grave statewide concern. (2) Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of California. […] (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1) through (17) of subdivision (b). (4) The rights of victims also include broader shared collective rights that are held in common with all of the People of the State of California and that are enforceable through the enactment of laws and through good-faith efforts and actions of California’s elected, appointed, and publicly employed officials. […] (5) Victims of crime have a collectively shared right to expect that persons convicted of committing criminal acts are *sufficiently punished in both the manner and the length* of the sentences imposed by the courts of the State of California. This right includes the right to expect that the punitive and deterrent effect of custodial sentences imposed by the courts will not be undercut or diminished by the granting of rights and privileges to prisoners that are not required by any provision of the United States Constitution or by the laws of this State to be granted to any person incarcerated in a penal or other custodial facility in this State as a punishment or correction for the commission of a crime. […] (8) To accomplish the goals it is necessary that the laws of California relating to the criminal justice process be amended in order to protect the legitimate rights of victims of crime. (b) In order to preserve and protect a victim’s rights to justice and due process, a *victim shall be entitled to the following rights*: (1) To be *treated with fairness and respect*t for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be *free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process*. (2) To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant. (3) To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in *fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant*. […] (f) In addition to the enumerated rights provided in subdivision (b) that are personally enforceable by victims as provided in subdivision (c), victims of crime have additional rights that are shared with all of the People of the State of California. These collectively held rights include, but are not limited to, the following: […] (3) Public Safety Bail.A person may be released on bail by sufficient sureties, except for capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great. Excessive bail may not be required. *In setting, reducing or denying bail, the judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the safety of the victim, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case*. Public safety and the *safety of the victim shall be the primary considerations*. […]

9 hours ago

"Right to be treated with respect" (not insulted by you in court), "right to
be free of intimidation, harassment or abuse", AND victim safety shall be
the primary factor in granting or denying bail, setting the amount, and in
setting the conditions of release. You crossed the line, Lynch.

3 minutes ago

Scott, it's quite clear that Gianelli is out of control, probably behind the
fabricated evidence somehow, wants to know what the IRS position is re. the default judgment, and continues to represents of Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, et al. The default judgment does not apply to federal tax matters, federal tax laws, federal tax returns, compliance with federal tax laws, etc. There is a reason Robert Kory raised concerns about his possible participation in criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income. Part of that is that Kory, using his declaration in the current sham proceedings, is also attempting to elicit information. The judge should be asking: what is actually going on here? She should also take the prosecutorial misconduct extremely seriously.  I am about to file State Bar Complaints against the prosecutors for their ongoing misconduct. The State Bar has assured me that these prosecutors are not permitted to lie to jurors and/or the Court. And yet they have.

43 seconds ago

One of us is out of control that's for sure. (Probably the one facing 31 criminal counts and possible remand to jail in lieu of a substantial bond on 9/8 as a habitual offender.) Seriously, a motion to dismiss for outrageous governmental conduct is premised on misconduct during the investigation phase - you know that, right? The judge has already found
there is "no misconduct" when she denied your motion to DQ the City
Attorney's Office. And the thought that your privacy was violated by
prosecutors overhearing your end of the conversation while you talked loud enough to be overheard in a public court house cafeteria is laughable. Your motion will be denied inside of 5-minutes. It is not worthy of serious
consideration. And you have quite an imagination. But rather than worry about State Bar complaints against prosecutors that are going nowhere, I'd worry about how you are going to post substantial bail on 9/8 should your OR status be revoked, which would not surprise me at all. The only surprise is that it has not been revoked already. Good luck!

Scott, the Court is hearing my Motion re. Outrageous Government Conduct on the 8th.  The misconduct on the part of the prosecution is egregious. The Court previously informed me that she had not addressed prosecutorial misconduct in prior motions I filed. That is on the record with respect to my motion to recuse the City Attorney. Therefore, Gianelli is just blatantly lying about that issue. It's quite clear that Gianelli and his colleagues, etc. want me in jail. The stakes are high and the prosecutors continue to lie throughout all proceedings. Their conduct has shocked witnesses and someone actually followed me out of the courtroom to comment on the fact that the prosecutor sounded like a pathological liar targeting me. That happened at the last hearing.

Scott, the spy prosecutor didn't simply overhear something. They intentionally followed us to the cafeteria and eavesdropped and then the prosecutor lied about what was said re. the witness conversations. In any event, the Court itself informed me that the misconduct at issue was not part of her decision re. the motion to recuse the City Attorney. I disagree with the judge's decision re. the conflict and will pursue that on appeal if necessary.

NEW THREAD:

Stephen G

2 hours ago (edited)

Kelley Lynch: “Robert Kory has no standing to pursue the [LC vs. KL] appeal on behalf of Leonard Cohen.” Not so. The general rule is that most claims for or against the decedent survive his death if brought before judgment (notable exceptions being pain and suffering and punitive damage claims). But all claims survive the death of the decedent where the final judgment or order was entered BEFORE the decedent died, including where that order is on appeal*. See *Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1977) 15 CAL.4th 288, 298-99. Second, Robert Kory is not “pursuing” the appeal from the order denying your motion to vacate the CA registration of the CO order – YOU are the appellant. Third, the personal representative or trustee of the decedent’s estate is the proper party to continue in a pending appeal  if the decedent dies *before the appeal is final*. (Ibid.) NOTE:  *Sullivan is a California Supreme Court decision binding on all CA trial and appellate courts*.

Cohen doesn't have an estate, Gianelli. There's a Family Trust that was meant to avoid probate.

43 seconds ago

The trust property is properly referred to as Cohen's "estate". In any
event, all orders and judgments survive the death of the decedent, even if they are still on appeal and the decedents trustee or personal representative is the proper party to substitute into all pending appeals involving the decedent, as your appellate panel has already ordered. You might try actually researching issues before you throw out these false statements and make a fool of yourself.  And no, I represent no one. I am simply correcting your false statements on line, as usual. Have you listened to the above podcast interview you gave and counted the number of times you mentioned my name in the context of accusing me of criminality? So pardon me if I respond by showing - chapter and verse with legal authority - that everything you spew is nonsense. Now, don't you have briefs to write and a bail bondsman to call?