Jul 3, 2017 at 9.20 PM

From: Sandra <Sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:20 PM
Subject: Your 7/2 blog post denying authorship of the emails with which you have been charged is ill informed
To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com

Contrary to lay belief, especially if one has watched too many Law and Order episodes, “chain of custody” or tracing to a precise IP address is not required for the admission of email evidence in court.

An email can be authenticated based on its distinguishing features, such as “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.” (See Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4); United States v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 39–40 (D.D.C. 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 528 F.3d 957 (D.C. Cir. 2008).) You have a very distinctive way of expressing yourself, and there is a rich library of comparison samples available.

Authentication does not involve the truth of the document’s content, rather only whether the document is what it is claimed to be.  (City of Vista v. Sutro & Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 401, 411-412.) Digital evidence does not require a greater showing of admissibility merely because, in theory, it can be manipulated. Conflicting inferences go to the weight not the admissibility of the evidence. (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal. App.258, 267) In Re KB (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 989, 291-292 [upholding red light camera evidence].)

You can also authenticate an email by showing that the writing refers to matters that only the writer would have been aware.  (Evid. Code, § 1421.)

An email may also be authenticated by any other way that will sustain a finding that the writing is what party offering the email into evidence says it is.  The Evidence Code specifically does not limit the means by which a writing may be authenticated and proved.  (Evid. Code, § 1410; See also People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 13721373 [rap lyrics authenticated in gang case even though method of authentication not listed in Evidence Code].)

In the majority of cases a variety of circumstantial evidence establishes the authorship and authenticity of a computer record.  (For further information, please see Chapter 5 – Evidence of the United States Department of Justice, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division, Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (2009) 

<http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/docs/ssmanual2009.pdf> (accessed July 3, 2017).  See also, Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co. (D. Md. 2007) 241F.R.D. 534, 546 [seminal case law on authenticating digital evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence].)

Commentary:  This harassing email is a defense of Robert Kory and the fabricated email he transmitted to LAPD's TMU.  Someone, possibly Kory himself, lifted Lynch's email to IRS Commissioner's Staff from her riverdeepbook.blogspot.com blog, altered the content, and it evidently ended up with Robert Kory.  Lynch's email to IRS addressed the fact that Kory's declaration was entirely perjured, raised issues related to criminal tax fraud and his probable role in it, and noted that she would review the perjured declaration privately with Internal Revenue Service.  Lynch has now asked IRS to investigate the fabricated email and confirmed this with Madero of LAPD's TMU.  

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS Re: the City Attorney of Los Angeles, Federal Tax Matters, & Robert Kory's Thoroughly Deranged Declaration

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 5:37 PM
Subject: The City Attorney & Robert Kory's Declaration
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.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>, 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>

IRS,

I've sent you Kory's declaration.  You've been copied on my emails to my prosecutor regarding the federal tax issues, etc. raised in that.  I've advised the prosecutor that federal matters, tax forms, etc. are issues that should be argued in federal court.  The City Attorney is not going to tell me that they are in a position to alter federal tax rules and regulations, reporting and filing requirements, or advise me what is or is not legitimate with respect to those matters.

The Boulder court has jurisdiction over nothing and no one.  Kory & Rice did not, until the issuance of the recent fraudulent domestic violence related orders, have any order.  They are not part of the Colorado order.  

May I have your opinion on what IRS thinks the City Attorney is doing particularly in light of the fact that they've lied profusely about federal tax matters, etc.  I've advised this prosecutor that I have nothing further to say to him on this issue.  He should feel free to call the IRS and try to convince IRS of his positions. If he wants to write me about a hearing or discovery, that's fine.  As for the rest, he should study federal preemption and leave me out of his insanity.  

I will have my private responses to Robert Kory's declaration in the very near future.  That will be presented to IRS privately.  This trial is an attempt elicit information about IRS, federal tax matters, etc.  That information can be elicited before the U.S. District Court.  I have nothing to say about my private discussions with IRS.  That includes to the Deputy City Attorney who, together with his colleague, has lied through four hearings to date.  That's not a very good record even if LA Superior Court approves of that misconduct.

Kelley

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2017/02/kelley-lynchs-email-to-irs-re-city.html