March 1, 2017 at 7.50 AM


From: Sandra <sandra123@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:50 AM
Subject: Your internet posted assertions
To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com



The only lawyer who would be willing to place his name on a refiled RICO suit (with you agreeig to do all the paperwork) that had been previosly filed pro se and then dismissed would be a very marginal practitioner who was not doing very well. But anyone foolish enough to do so would b exposing themselves to massive FRCP Rule 11 sactions imposed by the federal court after the RICO suit is dismissed on motion by the defense. Not only would the new RICO suit be dismissed for all of the same reasons enumerated in the prior order of dismissal, that dismissal was with prejudice and also precludes its refling.

No marginal practitioner could take the risk of being ordered by a federal court to pay all of the actual attorney's fees inclurred by the defense in moving to dismiss - which could be tens of thousands of dollars. And no successful lawyer would bother with suh an arrangment.

For these reasons alone, your RICO suit will never be refiled.

Regarding your 2/28 correspondence to the City Attorney, the only one who thinks that your 2012 or 2017 prosecutions for criminal electronic harassment and restraining order violations are "tax related" is Kelley Lynch.

When your prior counsel "agreed" with you that your 2012 criminal prosecution constituted "interferance with a tax matter" and that "the City Attorney is afraid that the Phil Spector murder conviction will be overturned" they were managing you. They did not really believe either proposition. No legally trained person who was not on LSD or mentally ill would.
You have a way of forcing lawyers and others to "agree" with your nonsense, by adamently phrasing it as "do you understand that ...". Of course they understand that you claim that, and that it is crazy talk.


My theory is that you want to go to jail. It is so plain that you are doing everything in your power to motivate those in a position to decide your fate (prosecutors, judges, jurors) to send you there, no other explanation makes sense.

Commentary:  This email attempts to elicit information about any attorney Lynch may have consulted or hired to file a federal RICO suit.  Gianelli has informed Lynch that one of his roles is to dissuade her from pursuing legal remedies.  sandra123 would evidently like to know if the IRS believes the 2012 and 2017 prosecutions are "tax related."  They are indeed.  Lynch's public defenders informed the jurors that Lynch was not in possession of IRS required tax and corporate information.  This appeared in numerous press accounts that falsely stated that Lynch was in possession of the IRS required tax and corporate information as that is what the prosecution informed the jurors.  Lynch has no idea what the City Attorney believes about the Spector case and isn't interested in hearing.  


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:19 PM Subject:  To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com As you stand before the court in the morning in a serious criminal case that - if you are convicted - could result in a 9-year jail sentence (which would translate to an actual 4 and a half years behind bars) - keep in mind that the sole reason that you are in that position is not some conspiracy, it is not a result of the conduct of others, your situation is entirely the result of your continual refusal to obey a facially valid order of the court, your prior criminal record of convictions and probation violations, and your 14 year history of electronic harrassment. Commentary:  The reasons Lynch is in this position is due to the fact that she reported allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, he and his representatives retaliated, and the DA dragged her into the Phil Spector case.  The fraud California domestic violen...
Read more

March 8, 2017 at 10.00 PM

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM Subject: Blog post of today To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com I find it extremely ironic that you are all lathered up about a strightfoward website maining consisting of an archive of pleadings in your various legal matters with Leonard Cohen, with three FAQ;s that consist of stright foward anwers to your primary legal contentions that aree not onlysupported by the evidence but have also been so found by the court. This is ironic due to your many wibsites and tens of thousands of blog posts over the last seven years that consist mainly of your warped, self-serving, and factually and legally unsupported hyperbole about these matters. At a minumum there should be a dispassionate rebuttle to your daily diatribes based on facts and actual court documents and judicial rulings. Commentary:  Lynch is not lathered up about the Fact Check blog that is Leonard Cohen's defense to crimi...
Read more

March 2, 2017 at 7.19 AM

From:  Sandra  <sandra123@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:19 AM Subject: Blog posted, harassing emails To: kelley.lynch.2016@gmail.com I am sure that the emails you are posting on your blog are just the tip of the iceberg, and that in actuality you are sending out far more emails to the City Attorney and his deputies. Have you read Penal code section 653M, or do you simply believe that everything you write is so important and legitimate that you have an unqualified right to say it, to whomever you wish, as many times as your whims dictate? Don't be suprized if you pick up additional charges (if Bruce Cutler alone decides to request charges, that would be hundreds of additional counts) or wind up remanded. You just cannot keep scoffing at court orders and the Penal Code while taunting prosecutors without consequences. Commentary:  Lynch continues to document everything that unfolds for IRS, FBI, DOJ, and other authorities.  Lync...
Read more