Criminal Stalking Reporter to City Attorney & Others

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Subject: Re:
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>, John Penick <mr.synt4xerror@gmail.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, OIGCOMPL OIGCOMPL <oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org>, MEDIA RELATIONS PIO <pio@lapd.lacity.org>, chaleffg <chaleffg@lapd.lacity.org>, Vivienne Swanigan <vivienne.swanigan@lacity.org>

TO the City Attorney,

Criminal stalking.

Kelley Lynch

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Rutger,

If Cohen's shameless investigator approaches Chad, tell him to record the loser.

Love,
Mother

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

To the FBI,

Cohen's investigator looked pathetic and embarrassing.  Well, he'll never track down any such individual.  She does NOT exist.  Chad Knaak should tape any encounter with this alleged investigator who personally should be investigated.  Anything for a BUCK.

Kelley

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Rutger,

I think SHUT UP was the right response.  Chad Knaak had no such girlfriend.  How would this freak know anything about our private lives?  His legal bullshit doesn't interest me.  I think he bought his law degree at Pep Boys.  Cohen's PI, who looked like a sycophant and was entirely embarrassing, will NEVER track down any such individual.  The FBI should investigate Cohen's investigator.  That's my p0osition.

Kelley

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

To the FBI,

The harassment and obsession with Chad Knaak continues.  No such woman exists.  No such alleged girlfriend exists.  This is a sick human being who belongs in prison.

Kelley

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 10:54 AM, STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:

Kelley,

That sentence is your take-away from my below email methodically and logically demonstrating that you have mistakenly applied an appellate case expressly limited to "exceptional circumstances" (defendant in prison when so proof of service must be intentionally false) to your case (garden variety claim of no service), and pointing out that your declarations do not even try to meet the three pronged "equity test" (including explain how your filing delay was reasonable)?

Claiming that I am "obsessed" with "Chad"?

It is The presence of Chad's black eyed blond GIRLFRIEND in the LA house that is of minor interest in view of your testimonial assertion that you cannot even "conceive" of "anyone you know" even resembling that description - NOT Chad.

But I would be more worried about your failure to make the minimum showing entitling you to have your claim of no service even considered by the court than whether Chad's GF will be tracked down by Cohen's PI or whether she is in videotape in your house in late 2005 sporting blond hair and black eyesm


On Saturday, August 17, 2013, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Rutger,
>
> This lunatic is now obsessed with Chad.
>
> Love,
> Mother
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM, STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> WRONG!
>>
>> Kelley - the "exceptional" (indeed, highly unusual) - circumstances in Gorham was the fact that while the process server was supposedly personally serving Mr. Gorham across town, as easily ascertainable from court and jail records Mr. Gorham was IN CUSTODY and (therefore) it was IMPOSSIBLE that the proof of service was correct - and the judgment was necessarily obtained by an INTENTIONALLY FALSE proof og service.
>>
>> It is not exceptional or unusual that you merely CLAIM you were not served - almost EVERY defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment claims they were not served.
>>
>> A claim - BTW that is impeached in part by your claim that you cannot even conceive of a person you are acquainted with meeting the general description of the person served at your front door in August of 2005, when in fact Rutger's friend had a girlfriend who was frequently in your home during the year service took place who ALSO had dark eyes and blond hair.
>>
>> In any event, your claim that you were never served (which claim Rutger does not expressly support and is your word against that of a professional process server) is hardly "exceptional".
>>
>> Therefore, The Gorham case does not apply, and even if it did you did not even try to meet the 3-element showing required to set a default judgment aside on equitable grounds, including showing in your declaration that your seven  delay in bringing the motion was reasonable or that you acted with "due diligence" during that seven years to bring the motion.
>>
>> Indeed, you do not even tell the court when you found out about Cohen's $7.9. Judgment against you (that was widely reported in the world press) let alone explain why you waited so long to move to vacate let alone why your timing is "due diligence".
>>
>> All of this translates to another EPIC FAIL.
>>
>>
>> On Friday, August 16, 2013, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Cease and desist Gianelli.  The exceptional circumstance was the fact that the individual was not served and the court had no personal jurisdiction.  This isn't that exceptional.  It['s also true in my Stalinesque Show trial.  No one is interested in you, Gianelli.  They think you belong in prison.  Remain delusional about that fact.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Here is my take on Kelley’s motion to vacate the May 2006 $7.9M embezzlement based default J.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Her entire legal argument is underpinned by County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215 – the case wherein there was no disputing that the proof of personal service underpinning the judgment was intentionally falsified, because Mr. Gorham – the moving party – was incarcerated at the time of “service” at another location.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Gorham made it explicit that "Because of the strong public policy in favor of the finality of judgments, equitable relief from a default judgment or order is available only in exceptional circumstances."  (Id. at pp. 1229-1230, italics added.)   In Gorham, the exceptional circumstances involved a process server who committed "perjury" in his declaration of service.  He falsely claimed he served Gorham at one address at a time when "Gorham was in custody in jail."  (Id. at p. 1231.)  The court said this "constitutes evidence of an intentional false act that was used to obtain fundamental jurisdiction over Gorham."  (Id. at p. 1232, italics added.)”
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The incontrovertible evidence in Gorham that the proof of service was intentionally falsified is a far cry from the showing made by Kelley’s moving declarations, which in any event materially conflict on whether nonfamily members resided in the home where service occurred. (See (La Jolla Casa De Manana v. Hopkins (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 339, 345-346 ["[A] trial judge has an inherent right to disregard the testimony of any witness . . . when he [or she] is satisfied that the witness is not telling the truth . . . ."] and (In re Marriage of Hofer (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 454, 460 [That is the case even where appellant's declaration is uncontradicted.].)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Moreover, by asserting a nonstatutory, equitable basis to move to set aside the judgment, Kelley is subject to the rule articulated in In re Marriage of Park (1980) 27 Cal.3d 337, 345 [ "A motion to vacate a judgment should not be granted where it is shown that the party requesting equitable relief has been guilty of inexcusable neglect or that laches should attach”]. See Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 314 [“Where "'a motion to vacate a default judgment is made' beyond the statutory deadline for relief, it is "'directed to the court's inherent equity power.'"].
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> As stated in Gibble:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> “But a party seeking equitable relief "must satisfy three elements:  'First, the defaulted party must demonstrate that [he or she] has a meritorious case.  Secondly, the party . . . must articulate a satisfactory excuse for not presenting a defense to the original action.  Lastly, the moving party must demonstrate diligence in seeking to set aside the default once . . . discovered.'"  (Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 315, italics added.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Assuming the first is somehow established by the 83 pages of unverified narrative appended to Kelley’s declaration, the moving declarations do not even attempt to establish the later two elements, thereby removing any discretion the court might have otherwise had to grant the motion.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I give it zero chance of success.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Stephen R. Gianelli
>
>

--

Stephen R. Gianelli