Kelley's Emails re. Criminal Grand Jury of Los Angeles & to the CIA re. Streeter & a "threat"

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Subject: Fwd: Standards applicable to revocation of probation
To: Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.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>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, Glenn Greenwald <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>

To the CIA,

Evidently Swanigan contacted Gianelli about the management of a "threat" against Sandra Jo Streeter.  Do speak with the FBI about that example of the lunacy taking place in Los Angeles.  I would like the CIA to respond to my emails because the threat must be credible.

All the best,
Kelley

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephenrgianelli@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Standards applicable to revocation of probation

To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

To addressing your highlighted questions:

 

1. How do define "speak";

 

2. She contacted me about the management of a threat against Sandra Jo Streeter.

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephenrgianelli@yahoo.com>; Francisco Suarez <francisco.suarez.lawoffice@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>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: Standards applicable to revocation of probation

My motion to terminate and the declarations are being filed with the criminal grand jury of LA. 

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Francisco,

I am gathering declarations re. Gianelli (and others) ongoing harassment of me and others.  He's obsessed with Cooley, Jackson, and Streeter.  The prosecutor LIED about me and she feels harassed?  How does Gianelli know?  Do they speak?  How does Gianelli know Vivienne Swanigan?  That's my question.  This court wouldn't know jurisidiction if it fell over it.  Nothing from LA Superior Court re. the assignment of the judge and hearing date re. the motion to vacate Cohen's fraud, perjury, and lies.

Kelley

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM, STEPHEN GIANELLI <stephenrgianelli@yahoo.com> wrote:

               Penal Code section 1203.2, subd. (a), permits a trial court to revoke probation "if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe . . .that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation, has become abandoned to improper associates or a vicious life, or has subsequently committed other offenses, regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offense."

                A summary revocation of probation, upon probable cause that a violation of probation has occurred, is accepted practice. Summary revocation “tolls” the clock on the term of probation, and is simply a device by which the defendant may be brought before the court, and jurisdiction retained, before formal revocation proceedings begin. (People v. Pipitone (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1117; People v. Barkins (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 30, 32-33; Pen. Code § 1203.2, sub. a.)

                The standard of proof applicable to probation revocation proceedings is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence”. (People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 441.) In order to overturn a trial court decision that the defendant violated the terms of probation, an appellate court would determine, looking at the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether the record “discloses substantial evidence–that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value–such that a reasonable trier of fact could find” that the defendant violated the terms of probation. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)

                Therefore, the issue becomes could a reasonable trier of fact conclude that Kelley Lynch’s admitted emails to her trial prosecuted “annoyed” or “harassed” the prosecutor and whether the prosecutor is “a person involved in this case” pursuant to the provision of the April 17, 2012 probation order prohibiting such conduct by the Defendant.

 

                I trust you have advised your client accordingly.

 

j