Monday, October 27, 2014

Kelley Lynch's Email To DOJ Re. The Ongoing Unlawful Conduct Re. Leonard Cohen's Fraudulent Domestic Violence Order

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:56 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Jeffrey Korn <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,, Sherab Posel <>

Hello DOJ,

Stephen Gianelli continues to harass me over legal matters related to Leonard Cohen.  I most certainly could NOT contest the terms of probation since LA Superior Court brought that to my attention in the Spring of 2013 and I was unaware that Cohen obtained a "domestic violence" order in California on May 25, 2011.  My appeal had already been filed when LA Superior Court brought this to my attention and was almost complete.  I documented this for you.  I waved no issue.  And, I did not waive an evidentiary hearing in either Colorado or California on domestic violence issues.  It doesn't matter if Barela dismissed the extortionist fines in January 2014.  These "domestic violence" related fines and requirements were assigned to me and I was forced to complete domestic violence related courses, etc. and have been criminally harassed - by Gianelli and the City Attorney - over the insanity with respect to a psychiatric evaluation which I think they should be subjected to.  It turned out that it was not a requirement.  I was merely criminally harassed and slandered over that issue.  

I am not living in the past.  These issues are relevant today.  That includes the fraudulent California domestic violence order and the fraudulent $10 million judgment, that continues to accrue interest (and is evidence of financial and accounting fraud), in a matter I was not served where the perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations continue to mount and are inconceivably extensive.  Furthermore, I have challenged Cohen's IRS and FTB refunds as fraud and am awaiting the opinion of both tax authorities.  Those determinations should be based on the corporate returns previously filed, K-1s issued, etc.  If they are fraudulent then arrests should be made.

Finally, I would like to point out that the definition of "intimate relationship" differs in Colorado from California's "dating relationship" requirement.  Leonard Cohen's testimony during my trial on this issue is as follows.  I only recently received the transcript of the March 23, 2012 hearing where Cohen testified that we were in a purely business relationship and confirmed that I never stole from him - just his "peace of mind."  It took me nearly two years to obtain that transcript.  Now that i have the transcript and the Boulder Court's written confirmation that the original order was not "domestic violence," I am asking the Court to dismiss the fraudulent order.

Leonard Cohen Cross:  Kelly:  Okay.  Now, you also mentioned earlier that there was a brief intimate relationship between you and Ms. Lynch, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  Kelly:  Now, being that she was your business manager, you wouldn’t say that was probably the best idea, to have a romantic relationship with your business partner, correct?   Cohen:  I don’t think it goes the the description of romantic.  Kelly:  Okay, but it was a sexual relationship, correct?  Cohen:  It was an intimate relationship, yes.  Kelly: Was it a sexual relationship?  Cohen:  It involved a sexual - yes.  Kelly:  Not, it was -- it was actually spanning years, correct?  Cohen: I’m sorry?  Kelly:  It actually spanned years, correct?  Cohen:  I don’t know how long it lasted, sir.  ... Kelly:  But you would agree with me that it was on and off for a period of time?  Cohen:  Yes, sir.  (RT 275)  Kelly:  When did it end?  Cohen:  I don’t remember exactly when it ended.  Like many relationships, it - it just dissolved.  (RT 276)  Kelly?  Okay.  Do you remember testifying on March 23rd at another hearing?  March 23rd, yes.  Of this year.  You were in this courthouse testifying, correct?  Cohen:  That is correct.  Kelly:  Now, you were asked if this was -- if your relationship with Ms. Lynch was purely a business relationship.  Do you remember that?  Cohen:   I did.  Kelly:  And you actually said that it was, yes, purely a business relationship.  (RT 276)  Cohen:  I have said repeatedly that there was an intimate relationship, but the lady denies it.  So I did not want to insist.  Kelly:  I’m not asking you about what Ms. Lynch said.  I’m asking about what you said.  You said that yes, that it was purely a business relationship, correct?  Cohen:  May I explain?  Kelly:  I’m just asking for if that’s what you said on March 23rd.  Cohen:  Yes. Kelly:  In fact, you were asked a follow up question that -- asking you if that was the extent of it, and again you said yes, that was the extent of it.  Cohen:  Correct.  (RT 277)

Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter:  And finally, there was a question about a previous testimony that you’ve given, the description of your relationship with Ms. Lynch.  Why at that hearing did you say that you only had a business relationship with Ms. Lynch?  And not just once or twice.  Why did you say that?  Because, as it turns out, the friendship Ms. Lynch displayed was false and deceptive, so it was not really a friendship.  Kelly:  Objection.  The intimate relationship we had, she denies.  So I’m not going to insist.  So, therefore, it was not -- from that point of view, there was not an intimate relationship  and there was not a friendship; it was all business.  It was all business from the point of view of Ms. Lynch.  Kelly:  Objection; speculation as to what Ms. Lynch thought.  Court:  Overruled.  The question was why he did it, and he’s testifying to his subjective reason.  (RT 319-320)

Leonard Cohen Cross:  Kelly:  When you testified on March 23rd, you said that -- you didn’t give the same answer that you gave now, correct, regarding your relationship with Ms. Lynch?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  Kelly:  Okay.  But you -- when you did testify, you stood in front of the counsel table, you raí sed your right hand, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  And then the same oath that you just took
right now, correct?  Before testifying, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  Kelly:  Okay.  And you understand that you were under the penalty of perjury on March 23rd?  Streeter: Objection; argumentative.  Court:  Sustained.  Kelly:  Nothing further.  (RT 321-322)

All the best,


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Stephen Gianelli continues to criminally harass me over legal matters related to Leonard Cohen.  Specifically he is arguing Cohen's case with respect to the fraudulent registration of the Boulder, Colorado order as a 'domestic violence" which led to my prosecution under the California domestic violence statutes.  That statute requires the showing of a "dating relationship" and this was not an issue before the Court in Boulder, Colorado; the Verified Motion did not include "domestic abuse;" and these issues were not heard on the merits. 

Gianelli has not entered an appearance in the Family Law matter or the matter before Judge Hess which now includes extensive perjury and fraudulent misrepresentations.  I would like to point out that the first restraining order Cohen obtained in 2005 was not a domestic violence order, pursuant to LA Superior Court's website.  I have no idea what Cohen advised the court in that matter but if his testimony during my trial, on aspects of his declaration (which I have not seen), are any indication then it was based on perjured statements.  LAPD was quite clear after the SWAT incident:  they felt my dog was my hostage and they were taking precautions.  I have Steve Lindsey's declaration where he confirms that he phoned the police and further alleges that my neighbors did.  My neighbors did not phone the police that day and LAPD was told, in no uncertain terms, that there was no hostage and Rutger had just driven my younger son down the street pursuant to the discussions both he and I had with Steven Lindsey.  The reasons I asked Rutger to take my younger son down the hill to meet Steve Lindsey was due to his increasingly volatile and abusive conduct.  Also, due to the fact that he was meeting with Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory.  That led to his accusations that I had sex with Oliver Stone while he and I were together and other fabricated allegations.  This was clearly meant to stir up a custody matter.  

I have opposed the domestic violence fees as extortion attempts on the part of Los Angeles Superior Court.  That was addressed in my probation documents.  See attached.   I could not have opposed the domestic violence fees at the time I was sentenced due to the fact that LA Superior Court asked me, in the Spring of 2013, after asking me for the case number if Leonard Cohen was my "boyfriend."  At that time, they explained that the Case No. beginning with BQ relates specifically to a d[omestic violence family law case].

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Stephen Gianelli <> wrote:
You could have refused the terms of your probation - including the fines you now claim were illegal - or you could have appealed the imposition of the fines. 

You did neither, thereby waiving the issue. 

Moreover, you never paid the fines, and your probation has been terminated - so you really have nothing to complain about at this point. 

You're still living in the past.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.