Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Kelley Lynch's Email To Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. Federal Tax & Corporate Matters; Federal Jurisdiction

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:05 AM
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" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, JFeuer <>, "kevin.prins" <>,, Sherab Posel <>, sedelman <>


Even though Gianelli criminally harassed me over this today, I would like to point out two things:  1)  Gianelli has not entered an appearance in either of the matters before LA Superior Court that I am addressing; 2) See federal returns filed on behalf of BMT, LCI, TH, and Old Ideas, LLC.  Those are federal tax matters.  They cannot be litigated before LA Superior Court.  LA Superior Court has no jurisdiction to hear matters related to federal tax matters involving federal tax returns.  I intend to go into federal court re. the fraudulent default that wrongfully altered my tax returns in a matter I wasn't served.  And, TH has no minimal ties to California; BMT was forfeited; Old Ideas did not register to do business in California until 2011.  U.S. District Courts have the authority to hear cases involving federal tax law.  Let me repeat this:  the fraudulent default judgment essentially altered previously filed tax returns.  The IRS refund Cohen received, based on the fabricated complaint, seems to indicate that the federal tax returns related to TH are fraudulent.  However, the assets are in Blue Mist Touring.  These are federal issues.

I also intend to sue over the fact that Cohen refuses to provide me with IRS form 1099 for the year 2004; refuses to either rescind the illegal LCI K-1s for 2003, 2004 and 2005 OR provide me with evidence of my partnership interest; 3) refuses to address TH phantom income shifted to me but not distributed, the K-1s TH issued me for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003.

If you want Gianelli to communicate with me about these matters, please have him file an entry of appearance.  In the meantime, I will await your reply about these federal tax and corporate matters.

Another issue for federal court will be the use of fraudulent restraining orders - including the fraudulently registered domestic violence order - to prevent me from requesting or receiving iRS required tax and corporate information. 

Kelley Lynch

four separate sets of federal courts have original jurisdiction over tax cases and appeals from original jurisdiction courts are taken to the thirteen federal courts of appeals. The four sets of courts with original jurisdiction to hear cases brought by taxpayers against the government when they disagree with a final tax deficiency notice issued by the Internal Revenue Service are:
  • The United States Tax Court. The Tax Court hears about 80% of the cases brought by taxpayers disputing IRS notices of deficiency. As is typical of an Article Icourt, the judges are appointed for 15-year terms rather than for life; their expertise in federal tax law is an important ingredient in their selection, and they gain further expertise through their long tenure dealing only with tax controversies.[3] From the taxpayer's standpoint, the advantage of bringing a dispute to the Tax Court is that payment of the deficiencies is stayed until the case is decided.[4] While the Tax Court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., its 19 judges hear cases in about 80 cities throughout the U.S. (See also Article I and Article III tribunals). Appeals from the Tax Court are taken to whichever of the United States courts of appeals has geographical jurisdiction over the claimant.
  • The United States District Courts. There are 94 U.S. district courts with broad discretion to hear cases involving federal criminal and civil law as well authority to apply state law in cases arising between citizens of different states. These Article III courts are generally considered to have great experience in factfinding through both jury and bench trials, as well as experience in the operation of state laws, the common law and constitutional law.[5] Included within the jurisdiction of these courts is the authority to hear cases involving federal tax law.[6] The taxpayer bringing the claim must have first paid the deficiency determined by the IRS.[7] Appeals from the district courts are taken to whichever of the United States courts of appeals has geographical jurisdiction over that district court.
  • The United States Court of Federal Claims. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims is also an Article I court with judges appointed for 15-year terms. It is centered in Washington, D.C., but can hold trials in other courts around the country. Its jurisdiction is limited to hearing claims for money that arise from the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or federal contracts.[8] Included in this jurisdiction is the express authority to hear claims by taxpayers for refunds of federal taxes paid.[9] As with the district courts, the taxpayer bringing the claim must have first paid the deficiency determined by the IRS.[10] Appeals from the Court of Federal Claims are taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • The United States bankruptcy court. Each of the 94 federal judicial districts also has an Article I bankruptcy court which operates under the supervision of the district courts. The bankruptcy courts are broadly empowered to hear any issue arising under the Bankruptcy Code, including federal tax issues arising in bankruptcy proceedings.[11] Professor Johnson reports a growing trend for important questions of substantive tax liability to be decided in bankruptcy proceedings, and since the overwhelming majority of bankruptcy proceedings are voluntary, there is a significant element of taxpayer choice in bringing the tax issues to the bankruptcy courts. Johnson also reports that the bankruptcy courts are seen as “pro-debtor,” and have procedural rules that favor litigation of tax issues. Bankruptcy Court appeals are taken to the U.S. District Court before they can be heard by the circuit courts.[12]