Friday, November 21, 2014

Kelley Lynch Email To DOJ, FBI, IRS, California DOJ, & City Attorney Mike Feuer: The Fraudulent Transformation Of A Foreign Order & Evidence Preservation

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch's Alleged Trial - Transcript
To: DOJ, FBI, IRS, California DOJ, City Attorney Mike Feuer cc:  Multiple Recipients

Hello DOJ,

Please review this section of testimony.  I won't comment on the abuse of taxpayer dollars but this alleged evidence was not authenticated and neither was the actual email account.  I would like an official DOJ opinion on the position of Los Angeles that a local fraudulently registered restraining order legally subverts IRS reporting requirements and multi-jurisdictional issues related to corporations of which I am a rightful owner.  As of right now, I am aware of the tab colors on the binders and the fact that hearsay was entered into evidence as well.  Who testified that DOJ, FBI, IRS, etc. received this emails?  Cohen testified you were copied in.  And, he testified that people near to Cooley were reading my alleged emails.  As my PD said - they just printed the same email out over and over and over again.  And, lied about federal tax matters.

I've asked Feuer to maintain and preserve this evidence.  I have been unable to obtain most of my file from the Public Defender's Office and this affected my appeal.  See the Opinion.  I didn't have the items in the "IRS Binder" attached.  That's because I don't have a copy of the IRS binder.  I have the index and one or two documents related to the fraudulent refunds Cohen obtained which have now been challenged as fraud and the use of my SSN as "Identity Theft."

All the best,

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Hello California DOJ,

I believe this is your answer but, as you instructed, I have contacted the City Attorney of Los Angeles with my question.

Thank you for your assistance.  I am still not clear how the Boulder, Colorado non-domestic violence order transformed into a domestic violence order.  I am aware that you advised me that form DV-600 does not transform or modify the nature of the original order.  That's only part of the problem.

Thank you for your assistance.  

All the best,

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land."  Therefore, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be followed.
The Supremacy Clause states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
According to U.S. law treaties are those international agreements that receive the advice and consent of the Senate. (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). A treaty to which United States is a party is given status equal to that of a federal legislation and therefore forms a part of the Supreme law of the land.
This concept of federal supremacy was first developed by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Md., 17 U.S. 316, 406 (U.S. 1819), where the court held that the State of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of United States, a branch of the National Bank. It was concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
In Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 632 (U.S. 1982) it was held that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Similarly in Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme. State policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees."
In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.    Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible
2.    "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article SixClause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.
The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Similarities exist between the Supremacy Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The difference between the two is that while the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363(2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".[4] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), formally the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of theUnited States Code (USC).[1] It is organized topically, into subtitles and sections, covering income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxesestate taxesgift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Code includes most but not all federal tax statutes. Some tax statutes are found in other provisions of the United States Code including title 11 (related to bankruptcy) and title 28 (related to the judiciary). Further, some tax statutes are not codified at all (for example, the provisions of tax statutes that list the effective dates of Internal Revenue Code amendments).

In its role in administering the tax laws enacted by the Congress, the IRS must take the specifics of these laws and translate them into detailed regulations, rules and procedures. 

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mike Feuer,

I am reviewing the alleged trial transcript with DOJ, IRS, FBI, and others.  Would you kindly maintain and preserve the binders addressed in this section of the transcripts?  I have been unable to obtain a great deal of evidence from the Public Defender's Office and I was very clear in my testimony - I wouldn't testify if I sent an email but would review each and every email against the original to determine if it was accurate.  It is obvious that Cohen's law firm removed forwarding information.  I would also like the specific information related to the Chain of Command preserved.  Rice testified, I believe, that she gave the Binders to the Wilshire Division.  LAPD's TMU then forwarded the emails "generally requesting tax information" to the City Attorney's Office.  There is a gap in chain of evidence command at that point.  There is another when it arrived at your office and was assigned to the "Domestic Violence" Unit.  There was and remains no domestic violence.  The Boulder, Colorado order I requested was NOT domestic violence.  The California DOJ advised me to address my questions with the City Attorney and County Counsel.  I have asked that office how a local or state restraining order subverts IRS federal tax and multi-jurisictional corporate and legal matters.  I do believe the Supremcy Clause of the United States Constitution addresses that issue.  However, LAPD's report states that my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information.  If you have a response, I would appreciate hearing what that might be.

For the record, the alleged emails were not properly authenticated and, for all your office knows (particularly as they cannot spell my name or get a hearing date straight), the email account might actually have belonged to Leonard Cohen.  There's no way to speculate without obtaining the emails via subpoena.

Kelley Lynch

Monday, April 9, 2012

Public Defender:  Your Honor, the only issue was what we had discussed off the record, whether or not the Investigator in this case – Streeter:  He’s out.  I put him out.  PD:  Was that Mr. Stevens?  Streeter:  Yes, it was, and I told him that he was listed in the report and that as a result he had to sit out.  PD:  And I just want to put on the record that a juror, I think the late juror, just walked in the Courtroom.  I was the only counsel present.  I just wanted to put that on the record … We’re taking a witness out of order.  RT 99-100

Basil “Steve” Stephens 

Steve is CEO and Managing Partner for Close Range International, Inc. He has extensive investigative and executive protection experience. Steve has conducted hundreds of investigations with positive results. He has taken numerous DOJ and POST training classes in the police academy and has worked with and for the LAPD, FBI, Secret Service, Military Police and numerous security professionals.

Steve has worked and coordinated security for many high profile events and is a mainstay in Hollywood circles where his professionalism, knowledge and work ethic has never been challenged. Executive Protection is his expertise. 

Steve worked exclusively for the entertainer, Madonna, for over 10 years and captured her high profile stalker Robert Hoskins in 1995. Stephens’ testimony helped convict Hoskins of stalking and ensured his long prison sentence. Hoskins, as of 2014, remains in the California State Mental Health System as an extreme danger to the public. ( We only mention this case because of the worldwide media coverage-Close Range International normally will not disclose client’s identity)

Stephens has also provided personal security /executive protection for many other high profile celebrities and “Rock and Roll Royalty” in town and on the road.

Steve Stephens most recently was Security Director at Warner Bros Records in Burbank (2005-2009), providing armed security for executives and artists and conducting stalking investigations. Prior to that position he was Security Director at Maverick Records (1995-2004), Madonna’s label, where he conducted many investigations and managed numerous threats working closely with the LA County District Attorney’s “STAT” Team ( Stalking and Threat Assessment Team-founded by DDA Rhonda Saunders) and the LAPD’s Threat Management Unit. 

During the period he worked for the record company’s, he still managed Close Range International. He now devotes 100% of his time to Close Range International and serving your needs. 

Streeter:  People call Antoinette Henry to the witness stand.  RT 101

Henry:  I’m a law clerk at the Family Violence Unit … with the City of Los Angeles.  Streeter:  In the past weeks, have you assisted me in preparing for a case of People vs. Kelley Lynch?  Henry:  Yes, I have.  RT 102  Streeter:  Now you mentioned that you’re a law clerk; is that right?  Henry:  Yes.  Streeter;  So you have some legal training; is that correct?  Henry:  Yes … I’m in my final year [law school].  Streeter:  Now you mentioned that you printed out some emails.  RT 103

Exhibit 10.  Binder “with some plastic in it, and it has Kelley Lynch on it.”  DVDs and CDs.  Guide inside as to content.  7 or 8 tabs related to 7 or 8 emails – printed out over and over and over again.

Streeter:  Do you recognize that binder, Miss Henry?  Henry:  Yes, I do … This is the binder that has the DVDs that contain the emails that I printed out.  Streeter: … Do you remember everything that’s in that binder?  Henry:  Yeah, I remember the DVDs, the CDs, but I don’t remember all the exact.  RT 104  Streeter:  Is there a guide as to what is contained inside the binder?  Henry:  Yes, there is.  Streeter:  Are there certain dates listed in that binder?  Henry:  Yes.  Streeter:  … And how is the binder organized …?  Henry:  It’s in chronological order as to the dates of the emails, and it has tabs as well that go with the, I guess you could say, the syllabus or table of contents of the CDs that have the emails no them.  And it tells you which tab has certain dates of emails, and there’s about, I think, seven or eight tabs.  RT 105  Streeter:  When you were working on this case, were there particular dates that you were directed to copy?  Henry:  Yes.  Streeter:  What dates were those?  Henry:  The end of December 2011.  Emails from December 22nd until the 25th, and then to the end of the month of December.  Streeter:  Do you recall if there were DVDs that correspond with those dates?  Henry:  Yes.  Streeter:  Did you have any assistance [when printing out the emails] with anybody else?  Henry:  Yes … the other law clerk.  Streeter:  What is her name?  Henry:  Katherine Lawrence.  RT105-106  Streeter:  Did you print all the emails for that entire period in December?  Henry:  It was split amongst myself and Kate Lawrence. RT 106  Henry:  We take the DVD out of the binder, insert it into the computer and upload it.  And then right click and print out each one.  And we have to – I printed out about maybe five at a time, just so, you know, the printer wouldn’t stop or have any problems.  And once I got them from the printer, I then hole-punched them and then placed them in the binder, those binders.  Streeter:  In what order did you put the emails?  Henry:  … I looked at the time stamp.  Whichever one was in the morning, I put them in order from the date and time.  RT 107  Streeter:  Do you remember the sender address from the email that you printed out?  Henry:  I don’t remember the address, but I do remember the name and the address.  Streeter:  What was the name?  Henry:  Kelley Lynch.  Streeter:  Was the name on the sender address the same on all emails?  Henry:  Yes, they were.  RT 108  Streeter:  What you printed each time, was that a fair and accurate copy of what you saw on the computer?  Henry:  Yes.  RT 108  Henry:  I entered tabs to separate the dates as when a new email started, and the time that that email started as well.  RT 109

Exhibit 11:  Binder of emails – December 22nd through 23rd, 2011.

Streeter:  What color is that tab?  Henry:  The tab is teal or tealish green.  Court:  Tealish green.  RT 110

Exhibt 12:  Binder of emails – December 24th, 2011. 

Streeter:  And is that your handwriting – is there also another teal-like tab on the first email?  Court:  Tealish-green.  Streeter:  Tealish-green.  I apologize, Your Honor.  RT 112

Exhibit 13:  Binder – Emails – February 13, 2011 to February 2, 2012

Streeter:  I’m showing you People’s 13.  Do you still see the same greenish-teal that we’ve spoken about before?  Henry:  Yes.  RT 114-115  Streeter:  On the other binders that the People showed you, People’s 11 and 12, were there similar yellow tabs on the side?  Henry:  Correct.  Streeter:  So what is the difference between the yellow tabs on the side of the pages as opposed to the greenish teal on the top?  Henry:  At the top it indicates that date and the time of the emails.  The yellow tabs on the side indicate how many emails in that day, and separates them out.  However there are blue tabs as well so you wouldn’t get confused, to differentiate the days as well.  So the yellow starts here, this is one day, and then were’ going to another day.  But to restart another line I put blue to separate so that the yellows – so t would be confusing, and then when I started a new email I put another yellow tab at the end.  Streeter:  All the tabs on the side indicate new emails.  The tabs on the top indicate dates and times.  RT 115-116
Antoinette Henry Cross-Examination  RT 117

Has never met Lynch.
Doesn’t know me; doesn’t know which computer Lynch uses; doesn’t know which email address Lynch uses; Received binders of CDs from Streeter; doesn’t know if Streeter subpoenaed them; doesn’t know if they came directly from AOL or Gmail; didn’t see any forms indicating that they were obtained via subpoena; doesn’t know who owns the email address; doesn’t know who the email address was registered to; doesn’t know who that person is.  RT 117-118

PD:  So you don’t have the records that indicate who actually registered for that email address, do you?  Henry:  No, I don’t, but I would assume it would be the person whose name is in the email.  RT 118  PD:  You don’t know the IP address that was used in sending any of those emails, correct?  Henry:  No.  PD:  You don’t know who had access to this email account?  Henry:  No, I do not.  PD:  Your father actually works with Ms. Streeter, correct?  Henry:  That’s correct.  RT 119  PD:  You would agree that the bulk of those emails, of what you printed out, were not actually the current email that was sent, correct?  RT 119  PD:  Isn’t it true that a grand majority of the emails that you printed were not the actual email that was sent, and it was actually a forwarded message.  Henry:  It’s possible.  RT 120  PD:  How long was that current message?  Henry:  It’s a sentence.  PD:  And how many lines would that sentence be?  Henry:  Two.  PD:  So, of that three pages, only two lines was the actual email?  Henry:  Of the new email, yes.  RT 121  PD:  OF those seven pages [your printed], how many pages was the actual new or current email?  Henry:  One.  RT 121  PD:  Would you say that this repeated itself, that most of the emails that you printed out were actually past messages?  Henry:  Yes.  RT 122  PD:  So it wasn’t just one email address or one email to only one addressee, correct?  Henry:  That’s correct.  PD:  So it wasn’t just Leonard Cohen receiving it?  Henry:  Correct.  PD:  Could you tell us how many people would say on average were on each email?  … Henry:  Here’s about 20.  RT 123  PD:  And you don’t know each of those 20 individuals?  Henry:  That’s correct.  RT 124