Sunday, February 22, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To IRS Re. Stephen Gianelli's Ongoing Legal Representation Of Leonard Cohen

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Criminal Harassment Over Federal Tax & Corporate Matters
To: "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <


It's obvious that Gianelli is representing Leonard Cohen.

All the best,

Federal laws prevail over state laws (statutory or constitutional), and state law, if in conflict, must yield. ( United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, The Supremacy Clause).

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:18 AM
Subject: Your feigned ignorance of what a "Cohen related entity" means - your email of 2/20/2015

Ms. Lynch,

The May 16, 2006 judgment in BC338322 states (in Item 6, second paragraph):

It is DECLARED that (1) Lynch is not the rightful owner of any assets in …, or in any other entity related to Cohen; (2) that any interest she has in any entity set up for the benefit of Cohen she holds as trustee for Cohen’s equitable title; ---and (4) Cohen has no obligations or responsibility to her.”

In this context “entity related to Cohen” clearly refers to any entity that is connected to Leonard Cohen, and “any entity set up for the benefit of Cohen” plainly includes any entity for which Leonard Cohen provided the capitalization and/or funding therefore.

In the legal context the plain meaning of words control, and if you have any putative (that means claimed) ownership interest in any legal entity either set up to hold Cohen’s assets, in which Cohen holds stock or membership shares, or which was formed to hold revenue or assets originally earned or created by Cohen (or derived from the sale of Cohen’s assets, those entities would all meet the “related to” as well as the “benefit of” tests.

As to those entities it is equally clear from the judgment that you have no ownership interest, any nominal or record title or interest you hold in any such entity is in equitable (also known as “implied in law”) trust for Cohen.

Finally, the judgment clearly provides that Leonard Cohen “owes no obligations or responsibility to” Kelley Lynch.

Simply stated, he does not owe you any money, he is not required to provide you with anything, he is not required to do anything at your request – he owes you no obligations of any kind and holds no responsibility to you for your affairs.

That includes, without limitation,  personal affairs, business affairs, or tax affairs.

Therefore, your feigned lack of understanding and attempts to paint the judgment as “ambiguous” are patently ridiculous.

You understand it just fine.