Saturday, March 14, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. The Proxy Stalker's Ongoing Harassment

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: FYI re: Kelley Lynch emails dated Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:45 AM and Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:24 AM
To: Jeffrey Korn <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>,, Feedback <>, "" <>

Jeffrey Korn,

As you and I personally discussed, I will be filing a motion.  In fact, I spent the day copying the exhibits yesterday.  The document is voluminous as I want to present evidence showing what has actually unfolded.  I was not served Leonard Cohen's lawsuit.  

The Proxy Stalker continues to harass me and Paulette Brandt over this motion and Leonard Cohen.  He writes legal opinions and is now providing Paulette and me with legal documents related to void judgments.

I will be quite clear with Agent Tejeda that what he is looking at is a 10 year conspiracy to cover up criminal tax fraud and obstruct justice.  Judge Hess is now going to prove precisely how much fraud and perjury Los Angeles Superior Court believes is acceptable.  I will then file a federal lawsuit against Cohen.

You are the attorney of record regardless of your inane comments to me the other day and you will be served the motion and exhibits.  

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Subject: FYI re: Kelley Lynch emails dated Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:45 AM and Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:24 AM

Dear Ms. Brandt (assisting in the attempted relitigation of issues long ago decided) and Ms. Lynch:

There comes a time when the litigation is over. Respectfully, that time came when the $7M judgment (attached) was entered following a hearing that Ms. Lynch was invited to, but declined to attend, based on supporting evidence attached to that email (to which Ms. Lynch replied). The law simply does not contemplate the “never-ending lawsuit”. Absent extraordinary circumstances not present here, the law requires that judgments that have not been timely appealed to be final. See the below illustrative case.

Ms. Brandt, you would save Ms. Lynch and yourself a great deal of hardship and turmoil by loaning Ms. Lynch $3,000 to sit down with an experienced Californian litigation attorney, after he has been provided copies of the prior judgment and Judge Hess’ minute order dated January 17, 2013, as well as a copy of the Memorandum in support of the motion that Ms. Lynch has been claiming daily and weekly that she is poised to file, most recently when “Paulette” is available to drive her to the courthouse (Ms. Lynch apparently lacking transportation of her own).

61 F.3d 916
James E. STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, and
Twashakarris, Inc., d/b/a English Language Center, an
Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES of America; Department of Justice;
Immigration & Naturalization Service; Internal
Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6086.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 25, 1995.
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2. James E. Stewart, a pro se litigant, and a corporation, Twashakarris, Incorporated, which is represented by the pro se litigant, appeal an adverse summary judgment.

3. We first dismiss the corporate defendant's appeal. The corporation is represented by Mr. Stewart who is not an attorney. A corporation may appear in court only through an attorney. The corporation thus failed to perfect its appeal and failed to prosecute its appeal.

4. Mr. Stewart commenced this action based upon events which occurred in 1982 and which were previously litigated. The underlying facts were raised through Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the trial court concluded the earlier judgments were a bar to this suit. It is this decision which Mr. Stewart now appeals.

5. Mr. Stewart seeks to avoid the bar of the previous judgments by asserting the previous judgments are void. In short he argues the previous litigations were meaningless as the judgments rendered therein are void and he asserts he is now entitled to relitigate the matters previously raised. He argues the previous judgments are void and unenforceable because they resulted from a gross violation of due process, extrinsic fraud and inaccurate and incomplete factual bases. In fact, this is the second time Mr. Stewart has filed an action seeking to relitigate the issues which were previously decided against him. Mr. Stewart fails to realize this civil action is not the appropriate forum to raise these challenges. There comes a time when litigation ceases. That time has long since passed.

6. Mr. Stewart has failed to convince this court that he may relitigate the issues decided in the prior adjudications.

7. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed for substantially the same reasons set forth in the trial court's order of December 27, 1994, a copy thereof being attached hereto.