Thursday, May 14, 2015

Kelley Lynch Cease & Desist Letter Re. Gianelli's Criminal Harassment To Michelle Rice Case No. BQ033717 (Fraudulent Domestic Violence Order Matter)

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Yea, sure you're filing a motion to "vacate" this order...when? 2021? Ha!
To: Michelle Rice <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, "" <>, Feedback <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>
Cc: Jeffrey Korn <>

Michelle Rice,

You are listed, on LA SUperior Court's website, as the attorney of record in Case No. BQ033717.  You raised this case as an issue with Judge Hess.  You failed to advise Judge Hess that you personally registered the foreign Colorado order (that the Court repeatedly advised me expired on February 15, 2009) as a domestic violence order.  One cannot use form DV-600 to register a non-domestic violence order.  The Boulder Combined Court pointed out that this is not a domestic violence order and, when Cohen flew into Boulder in the midst of his European tour, he failed to check that box.  Cohen has gone to extraordinary lengths to silence me.  Some the tactics, as I advised Judge Hess, were raised in Neal Greenberg's lawsuit filed June 2005.  That would, but is not limited to, the plan to use fraudulent restraining orders to discredit me.  I addressed Cohen's fraud and perjury in the declaration I discovered AFTER the September 2, 2008 hearing with the Court.  I also would like to point out that Judge Babcock's order was NOT entered in the Colorado matter (that he understands both Cohen and I were involved with although I refused to enter an appearance re. the "interpleaded" funds).  I've included Judge Hess' September 5, 2008 order.  You testified that there were no outstanding litigation matters involving me and Cohen.  That's a lie.  You wrote a cease and desist letter, re. my requests for tax information, on February 14, 2011.  You lied - I do NOT have to use LA Superior Court's discovery process to request IRS required form 1099 and corporate tax information.  I have spoken many times to IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky about this matter.  They have also advised me to contact Leonard Cohen directly to ask him to rescind the illegal K-1s LC Investments, LLC transmitted to State of Kentucky and IRS indicating that I am partner on that entity, with a 99.5% ownership interest, who received $0 income for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.  The entirely perjured and fraudulent Complaint was used to defend your client with Agent Luis Tejeda, IRS head of fraud (Western Division of the U.S.).  Your client illegally obtained refunds from IRS and FTB, using some version of the fraud expense ledger, and they have been challenged as fraud.

Here's the only document I see from the IRS or Treasury to date.  It is Agent Kelly SOpko's March 6, 2007 letter advising me to contact Agent Tejeda re. Leonard Cohen's tax fraud allegations and the evidence.  A great deal of that evidence was provided to IRS in 2005.  I have letters from Kory confirming that I went to the tax authorities.  Those emails from Kory are from May 2005.  Leonard Cohen retaliated.  All of this information is now in the "IRS binder" that is in Streeter's possession.  I have asked IRS and others to investigate.  My appellate attorney was convinced my alleged trial was an IRS matter that demands an IRS investigation.  LAPD's report states that the emails are generally requests for tax information.  Feel free to call LAPD's TMU liars.  That's your job, right?

I continue to be criminally harassed by Gianelli.  I have included an email here re. this fraud domestic violence order.  You and Kory received domestic violence related orders.  They are evidence of fraud.  I intend to file a motion to vacate that order.  I have spoken with many parties about this matter and will let the Court know who those parties were.

You are co-counsel in Case No. BC338322.  You are partners with Robert Kory and made partner targeting me.  Karina Von Watteville contacted Robert Kory in response to Paulette Brandt's rent demand letter.  He advised her to use me over my cease and desist letters with IRS, FBI, and DOJ copied in.  I am now copying ICE on all emails.  That's for a good reason.  I'll give you a glimpse of why ICE is copied in.  It was filed with Judge Hess.  It's a 1977 tax memorandum to Leonard Cohen advising him not to pay taxes on worldwide income in the U.S. and funnel income off-shore.  He was admonished not to have a green card.  He obtained one in 1970.  Korn has now provided me with an Objections document (not filed and discussed with Judge Hess).  The Objections document refers to the information about Cohen's green card as hearsay.  I will therefore, after filing my RICO suit against Cohen, subpoena the head Trial Counsel for ICE to testify about this matter.

I intend to provide Judge Hess with a copy of this email.  Gianelli is targeting, harassing, and attempting to intimidate my witnesses.  Those witnesses provided Judge Hess with declarations.  Gianelli has now harassed Clea Surkhang, Dan Meade, Paulette Brandt, and Palden Ronge.  Gianelli wrote that my mother was senile when she wrote her declaration.  Leonard Cohen hasn't seen my mother in 10 years and has no idea about her.  He lied and said she and my father hid his assets off-shore.  I think he was talking about himself.  See the evidence I provided Judge Hess.

Stephen Gianelli works in tandem with Susanne Walsh, Cohen's fan.  You were frequently copied on emails harassing me, my sons, and others.  Both of them have criminally harassed Paulette Brandt.  Von Watteville took Kory's advice and she and Gianelli are threatening to sue me.  Gianelli is attempting to help her defraud Paulette Brandt.  Do you see any problems there?  Well, another attorney advised me to contact law enforcement, which I have, and file State Bar Complaints.  

Gianelli has been clear:  he heard from Kory/Rice in May 2009.  He has relentlessly targeted me and others.  Here's my son Ray's declaration addressing the criminal harassment and the content of the emails - including the disturbing slander.  I am advising you that this conduct should cease and desist.  That is an elementary legal concept.  Robert Kory was recently copied in an email blackmailing over my  Gianelli was clear - if I didn't take it down he would begin a blog dedicated to slandering me.  I will now sue Leonard Cohen over the false allegations and slander.  

I was not served Cohen's Complaint in Case No. BC 338322.  Is there something I am missing, Michelle?  Let me know.  Gianelli is now lying to IRS, FBI, DOJ, ICE, City Attorney, District Attorney, and others.  I will submit Linda Carol's declaration to Judge Hess.  The mediator advised me (Small Claims) to bring Von Watteville's conduct (screaming about Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory) to the attention of the Court.  I didn't extort anything from Cohen.  He failed to serve me; obtained a fraud default judgment; stole my share of intellectual property; perjured himself; submitted fraud to the court (that is being addressed with Judge Hess); and is now attempting to extort $13.8 million from me.  He has not provided me with IRS required tax and corporate information.  The IRS thinks he owes it to me.  You think the restraining order prevents you from transmitting that information?  You're wrong.  See the U.S. Supremacy Clause.  The judgment, fraudulent as it might be, is not retroactive.  This is going to become a huge issue in my federal RICO suit.  I view your February 14, 2011 fraudulent email (with IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle copied in) as an overt act.  

These matters should be resolved in Court.  My witnesses refuse to cave into terrorist tactics.  I've been clear with LAPD's TMU about this fact; Investigator William Frayeh (DA's office), IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, FTB, and others about that fact.

The answer to Gianelli's insane question.  I didn't know this was registered.  I didn't know it was domestic violence until over a year after my alleged trial that is replete with lies, perjury, fraud, concealment, and is nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice.  That's my personal opinion.

Kelley Lynch

Leonard Cohen Tax Planning Memo to Bill Dubey/Elmer, Fox, Westheimer & Co., CPAs from Ken Fratco dated August 22, 1977
Basis for Taxation
Leonard Cohen has ties with several jurisdictions which could serve as a basis for taxing income earned by him. These jurisdictions are Canada, Greece, and the United States. I would like to set-out the basis for taxation in each of these countries. Canada taxes the world-wide income of its residents. Canada defines residents as those individuals physically residing in Canada. Greece also taxes the world-wide income of its residents; however, the Greek law defines residents as those individuals who have an actual dwelling place in Greece and who are domiciled in Greece. The U.S., on the other hand, taxes both citizens and residents on their world-wide income. The U.S. definition of residents is much broader and more encompassing than that of Canada or Greece. Any individual who resides in the U.S, for other than on a temporary basis or any individual who considers himself a domiciliary of the U.S., whether or not physically present in the U.S., is considered to be a resident of the U.S. All three countries tax income from a source within their respective jurisdiction paid to non-residents; there are, however several exceptions established by treaty.

Because of the facts of Leonard Cohen’s case, a closer examination of what is considered U.S. source income and how it is taxed is necessary. Any compensation paid by a U.S. corporation is considered to be U.S. source income. If that compensation is paid in connection with the performance of personal services in the U.S. by a non-resident alien then such income is considered to be effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business and is taxed at the graduated income tax rates which apply to citizens and residents (IRC Sec. 871 (b)(1)).

If the non-resident alien does not perform personal services within the U.S. then such compensation paid will be taxable at a flat 30% rate (Reg. 1.864-3 and IRC Sect. 871(a)(1)).


Leonard Cohen, while remaining a Canadian citizen, should continue to reside outside of Canada. He should, however, from time to time, accomplish acts which establish Canada as his domicile - the place he truly considers his home. Such actions, of course, must not include actually staying in Canada for other than temporary, short-term trips. Because Canada only taxes individuals who are residents, continued citizenship and domicile will not subject him to Canadian taxes and will aid him in preventing taxation by the U.S. or Greece on world-wide income.

Because the U.S. taxes non-resident aliens on U.S. source income and because compensation paid from a U.S. corporation is considered U.S. source income, only royalties and performance income from services performed in the U.S. should be funneled into the U.S. corporations. Royalties and performance income from sources outside the U.S. will not be taxed by the U.S. as long as Leonard Cohen remains a non-resident alien and as long as such income is not funneled through the U.S. corporation.

Leonard Cohen’s stays in the U.S. should be continued under a non-resident visa (H-1 qualifies as such) and should be temporary in nature. Temporary residents, even of long duration, merely for the purpose of transacting business or engaging in employment is not sufficient to establish residency. Hutchins v. Commissioner, 8 TCM December 18, 178. It should be noted, however, that residing in the U.S. for one year sets up a presumption of residency. Even though such presumption may be rebutted by proper evidence Leonard Cohen’s stays should be monitored and should not extend to a year. Income from royalties and performance income outside the U.S. should be funneled through a corporation incorporated in a “tax haven” country. This will prevent taxation by the U.S. and will most likely limit withholding by other countries where royalties and performance income are earned.

As far as Greece is concerned, so long as Leonard Cohen’s domicile can be established for being elsewhere, there is no basis for taxing any income other than from Greek sources. The fact that Leonard Cohen maintains a house in Greece and will, from time to time, stay in Greece will not in and of themselves cause taxation. His trip to and ties to Greece should be reviewed periodically to prevent any presumption of domicile.

Good afternoon Ms. Lynch,

Per our meeting last week, I have found a solid IRS contact that will be better able to assist you. His name is Luis Tejeda, and he is the head of a fraud group at IRS. I spoke with him today and advised him that I would be passing on his contact information to you.
Office phone and address redacted.

He emphasized that you will need to put something in writing - a summary of all important details, with as much specificity as you have. (For example if you have copies of any paperwork involved, or social security numbers of people involved …) Once you pass the information on to him, he will review it and proceed accordingly. As standard practice, you will not get confirmation that your information was received. However, you may contact Tejeda to follow-up.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please be sure to let me know.

Kelly A. Sopko
Special Agent
Treasury IG for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
Special Inquiries & Intelligence Division

RICE MICHELLE L. - Attorney for Petitioner

Natural Wealth Real Estate, Inc. v. Cohen


September 5, 2008


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis T. Babcock, Judge


This matter is before me on Defendant, Leonard Cohen's, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader [Docket # 185], Plaintiffs' response [Docket # 196], and Cohen's reply [Docket # 210]. Oral arguments would not materially assist the determination of this motion.
The allegations in this case are adequately noted in prior orders of this Court, and I need not repeat them here. After several years of litigation, each claim and counterclaim in this case-with the exception of Plaintiffs' interpleader claim now at issue-has been dismissed. Plaintiffs' interpleader claim concerns approximately $154,000 in funds ("the funds") belonging to Traditional Holdings LLC, an investment entity created by Cohen and Defendant Lynch for purposes of managing Cohen's assets. Plaintiffs disavowed any interest in the funds, but requested interpleader for purposes of settling the conflicting positions of Cohen and Lynch regarding ownership of the funds. Plaintiffs paid the funds into the Registry of the Court pending resolution of this issue.

On May 12, 2006, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled on the issue of ownership of the funds, and entered default judgment in favor of Cohen and against Lynch in the amount of $7.3 million in damages and interest. See Judgment, Cohen v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 338322 (May 12, 2006) [Docket # 186-16]. In rendering judgment, the California court declared Lynch was "not the owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC" and any interest Lynch had in "any other entity related to Cohen . . . she [held] as trustee for Cohen's equitable title." The California court enjoined Lynch from interfering with Cohen's right to receive any such funds or property or in any other way exercising control over any funds or property related to Cohen. The California court ruling was not appealed and is now final.
The final judgment of the California court settles the dispute between Lynch and Cohen over ownership of the interpleaded funds. As Plaintiffs are no longer exposed to multiple liability, Plaintiffs' interpleader claim is now moot. See FED. R. CIV. P. 22(a)(1). When the dispute underlying an interpleader claim is mooted, the interpleader claim should be dismissed. See Oldcastle Materials, Inc. v. Rohlin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 762, 787 (N.D. Iowa 2004); Burningtree v. Holland,760 F. Supp. 118, 119 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader is DISMISSED;
2. Defendant Cohen's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader 
[Docket # 185] is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. The interpleaded funds currently in the Registry of the Court-including any accrued interest, less the Court Registry handling fee-shall be disbursed to Defendant Cohen within ten days of the date of this Order;
4. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs related to this motion.
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:45 AM
Subject: Yea, sure you're filing a motion to "vacate" this order...when? 2021? Ha!

Case Number:  BQ033717
Filing Date:  05/25/2011Case Type:  Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending
Future Hearings 

BTW, why again did you not file a timely appeal from this order? (If you weren’t served with it, you had 6-months from its date of entry to do so.)

Can you spell W-A-I-V-E-R?