Friday, June 26, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Conclusions on Leonard Cohen's Astounding Latest Success Story Before LA Superior Court

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:52 AM
To: Truth Sentinel <>


You asked me to let you know how the hearing turned out.  I lost and it is obvious that the Court itself does not care that I wasn't served and appears to condone fraud and perjury.  I think the situation is an indictment of the court system and not me.  The Court has no jurisdiction.  I am planning to appeal and will file a federal lawsuit. There are clearly no remedies before LA Superior Court.  All you need to do to win is lie, perjure yourself, and present fabricated evidence.  If you don't serve someone it's even better because one can never fight that issue.  It's almost farcical.  The notes of the hearing are below.

Cohen has now filed a Motion for Sanctions that is wholly retaliatory.  It's further fraud.  I filed a motion addressing fraud upon the court.  I tend to doubt the taxpayers would agree with the Court.  This is an utter abuse and waste of taxpayer dollars and it's shameless.  There's a hearing schedule on that matter in September.  Cohen wants the Court to terminate my fee waiver.  First he bankrupted me; then he stole from me and concealed his own nearly $6.7 million in loans/expenditures from the so-called retirement account; and his lies seem to work.  

So far only one court, the Federal District Court in Denver, has commented on anything that is actually based on reality or facts.  Apart from that, the Court in that matter was commenting on the fraudulent, fabricated narrative. I really do not understand how fraud, perjury, theft, and concealment are viewed as legal facts.  I thought most of those issues were criminal.  The system works beautifully for the criminals.  Cohen's narrative is nothing other than a defense to criminal tax fraud allegations.  He also used the Complaint narrative to file his 2005 tax returns, amend his 2003 and 2004 returns, and obtain fraudulent tax refunds while stealing my share of intellectual property.  


They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Hearing – June 23, 2015
Judge Hess

Hess:  The action was originally filed many years ago – 2005.
Default judgment entered on May 15, 2006.
In August 2013, you filed a motion to vacate.  That was heard on January 17, 2014.
In that motion you argued that the judgment was void and dismissal mandatory; no jurisdiction because you were never served the summons and complaint.
It was denied with prejudice on a variety of grounds.
Procedurally deficient – not served on Plaintiffs; your declaration was not signed; you did not act diligently.  Found out April 2010.
You bore the burden of the persuasion that the proof of service was false and you did not carry that burden because you did not produce evidence.
Your son’s declaration only stated that you were home.
You did not demonstrate extrinsic fraud.
You were home (according to the documents filed) on the 6th attempts before substitute service.
You had two choices:  do nothing or file an appeal.

I was arrested in a related case and imprisoned.  [Hess notes that he knows nothing about that matter.]  “It’s not my problem.”
I don’t know what happened.  No notion of what the arrest was about.  You had the option to take an appeal from that order and you did not do so.

I’m not sure that there is any basis for me to act.
This is not a proper motion for reconsideration.  That would have to be filed within 10 days.
CCP 1008.  New facts or new law that could not be presented the first time around.
Your motion was filed on March 17th of this year.
You should have acted sooner.  You chose to do it pro per. 
KL:  I chose to represent myself?  I did not choose to represent myself.  [Note there were also hardships.]

Evidence Code Section 647.
The Affidavit of Service carries the burden of producing evidence.  Requires you as the person to persuade me that it is incorrect. 
You had a full and fair opportunity … [KL:  I disagree.]
I had no idea they would use arguments such as Scott Edelman/Chad Knaak’s call to him.

Michelle Rice:  Requires extrinsic fraud.  Her claims are intrinsic and it does not provide relief.  Ms. Lynch sites cases that hold she has to demonstrate extrinsic fraud.  All of the claims she is alleging – misconduct, perjury, fraud, misrepresentation, fraud evidence used to obtain the default judgment …
Hazel Atlas.  The State of California did not follow Hazel Atlas.  Smith v. Great Lake Airlines.  State of California refused to follow Hazel Atlas.

KL:  What about the fraud and perjury? 
I was not served.

Hess:  Do you like opera?  Wagner?  That’s your leitmotif. 

Sealed documents. 

Rice:  Plaintiffs alleged that she disclosed a/c privileged documents with former & current attorneys.

KL:  Many documents in public domain [note that Plaintiffs – not I – should have advised the Court when he asked “How would I know?”] CAK documents (Southern District of New York); Natural Wealth exhibits including IRS warning letters; my email in February 2002 re. IRS $1 million and $7 million 1099s and the fact that I did not handle IRS matters, accounting, corporate, loan documents, my emails refuting Cohen’s lawyers position that corporate offices were in my management office; etc.]  Did you make a determination re. a/c privilege?

Did not have a/c privilege with Cohen's lawyers.  These are corporate documents.
Hess:  What did I seal?

Rice:  Ms. Lynch’s declaration in support of her motion for terminating sanctions .  She attached 90 exhibits, 28 of which contained a/c privileged information.

KL:  Asked about the crime fraud exception.  Flips the judge out.

Sealed based on CCP 2.551.

KL:  How long does the seal last?

Hess:  Until … if you wish to take steps to have that … seal removed. 

KL asks about the fact that the evidence was submitted to Tax Court with her Petition.  How does it affect that? 

Hess:  I have no jurisdiction over an IRS matter before Tax Court.

[Told me to read his order to see what it says.]

Your motion is denied.  You claim you were served.  Not demonstrated that there was extrinsic fraud.

KL:  I was not served.  You have violated my rights to due process.

Hess says something about my accusing everyone of that.  I note that he doesn’t know me so isn’t in a position to make that observation.  Hess has the audacity to comment on my demeanor. 

KL:  I’m upset.

Other issues I raised:
I do not have a/c privilege with Cohen’s lawyer; independent contractor; LC wrapped Greenberg/Westin in a/c privilege – excluded me; Richard Westin advised Steve Blanq (Hochman, Rettig) that I did not have a/c privilege.

Hess did not address declarations or fact that Cohen only argued that I was served and said nothing about the alleged co-occupant Hess mentioned.
Asked me if I was home at all times.  I was.
I stated unequivocally that the process server did not serve me.  I also noted that they lie.
Hess asked if I received it by mail.  NO.  That’s why I was unable to address it until 2010.
Hess mentioned that I presented something like 1,000 pages of documents.  I explained that this is because the lies are so extensive.
Hess asks if I have seen the proposed order?  No.  Have you seen the opposition document?  Yes.
Mentioned that I have no idea about the January 17th order or if it was filed.  When I was released from jail, I found a January 22nd email from Korn with a proposed order asking for my approval or comments.  It is not listed on LA Superior Court’s website.  Korn said he would serve me whatever he filed.  Never did.