Monday, June 15, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To IRS, FBI, DOJ, & Leonard Cohen's Lawyers Re. His Latest Attempt To Conceal Evidence

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Take whose word for what?
To: Dan Bergman <>, Michelle Rice <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>,,

Hi IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

My letter to Bergman and Rice is self-explanatory.  I will scan the Objections document re. my evidence later today and privately send you a copy of that document.

All the best,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Daniel Bergman and Michelle Rice,

I would like to address numerous issues with you.  First and foremost, I continue to be criminally harassed over Leonard Cohen, Case No. BC33832, and related matters.  I am unclear if "Mongochillil" is merely an alter ego of Stephen Gianelli or another individual participating in this highly organized campaign of criminal harassment, cyber-terrorism, slander, witness tampering, witness intimidation, etc.  I continue to be slandered, maligned, threatened, and falsely accused of many things on Stephen Gianelli's latest blog devoted to me.  Obviously, these matters are far more serious than one might imagine.  Paulette Brandt, a witness, continues to be targeted, slandered, and threatened.  Linda Carol is a woman I do not really know.  Frankly, I have no idea what to say about her video recordings.  They seem quite bizarre.  I am aware that Linda Carol once dated Dennis Lepore but have no first hand knowledge about anything in her past - or present for that matter.  She is an adult woman and responsible for her own actions.  I just want to be clear that I know nothing about her and the same is true for her with respect to me.  For some reason, however, she emailed me about Leonard Cohen's "documents" although she has confirmed that she doesn't know him.  

I received your Objections to my Request for Judicial Notice re. the evidence submitted to the Court.  I want to remind you that my declaration, this evidence, and other evidence (now destroyed, I believe) has been submitted to IRS and other tax authorities.  I have challenged Cohen's tax refunds, using the Complaint and default judgment in this case, as fraud.  This evidence relates to that matter.  I have filed complaints regarding those fraudulent refunds with both IRS and FTB.  Your attempts to conceal this evidence should be viewed as blatant obstruction of justice.  

As I now have legal confirmation that you will accept service by email, I will serve my Reply to your Opposition re. my Motion for Terminating Sanctions tomorrow when I file same with the Court.

Kelley Lynch


  1. Welcome back, friend!

    I find it hard to believe while she was robbing Cohen blind, her family did the bookkeeping for Cohen's entities; yet, neither her mother, father, sister, nor Steve Lindsey had any idea everything they had, and the high life they were living, was paid for by Cohen? Unbelievable. Of course she couldn't go to rehab during that period. Had she gone to rehab, the gig would've been up.
  2. How can you go to rehab if you ABSOLUTELY have no alcohol issues? Ha!
  3. Wow. Just WOW.
  4. The more I ponder on this, the more I believe she really needs to be sequestered away from society because any of these people could possibly be endangered and when the close family turns their backs that is a BIG sign something needs to be done. She should be manditorily put into a mental facility to be evaluated ASAP before somebody gets hurt or worse! It is VERY scary knowing this woman lives so close to me. At least I know to stay away from that address, so thank you for posting it!
  5. How could these people possibly believe that they could get away with simply signing people's names to declarations then filing them with the court and trying to pass these sham declarations off as "evidence"?

    Apparently, Lynch got away with forging Leonard Cohen's signature for years, so what's a few declarations, right?


    Hopefully, given Lynch's prior record of criminal convictions in California and Colorado (as well as all of the crimes she got away with - including death threats and embezzlement) Los Angeles prosecutors will take a hard look at Lynch's and Brandt's conduct in view of Penal Code sections 132 and 134.

    We simply can't have litigants running around filing fraudulent declarations with the court. The legal system has enough problems as it is....
    1. We could not agree more, Anon.
  6. Kelley Lynch's obsessive hatred with Leonard Cohen has overridden all prudent judgment (assuming an embezzler of $5M could be said to have had "prudent judgment" at all). But what is Paulette Brandt's story? Lynch promised to cut her in on the "millions" she thinks she will one day receive from Cohen, okay, fine. There is a sucker born every minute I guess. But why would she risk a perjury prosecution for changing her testimony from "was in touch with Kelley Lynch in the summer and fall of 2005" (as stated in her 2013 declaration supporting Lynch's motion to vacate) to testify under oath that she was PRESENT, AT LYNCH'S HOME - not only during the month of August '05, but on the very morning that the process server claims to have served a member of the household, and no one knocked on the door (as now testified to in Brandt's 2015 declaration? Like that wouldn't have been important to mention in the first declaration attacking the validity of service or it slipped Brandt's mind until 2015?

    And assisting Lynch in signing other people's names to declarations?

    Setting aside the fact that Lynch has zero chance of setting Cohen’s 10-year old judgment aside at this point - let alone successfully suing Cohen on 10+ year old stale claims after that, all the money in the world can only buy you so many candy bars in the prison commissary.

    What a bunch of idiots. 
  7. Lynch just posted on her blog the claim that "Gianelli is fishing for information about my Reply." Ha!

    According to the legal brief filed by Cohen's attorneys and published by Lynch on-line, the problems with Lynch's pending motion to vacate are insurmountable.

    The motion is the second motion asking that the 2006 judgment be set aside. Successive motions asking for the same relief are prohibited under California procedure absent new evidence that could not have been presented in support of the earlier motion or a change in the law. All of the alleged grounds for the new motion relate to events taking place more than two years ago, in some cases over 8 or more years ago. For that reason alone the motion is dead on arrival. But there is more.

    The signatures on four of the declarations filed in support of the motion appear to be signed by Kelley Lynch and not the witness giving the declaration, rendering those declarations useless as evidence.

    Lynch has admitted in a letter to the IRS, posted on her blog on May 27, that the Kelley Lynch supporting declaration was signed by Paulette Brandt, not Kelley Lynch - rendering that declaration worthless as evidence.

    That leaves the Paulette Brandt declaration. But Brandt changed her testimony from her declaration given to support the first motion to vacate filed in 2013 from "I was in touch with Kelley Lynch" during the summer and fall of 2005 (when the suit was served) to (in her 2015 declaration) I was present at Kelley Lynch's house at 9:00 am the morning that Cohen's process server claims to have served a female occupant, and no one came to the door at all. And Paulette now claims for the first time that Kelley Lynch did not have blond hair with dark roots (as the process server described the female served) because Brandt (she now claims) PERSONALLY died Kelley Lynch's hair a dark brown. None of this was in Brandt's 2013 declaration on the subject of service of the suit and Lynch's hair color!

    Additionally, Lynch seeks to vacate the judgment based on alleged perjury in the declarations supporting the amount of damages in the request to enter default filed in 2006. But California law does not allow judgments to be set aside for alleged "perjury" after the time to appeal has expired! And this rule is set forth in the very appellate decisions that Lynch herself cites in her motion!

    For all of these reasons (and more) NOTHING Lynch could possibly say in her reply could cure these fatal defects in her motion.

    Ergo, no one cares what Lynch is planning in her reply, let alone enough to "fish for information" on that subject. Not to mention Lynch is required to serve Cohen with her reply on the 16th of May anyway.

    Kelley Lynch has to be one of the dumbest criminals who ever walked the face of the earth!
  8. Linda Carol's Google+ page is extremely unusual.
    1. She has posted a series of "selfie" video clips depicting herself in what appears to be a state of intoxication while performing a kind of Marilyn Monroe shtick the combination of which - particularly given her age and weight class - appears to our eye at least to be less than flattering. On another site she has posted a series of "bubble bath" video clips of herself. The whole thing is rather odd, but frankly, one would expect someone as bizarre as Kelley Lynch to have equally bizarre roommates.
  9. How can it be that the court has not yet shut this woman down? Surely at this point all concerned realize that she doesn't have a legal basis for her claims?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <>
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:23 AM
Subject: Take whose word for what?


If you really wanted to know the truth you could start by simply reading your own cited precedent, holding - among other things - that a judgment may not be overturned after the time for appeal has run  for alleged perjury that goes to the merits of the complaint.

You could then read Cohen's cited caselaw holding that a motion that requests the same order as a prior motion that was presented and denied is a "motion for reconsideration" even if the two motions bear different titles and even if the same order (in this case vacating the judgment) is request on different grounds.

Adding those two bedrock legal principles together leads to one conclusion: Your motion isn't even in the ballpark.

As for the good faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, it's written in plain English.

Your capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds.