Friday, June 26, 2015

Leonard Cohen's Prior Tax Court Matter

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:36 AM
Subject: Fwd: Latest flurry of blog posts and emails
To: "*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" <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>


I suppose Tax Court doesn't have up-to-date accurate information or older information.  Perhaps my fee waiver is holding things up.  In any event, I have the docket number and here's Cohen's.  Either Gianelli is a moron who doesn't know how to search Tax Court or he lied.  It's one or the other.  There was fraud upon the Tax Court in 2002 and I have addressed that.  I also just spoke to the individual from the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office who phoned me.  I won't make his name public so Gianelli doesn't harass him.

The rest of the email is preposterous.  I didn't send Gianelli an email.  He's reading my blog.  The man is obsessed.  He is also a liar.

All the best,

Docket No.:007024-02Caption:Leonard Cohen

04/05/2002PETITION Filed:Fee Paid
04/05/2002DESIGNATION of Trial at Los Angeles, CA
05/13/2002ANSWER (C/S 05/10/02).
10/24/2002NOTICE of Trial on 03/24/03 at Los Angeles, CA.
10/24/2002STANDING PRE-TRIAL ORDER attached to Notice of Trial
11/14/2002ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Charles P. Rettig and Steven D. Blanc.

Petitioner Counsel
Bar No:WR0597Richard Axel Westin 
1917 Hart Road 
Lexington, KY 40502

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 8:56 AM
Subject: Latest flurry of blog posts and emails

Ms. Lynch,

Regarding your latest flurry of blog  posted emails prominently mentioning me and selectively quoting from my emails, please allow me to retort.

1. Regarding your claim that “Leonard Cohen committed fraud upon the tax court in 2002” a docket search of the United States tax court for cases filed from 1986 yields no results, meaning, Leonard Cohen was not a party to a tax court case during that time period, so he could not have “defrauded the tax court” in 2002 OR IN ANY OTHER YEAR could he? No he couldn’t.

2. Regarding your claim that “Gianelli has inside information” about your litigation matter in BC338322, what “inside information” are you speaking of? Because no, I have no “inside information”. I simply know that your 2015 motion decided June 23 is a “motion to reconsider” because it – in part- seeks the same equitable relief that you sought from the court in your 2013 motion to vacate. Any experienced California trial lawyer, judge or appellate justice would know that is the test under CCP § 1008 without even researching it,  and would also be aware of the rule that it is the relief requested in both motions that is determinative, not the label placed on the motions. A review of the tentative law and motion rulings of the Los Angeles Superior Court over the last 60 days reveals that this issue arises several times a month. Litigants often try to relitigate the same issue twice. And CCP § 1008 is unyielding in its application. It does not take a psychic to know what Judge Hess’ tentative ruling was. Even if you didn’t.

3. Regarding your assertion that “These aren't excellent lawyers.  They use tactics.” That is what losers often say. I was waiting in a law and motion department in the early 1990’s and ran into a civil lawyer that I knew from a multi-party construction litigation case – the kind of case where 9 or more lawyers show up for all of the depositions. When I asked how her recent trial when she said: “I lost, but the plaintiff’s lawyer used criminal lawyer tricks.” (As you would put it, “tactics”.) As a lawyer who had by then tried hundreds of criminal AND civil cases to verdict I had to try very hard not to laugh out loud. There are no “criminal lawyer tricks” or “tactics”. There is only “effective” and “ineffective”. Michelle Rice is a highly skilled and highly effective lawyer. I don’t have to know that she graduated from a top tier law school or that she initially worked for the Washington DC office of one of the best regarded law firms in the United States (which makes her the cream of the bar) to know that. Her written advocacy that you posted on-line is top notch, that is true. (And I cannot wait to read the transcript of the 6/23 hearing.)  But the bottom line is: She wins. Not more that her share of her cases. She wins all of her cases – but my observation was more specific: Every case against you that bears Michelle Rice’s fingerprints Leonard Cohen won. So call it “tactics” instead of good lawyering if you must. That is what losers do. The WINNERS don’t need to make excuses do they?

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece