Thursday, July 9, 2015

Leonard Cohen's Desperate Ongoing Attempts To Subvert IRS Reporting & Filing Requirements

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:43 PM
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" <>


I am working on my motions (vacating the fraud domestic violence order and opposition to Leonard Cohen's wholly retaliatory Sanctions Motion).  I would like a formal IRS opinion on LAPD's position that my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information; requests for IRS required tax and corporate information are violations of the fraud restraining orders; and the default judgment itself.  Cohen is now arguing that my requests for clarification of the judgment, vis a vis, IRS requirements, were made in bad faith.  I have seen nothing to support Cohen's testimony that any court - let alone IRS - determined that Cohen has no tax obligations to me and/or the entities themselves.

I have forwarded you the Criminal Stalker's latest harassing emails re. my Tax Court Petition and Phil Spector.  I have most certainly not stated for years that I was filing a Petition with Tax Court.  The Criminal Stalker is merely attempting to elicit information about these matters.  It's none of his business what "determination" I have challenged.  We know for a fact that it was not the non-existent IRS holding my alleged prosecutor addressed with the Court during my 2012 trial.  

All the best,

LAPD summarized Lynch’s alleged emails as follows:  The violations occurred via direct phone calls to the victim and emails to the victim's attorneys, Rice and Kory. The emails generally were in request of tax and financial information to amend Kelley Rice 2001 through 2010 tax returns.”  

Federal laws prevail over state laws (statutory or constitutional), and state law, if in conflict, must yield.  United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, The Supremacy Clause. 
PD:  Okay.  I’m asking you if you were – and if you could just try to limit your answer to the question – there was information – there were requests in those emails for tax information, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  PD:  What did you do since you got those emails to give those documents to Ms. Lynch?  I’m asking what you did.  Cohen:  I – I brought those emails to the attention of my lawyer and, eventually, to the police.  PD:  Okay.  Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  And it was determined by two courts of this country and the IRS that – PD:  Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive.  Cohen:  No.  It was determined, Sir, that I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch.  The two courts had decided that money had been taken from me.  PD:  Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive. Court:  Overruled.  Cohen:  Two courts had given me a default – or one court had given me a default judgment, the other court affirmed that default judgment.  But, more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of the default judgment and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation information.  The forensic report on which the default judgments were made were very specific and Ms. Lynch has read them.  That is the forensic report that Ms. Lynch has been asking for.  The only problem is she doesn’t like the results.  PD:  Okay.  Do you remember what my question was?  Streeter:  Objection; argumentative, Your Honor.  Court;  Sustained.  PD:  I’m asking you if – Court;  Why don’t you re-ask the question if you don’t think it’s been answered.  PD:  Did yo9u talk to your manager who handles your tax to request those documents from 2001 to 2004?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  PD:  Okay.  Did you go about seeing about the K-1 that was being requested; yes or no?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  PD:  Did you go and give them Ms. Lynch’s information for you to send that information to?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  PD:  And we’ll get back to that judgment at a later time.  RT 279-283

            On June 22, 2015, Lynch was served with a Motion for Sanctions that addresses Cohen’s position with respect to the ambiguities in the judgment related to IRS and federal tax matters:  “Lynch’s argument that the Default Judgment contains ‘clerical errors’ and is ‘ambiguous’ is legally frivolous and made in bad faith.  See Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 2015 Motion, Section IV(a),(b).  Lynch’s request for ‘clarification’ is nothing more than a transparent attempt to argue the merits of the underlying case.”