Sunday, September 13, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Declaration Re. Party Of Interest - Criminal Stalker Proxy Stephen Gianelli


Kelley Lynch declares:

1.       I am a resident of Los Angeles, California and the age of 18, and have personal knowledge
of the facts set forth hereinbelow and can competently testify thereto if called as a witness.
2.       After filing my Petition with Tax Court, I began receiving harassing emails from Stephen
Gianelli.  I do not know who this individual is although I am aware that he is a Bay Area lawyer who has been harassing me, my sons, and others since hearing from Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May or June of 2009.  He has gone to extraordinary lengths to target me, harass and intimidate witnesses, slander and defame me publicly, provoke and/or elicit responses with respect to various matters (including, but not limited to, Internal Revenue Service and the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud), and so forth.  One of Gianelli’s roles involves contacting parties, such as Paulmikiell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office, to begin a “discussion,” that essentially interferes with these matters, and permits him to discredit me and raise seemingly erroneous and immaterial issues.  Those issues are the identical issues raised in my 2012 trial before LA Superior Court or which have been used to discredit me.  They can be condensed into the following categories:  IRS and federal tax matters; Leonard Cohen; and Phil Spector.  This situation with Gianelli appears to have been coordinated and pre-meditated.  Based on the extent of this man’s conduct, which has been coordinated with Cohen’s fan (Susanne Walsh) and others, one must conclude that he is a proxy who functions as an agent provocateur and infiltrator.  It is entirely possible that he is actually an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team. 

3.       I have used a blog,, to counter some of the ongoing false
accusations, slanderous and defamatory statements, and blatant lies that have been intentionally placed into the public realm by Leonard Cohen, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, and others.  I also use this blog to address evidence.  Stephen Gianelli is obsessed with my blog and believes that my postings give him a right to criminally harass, stalk, threaten, intimidate, insult, and lie about me and others.  That includes witnesses who have provided me with declarations.  His conduct appears to amuse him at times and he has advised me that he is immune and cannot be extradited from Greece where he evidently resides at this time.  Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, evidently resides in Denmark and she has worked in tandem with Gianelli.  It is my personal belief that this was intentionally planned as they view themselves as beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement. 

4.       On June 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli began harassing me about my Tax Court Petition in
earnest.  He has harassed me over every legal remedy I have sought.  I receive an endless stream of emails citing legal research, legal opinions, and/or arguing Leonard Cohen’s various legal positions.  Gianelli began searching the Tax Court’s dockets for evidence that I filed a Petition and emailed me information from Tax Court’s website.

5.       On July 9, 2015, Gianelli wrote that he surveyed motions to dismiss tax court petitions for
lack of jurisdiction and addressed deficiency notices.  He informed me that he was “skeptical” that I filed a pending petition in response to a “notice of deficiency and/or determination.”  Gianelli uses this type of tactic to elicit information.  By this time, Gianelli was clearly fishing for information about my petition and any possible deficiency notice.  He confirmed that I discussed my Tax Court Petition on my blog.  I submitted the Petition prior to its being filed by Tax Court and my fee waiver had to be approved so Gianelli was clearly hungry for details.  Tax Court has the jurisdiction to address issues related to fraud upon the court.  Gianelli has also written to inform me that the IRS denied my whistle blower claim, based on this Court’s request for information about whistle blower information, although I have never filed a whistle blower claim and never will.  My sons lives have been destroyed over this situation and I am not looking for an award or celebration of some sort.  Nothing can address what has occurred here.  On April 15, 2005, I reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Bill Betzer, IRS.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, were well aware of that fact and Kory addressed it in emails to me from the spring of 2005.  Cohen’s lawsuit is retaliation, an attempt to confront and explain away Neal Greenberg’s allegations, and the pre-requisite fraud and/or rescission argument Cohen needed to explain away his role in these transactions.  He was the driving force, demanded aggressive and unnecessarily complex corporate structures and tax planning, and has a disdain (that he discussed constantly) for paying ordinary income taxes.  He has a background in business, law, and commerce and micro-manages his business and personal affairs.

6.       Due to the fact that I had to address a declaration I submitted to IRS and Tax Court with
Judge Robert Hess in LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322, I was forced to divulge information about my Tax Court Petition.  Judge Robert Hess sealed the declaration I submitted to IRS prior to filing my Motion for Terminating Sanctions (addressing “fraud upon the court’) with respect to that Court’s January 17, 2014 denial of my Motion to Vacate.   Judge Hess confirmed that he has no jurisdiction over IRS.  I didn’t want to place myself in a position of being accused of contempt of court issues over a declaration that was prepared for and submitted to Internal Revenue Service or the evidence itself.  The evidence that Judge Hess sealed, including documents that can be purchased on PACER and my own personal K-1s, was submitted to IRS quite a long time ago and resubmitted to IRS with my declaration dated March 1, 2015.  See Exhibit A, Declaration of Kelley Lynch, attached hereto and made a part hereof.

7.       On July 10, 2015 Gianelli wrote and concluded that I was being “coy” about “what
determination” my Tax Court Petition addressed.  This was merely a tactic to elicit information.   Gianelli falsely advised me, and possibly others, that the IRS “has now formally agreed with Cohen – that you are NOT entitled to any additional 1099s.”  Apparently, if IRS determines that Leonard Cohen was able to subvert IRS reporting and filing requirements, that means I have simply been harassing Leonard Cohen for years.  This was the key issue during my alleged 2012 trial that involved federal tax matters.  The prosecutor informed the jurors that Cohen wasn’t obligated to provide this information to me and I am the individual that was in possession of the information.  I have no idea what this individual was talking about.  The IRS requires employers to provide their employees and contractors with 1099s on a yearly basis and one would assume that a government attorney understands that fact.  The prosecutor argued that I am not upset because Cohen refuses to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information (for 20045, 2005, and 2006 – when the default judgment was entered against me) but this is all merely a ruse and I’m a “con artist.”  Cohen’s failure to provide me with this information has placed me in the position of being unable to file my 2004 and 2005 tax returns, caused FTB to garnish my wages in 2011, seize monies that belong to me (as I owe no taxes), and has caused me ongoing problems and distress.  I am not in receipt of this information and Cohen was required to provide me with much of it well in advance of filing his retaliatory lawsuit.  The default judgment, that evidently subverts IRS reporting and filing requirements, was not entered until May 15, 2006 and is not retroactive – nor does it address IRS requirements.  The IRS and other tax authorities have continually advised me that Cohen is obligated to provide me with this information.  IRS and other tax authorities have advised me to contact Cohen with respect to corporate tax and financial information I require and to address K-1s Leonard Cohen’s wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to the State of Kentucky and IRS for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005.  IRS and FTB are not in receipt of any 1099 or K-1 from Cohen, or a Cohen-related entity, that relates to me for the years 2004 or 2005 – apart from the LC Investments, LLC K-1s showing $0 income.  I cannot imagine why I was on trial over these issues.  LAPD’s report, with respect to the fraudulent restraining orders, was entirely clear:  my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information.  That report was then transmitted to the City Attorney whose “domestic violence unit” prosecuted me over this and concealed a tremendous amount of evidence.  That would include with respect to corporate tax matters.  The corporations themselves do not have injunctions and requests for K-1s, financial statements, and corporate accountings relate to corporate matters.  During my trial, my lawyers issued a subpoena to Agent Luis Tejeda after the prosecutor provided them with an “IRS binder” that contained information related to federal tax matters.  The Court refused to permit  IRSAgent Tejeda to testify.  In juror debriefing, my lawyers were informed that the jurors wanted to hear from IRS; one juror relied on false statements the prosecutor made about corporate assets (that individual advised the lawyers that he felt “sorry” for Leonard Cohen who has falsely stated that he only had $150,000 left in his so-called retirement account); and, one public defender informed me that he felt there may have been a “prosecution plant” on the jury.  That same public defender advised me that his perception of the trial was as follows:  the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit me; and the DA didn’t want the Phil Spector verdict overturned.  My appellate attorney wrote that he felt my trial was an IRS matter that demands an IRS investigation. 

8.       On July 12, 2015, Gianelli sent me yet another harassing email explaining that due to my
blog posts he has a right to harass, threaten, intimidate, stalk, insult, slander, and lie about me.  He also has a self-given right to endlessly harass me and others over these matters.  There is no right granted to any American citizen to relentlessly target someone, lie about them to government agencies, and interfere in federal tax and IRS matters.  This man routinely lies to IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others.  My personal email accounts are not affiliated with my blog.  Part of the “fair game” evidently includes the “tax court petition” I mentioned on my blog.  Gianelli confirmed in this email that he is well aware that my “pending tax court filing” did not attempt to relitigate the motion to vacate Leonard Cohen’s fraudulent default judgment.  Gianelli also noted that I have stated for years that I planned to file a Petition with Tax Court.  He attempts to elicit information by falsely stating, and his emails are sent to people as blind copies or publicly, that IRS has determined that Leonard Cohen “does not owe” me any forms 1099 for 2004 or other tax years.  I have received no such determination but this matter is what has permitted Leonard Cohen, together with the fact that I wasn’t served his lawsuit, etc., to argue that I am harassing him.  My blog is viewed as an attempt to “sway public opinion.”  This probably bothers Leonard Cohen because his slanderous and defamatory statements have been regurgitated in the news media for years.  I believe this, and my requests for tax information, were his actual motive – together with an intent to discredit me – for obtaining fraudulent restraining orders against me.  Stephen Gianelli is also obsessed with Ann Diamond; harasses her; and slanders her publicly.  The only thing I can conclude at this point is that the better liar wins before LA Superior Court – particularly when actual evidence is replaced by a fabricated narrative and government officials publicly lie about me and federal tax matters.  I have not found a remedy for this conduct yet but intend to pursue my legal remedies in federal court.  The LA Superior Court Complaint, fraudulent expense ledger, and default judgment were used to obtain fraudulent tax refunds, file and amend Cohen’s 2005 (and other) tax returns, and defend him against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud with IRS Agent Luis Tejeda.

9.       On July 31, 2015, Gianelli sent me an email after checking Tax Court’s website to advise me
that IRS filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  This is exactly the response he predicted.

10.    On July 31, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that he and the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s
office are “getting along fine.”  He wrote me about IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office and his communications with them numerous times.  I then filed a Motion with this Court because I personally remain convinced that he is attempting to interfere with IRS matters, this Tax Court Petition, and his goal is to discredit me and introduce extraneous elements into this Tax Court matter.  Therefore, I intend to address the discussion Gianelli has initiated with Mr. Fabian.  The reason I intend to do this is due the fact that I find it unconscionable that lies, distortions, materially false information, etc. would be transmitted to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office about me.  That is the purpose of this declaration.

11.    On August 11, 2015, Gianelli sent me an email with the subject line “FYI- Docket No.:
017085-15; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS” that enclosed research material re. Tax Court Litigation that he spent time highlighting.  Gianelli sends a tremendous amount of legal opinions and research information to me and has for years.  One would be hard pressed to find an actual lawyer who devotes this much time to a client.  I have attached some of Gianelli’s harassing emails with respect to this Tax Court Petition and his communications with Mr. Fabian to this declaration.  See Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 
12.    Stephen Gianelli has attempted to raise many extraneous issues with Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief
Trial Counsel’s office, and publicly.  He is also transmitting this information to people who know me and have forwarded me with certain copies of what they are receiving.  A crucial issue that Gianelli appears to be obsessed with are the declarations my sons, John Rutger Penick and Ray Charles Lindsey, have provided me which have been submitted to numerous Courts in related matters.  Gianelli has relentlessly targeted my sons for over six years straight years, since hearing from Michelle Rice in May or June 2009, and has an extraordinary interest and obsession with them although he does not know them at all.  See Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  (Rutger and Ray’s declarations). 

13.    Gianelli has advised Mr. Fabian that declarations I submitted to LA Superior Court were
forged and the information fabricated.  Those declarations were provided to me by Joan Lynch (my mother), John Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, Daniel Meade, and Paulette Brandt.  Without any evidence to support the allegations, Cohen’s representatives informed the Court that I fabricated and forged these declarations.  In fact, I obtained limited powers of attorney from each of these declarants prior to filing the declarations, apart from my mother, authorizing me to conform the declarations with their signatures.  I have now submitted the limited powers of attorney and original declarants’ signature pages to LA Superior Court.  My mother’s declaration is a separate issue.  In December 2014, my mother worked on her declaration and planned to submit it to LA Superior Court in support of my Motion to Vacate and reply documents.  She also planned to place the original signed declaration in the mail but was concerned that, due to the Christmas holidays, it might not arrive in time.  Therefore, Paulette Brandt reviewed the entire declaration with my mother and was authorized to sign on her behalf if the original signed declaration was delayed in the mail.  On December 26, 2014, and I believe this situation and the stress it has caused played a part in my mother’s health at the time, my mother had a stroke.  Her memory is now irreparably impaired.  My mother expressed grave concern about the lies being told about me; my being targeted by the City Attorney and District Attorney – with Leonard Cohen; and the ongoing targeting of her grandsons.  She and my father have also been harassed by Stephen Gianelli.  My sister and her husband, Karen and David McCourt, have been relentlessly harassed as well.  Their attorney, Jim Walker, advised Gianelli to cease and desist.  He steadfastly refused.  See Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof (Declarations, original signature pages, and limited powers of attorney).  I was also falsely accused of signing Paulette Brandt’s declaration which she personally signed. 

14.    Leonard Cohen’s legal documents, before LA Superior Court, falsely accuse Paulette Brandt
of materially changing the information she provided in her declaration in support of my Motion to Vacate.  Paulette Brandt planned to testify at the January 17, 2014 hearing.  She and Palden Ronge attended the hearing.  The Court did not provide them with an opportunity to testify during that hearing.  Other witnesses – including John Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, and Daniel Meade – were available to testify by CourtCall because they were out of state and/or unavailable.  Paulette Brandt and I were advised by the Court that Judge Robert Hess does not accept CourtCall and therefore I was unable to arrange for these witnesses to testify telephonically.  At the January 17, 2014 hearing, the Court confirmed that it does accept CourtCall when it involves witnesses who are out-of-state.  When I filed my Motion for Terminating Sanctions (fraud upon the court), Paulette Brandt provided me with additional declarations and provided greater detail for the Court.  She was present, at my house, on August 24, 2005 when the process server said he served a female co-occupant Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit.  The process server did not come to my house that date (or at any time from what I can tell); there was no female co-occupant; I do not resemble the individual described in the proof of service (the process server appeared to rely on a description of me from when Cohen, who had not seen me in nearly a year, provided) and the only individuals present that morning were John Rutger Penick, our co-occupant Chad Knaak, Paulette Brandt, and myself.  Leonard Cohen and his legal representatives continue to lie about issues related to service of process of the complaint and summons in Case No. BC338322 (LA Superior Court).  On or around March 17, 2015, I filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions that addressed the egregious fraud upon the court, litigation misconduct, and extensive use of perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations used in connection with the Court’s January 17, 2014 denial of my Motion to Vacate.  That matter is now under appeal.  The Court has mischaracterized my Motion as a motion for reconsideration when in fact it is a Motion addressing fraud upon the court. 

15.    Gianelli has raised a $14 million embezzlement based judgment” in his communications
with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office.  I embezzled nothing whatsoever and neither Leonard Cohen nor LC Investments, LLC (Plaintiffs in that matter) own the assets at issue.  The assets and income that Complaint and fraudulent expense ledger purport to address belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  Leonard Cohen appears to have decided not to serve me; file tax returns and apply for fraudulent tax refunds; and run statutes of limitations so that he could later argue res judicata and laches.  I diligently attempted to address the issues related to service and, for reasons I cannot imagine, LA Superior Court believes I should be able to pull money out of thin air to travel to Los Angeles to file documents and attend hearings when Cohen willfully bankrupted me and destroyed my reputation which has made it nearly impossible to find work. I have also been forced to spend countless hours researching and writing legal documents and attending hearings.  I did not reside in Los Angeles from the spring/summer of 2010 (when I discovered Cohen’s complaint online) until I relocated here in June 2013 and was financially incapable of traveling to Los Angeles to address these legal issues.  That is due to no fault of my own.  Apart from wrongfully converting my property to himself, in this default matter, Cohen has withheld commissions due me for services rendered.  Cohen has renewed this judgment, which attempts to extort $14 million from me (with pre and post judgment interest added totaling millions of dollars).  A hearing has been scheduled with respect to that renewal for October 6, 2015 and the matter will most certainly be appealed should LA Superior Court once again determine that it can act in this matter without jurisdiction over me or the entities entered into the default but not named as parties to the suit itself. 

16.    On January 22, 2015, the City Attorney’s office, based on Gianelli’s communications with
them, charged me with a probation violation.  One of the issues related to a Valentine card image I sent FBI and DOJ.  The prosecutor, who permitted Gianelli to harass me and others (including my sons) while slandering me to her and that office, saw this card as an opportunity to retaliate against me.  Based on this situation and my appellate attorney’s advice, I attempted to abandon my appeal but the appellate division refused to permit me to do so.  The Valentine Day card was sent to the FBI and DOJ for a number of reasons.  One of the reasons is due to the fact that I was following the DOJ’s legal opinions in connection with the drone issues being discussed in the news media.  I thought it would be amusing to send the card to FBI and DOJ.  The drone card was found on blog with a link to Glenn Greenwald’s article on the DOJ white paper on this issue.  I also am aware of the fact that various local government actors, and prosecutors, use false allegations related to threats, to threaten and prosecute people.  That would include, but is not limited to, perceived threats with respect to Eminem’s lyrics to his songs “Puke” and “Love the Way You Lie” which I will address in great detail below.  I inserted a P.S. into my email to FBI and DOJ that stated:  “Happy Valentine’s Day.  Hopefully Streeter won’t charge me with terrorist threats.”  Clearly, my own words contained no threat to this prosecutor and the card itself was being sent to a third party who was not Streeter.  She merely used this issue as a reason to retaliate against me.  This woman has lied about me repeatedly and the trial record itself is evidence of that fact.  I then had a conversation with Detective Viramontes, LAPD’s Threat Management, wherein he concluded that the card was a “joke.”  The image itself (and words used therein) was not created by me.  It was not addressed to Streeter.  It was not a joke – various government actors, and others, in Los Angeles use false threats to set up innocent people.  They fear for their lives over absurd matters and “perceived threats” that no one could ever disprove.  They appear to be professional liars with psychiatric problems.  Leonard Cohen has also used this tactic when testifying.  He knows what a good sound bite is worth to the news media and others.  I had raised this issue with the FBI and DOJ previously.  I don’t have a “kill list” and that relates to the CIA’s alleged disposition matrix which is a database.  In order to take this as a serious threat, one must conclude that prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter views herself as a terrorist and enemy of the Unites States government.  I asked Detective Viramontes if he believed she has psychiatric problems.  I also felt that Detective Viramontes should ask Streeter if the actual threat here relates to the IRS and FBI.  That seems far more probable.  See Exhibit:  Drone Valentine Card and Glenn Greenwald article, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


17.    The City Attorney used this Valentine Day card against me in the probation matter.  At the
heart of that matter were emails Gianelli was sending to prosecutor Streeter.  I have no idea how he obtained her email address.  On or about November 12, 2012, after repeatedly contacting me by email and slandering me on his blog, Gianelli sent an outrageous email to Streeter falsely accusing me of many things.  I repeatedly advised him to cease and desist.  My sons, sister, Paulette Brandt, and others were copied in on those emails.  I attempted to speak to someone at the City Attorney’s office about this matter.  I found it unconscionable, as is true with the Chief Trial Counsel’s office, that a man who has targeted me for years was simply able to harass me with their office copied in.  He also transmitted a tremendous amount of false information to the City Attorney’s in his outlandish emails.  Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, was copied on some of these emails.  My complaints and grievances to the City Attorney’s office were viewed as my “intent to annoy” Streeter and possibly her colleagues.  That relates to PC Section 653(m) which is in essence an unconstitutionally vague statute.  I submitted evidence to the Court in this matter and the judge advised me that he would not review the evidence.  He refused to address my Brady Motion.  Paulette Brandt testified during that hearing and confirmed that the Boulder Combined Court confirmed for her that the Colorado order is not a domestic violence order and advised her numerous times that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  The Court felt this testimony was immaterial although it goes to jurisdictional issues and the fact that I did not knowingly and willfully violate anything.  The 9th Circuit Court, and Judge Alex Kozinski specifically, has expressed concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, state courts turning a blind eye to these matters, and other issues I am personally dealing with.  In the present matter, I phoned Mr. Fabian and had a very simple discussion.  Mr. Fabian was entirely professional and informed me that Gianelli had contacted him about this Tax Court matter.  This is the identical situation that has been used with many individuals and government entities for years now.  I do not know of one law in the United States of America that requires an individual being falsely accused, to government agencies and others, to remain silent and unable to confront the accusations.  In any event, Gianelli has continue to write Mr. Fabian  and I have responded and confronted his lies, false accusations, slanderous statements, and bald-faced lies.  It is my personal belief that this matter should be brought to the attention of this Court.  My emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ have been documenting everything that has unfolded since I reported the allegations related to Leonard Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  However, those emails are not addressing the issues that are before this Court. 

18.    Stephen Gianelli’s harassment of me has been inconceivably aggressive.  My appellate
attorney informed me that he has never seen anything like this in his entire career.  He instructed me to forward the emails to FBI.  I have also discussed this situation with the FBI in Oakland, California and other law enforcement agencies.  My appellate attorney contacted an attorney who specializes in internet laws and advised me that there is really nothing I can do to stop this harassment without the involvement of law enforcement.  Many residents of Los Angeles are being harassed by this man and others.  LAPD’s Threat Management Unit advised me to maintain the emails as evidence so I am not in a position to simply delete them unread.  Stephen Gianelli, as I have said, has worked in tandem with Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, and others.  One of those individuals is Phil Spector’s former assistant, Michelle Blaine, who misappropriated approximately $1 million from him.  Michelle Blaine publicly congratulated Gianelli for targeting my blogs and email accounts (with her and others) and causing them to be taken down.  That issue, that caused me to change email addresses, was used against me during my trial in an attempt to prove to the jurors that I created numerous email accounts to “harass” Leonard Cohen.  See Exhibit __, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  (Evidence – Michelle Blaine).  Gianelli, in fact, has used monikers that he created (including the 14th Sheepdog) to harass me and others.  I personally believe he wrote and sent me the horrifyingly vile “bloody stump” email that clearly states that I should be raped, murdered, or commit suicide.  That email falsely accuses Oliver Stone of molesting my sons and permitting them to snort cocaine off his “cock.”  The email was clearly meant to distress me and was in response to Cohen’s testimony that I accused him of ripping my son’s fingers off in an industrial accident at Whole Foods that was no fault of his own.  The prosecutor elicited that testimony although I have never accused Cohen of this and actually asked the DA to investigate and prosecute what appears to be criminal negligence and a very serious public safety issue.
19.    In the Spring of 2007, my friend (a Tibetan lama) Yongzin Rinpoche and his wife, Clea
Surkhang, invited me to visit them in Colorado.  I accepted the invitation, stayed with them, and took a longer term temporary position.  The insanity that is taking place in Los Angeles continued in Boulder, Colorado.  At one point, Boulder Police Department actually rolled into my office at Deneuve Construction.  Evidently, LAPD contacted them to advise them – although they do not know me – that I was dangerous to myself or others.  This was based on my attempt to research information due to the fact that the Attorney General of California wrote me a letter advising me to go back to law enforcement or the DA’s office.  Stephen Gianelli has publicly stated that Spector prosecutor, Pat Dixon, was somehow behind this incident.  I have no further details but did repeatedly contact the FBI in Denver with respect to the conduct of Boulder Police Department and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office with respect to me.  At a certain point, the Denver FBI suggested that I contact the Boulder District Attorney and the Colorado Attorney General to ask them to investigate this situation.  One of the incidents in Boulder, Colorado led to a jury trial.  I won that trial, with respect to the only issue I was arrested over, and the jurors did not believe Boulder Police Department.  That is not an issue here but it is being used to discredit me.  The incident involved my witnessing what I believed was a man with his penis out in front of a child.  I went outside to locate Boulder Police Department, was unable to find them, and came back into the restaurant.  The individual with the child had evidently spoken to the manager or waitress who were not in the room at the time and their response to me was hostile.  I asked them to contact Boulder Police Department and what unfolded, in light of the Jean Benet Ramsey matter and their problem with pedophiles, was beyond unconscionable.  It is hard for me to say why Boulder Police Department would treat me with such aggression.  I documented all of this for the Department of Justice at the time.  Law enforcement is all over this entire matter.
20.    When Gianelli initially began harassing my sons, my younger son was a minor.  He, Susanne
Walsh, and others attempted to (and were evidently successful) lure my then minor son into communicating with them privately.  I personally view any adult stranger attempting to lure a minor into privately communicating them as a potential sexual predator.  Stephen Gianelli feels this is unacceptable the prosecutor during my trial felt that my beliefs about this type of situation were an intent to annoy Leonard Cohen.  The FBI cautions parents about online predators and I will remind this Court that I have no idea who these people are.  They could be serial murderers for all I know.
21.    Stephen Gianelli has attempted to discredit and slander individuals who are witnesses that
have provided me with declarations.  Those individuals would include, but are not limited to, Paulette Brandt and Ann Diamond who was in a dating relationship with Leonard Cohen years ago.  Gianelli has tried to discredit her due to the fact that she has an interest in Cohen’s statements that he was a participant in CIA’s MKULTRA program.  He personally informed me that he was.  Ann Diamond is from Montreal and people find this program of interest.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact, Hollywood has just released a movie called “American Ultra” because the topic holds some interest for the public.  I personally do not believe that the CIA had to experiment with LSD on Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen has been extremely public about his legal and illegal drug usage and has dazzled journalists with tales about his use of meth and LSD.  Of course, during my trial, he informed the jurors that my rhetorical question “Are you still on drugs?,” based on his own conduct, was my attempt to assail his “reputation.”  Almost simultaneously, Cohen was providing information to his biographer, Sylvie Simmons, about his use of LSD and meth.  A documentary from Cohen’s 1972 world tour shows him dropping acid at a concert in Israel.  Gianelli has written Mr. Fabian the following:  “There are two people in the world with an axe to grind against Leonard Cohen: Kelley Lynch and Ann Diamond, a Canadian writer who claims a prior romantic relationship with Cohen but that Cohen claims is a stalker and mentally unbalanced. Ms. Diamonds claims that she was abducted as a child and subjected to LSD experiments and sexual abuse by high ranking US military officials and that the British Royal Family engaged in ritual orgies involving animal sacrifice on an island in Greece pretty much speak for themselves. None of the “articles” you cite by Ann Diamond were ever published except by Kelley Lynch.”  Ann Diamond is neither a stalker nor a disgruntled ex-lover of Cohen’s.  I worked with him for approximately 20 years (including when I was Marty Machat’s legal secretary and assistant.  At no time did I see any evidence of stalking or harassment on Ann Diamond’s part.  These are types of false allegations and statements Leonard Cohen and his operatives use to discredit people.  Clearly, Cohen and Gianelli are disturbed by Ann Diamond’s declaration and her analysis of Gianelli and his harassing emails vis a vis me.  Everyone who publicly supports me; provides a declaration; testifies in Court; or defends me is targeted.  Ann Diamond’s views on Gianelli are as follows.  There are news stories about high level officials in government in the UK engaging in misconduct, some of which relates to children, so it doesn’t seem appropriate to use that information in an attempt to discredit Ann Diamond.  She is not mentally imbalanced but has a very accurate view of Leonard Cohen and how he operates.  On another note, Leonard Cohen uses fabricated and embellished stories in the news media to entertain people.  Those stories involve his possible role as reconnaissance during the Bay of Pigs (and an arrest when he was detected although later released); his decision to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War (although he has no military training whatsoever); and his good rock ‘n roll stories about Phil Spector and Janis Joplin.  Leonard Cohen is a master story teller and fabulist who knows what type of story line captivates his audiences.
When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations, misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he seems to have unlimited energy  and endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.

He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his overuse of "copy and paste" --  he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread his emails to see what kind of message they actuall convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.

He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own expense"  -- and as anyone with common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in 2004-5.  They convey some of the evidence, all of it coming from one side.

Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since 2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading false stories about her, making up quotes, “writing her in jail”, posting photos of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years. Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this. It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing. Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long, especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical, emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to  professional suicide.

But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of  cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team.  I think the latter.

I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? This kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.

Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of  irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of course this could be a tactic:  if he really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or people with little or no education. 

He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing -- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.

If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's   dis-info team. He draws from a psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the past twenty years, since he used them on me.

I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman' who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really happened to Kelley Lynch.

And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper state of trance.

I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard Cohen, as Kelley's was.

I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit from it. 

Ann D.

22.    False allegations are being used to discredit Ann Diamond and one of those relates to
Gianelli’s statements to Mr. Fabian that Ann Diamond has accused individuals of engaging in child molestation.  I believe he mentioned high ranking U.S. military officials.  She has expressed an interest in MKULTRA.  Ann Diamond has expressed disdain for child molestation and abuse and we have indeed discussed a trial and legal matters in the United Kingdom that involve Lord Janner.  Janner is a distant cousin of Leonard Cohen’s.  This matter is being covered by the Guardian newspaper so it holds some interest for the public.

"Greville Janner has appeared in court for the first time to face a series of child sexual abuse allegations stretching back to the 1960s."

Stephen Gianelli, and a gang of cyber-terrorists, have targeted and slandered me online
throughout the internet.  In fact, until recently, Gianelli had a slanderous blog dedicated to me.  I have quoted Eminem at times.  I’ve quoted his songs “Puke” and “Love the Way You Lie.”  This led to accusations that Spector prosecutor Pat Dixon feared for his life over Eminem’s lyric that refers to “dry humping.”  Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson evidently feared for his life because I quoted Eminem’s song “Love the Way You Lie.”  These issues were addressed in my September 2009 letter to Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson.  That letter was hand delivered to former DA Steve Cooley and Spector prosecutors DDA Alan Jackson and DDA Truc Do. Investigator William Frayeh, who was an investigator at the DA’s office on the Spector case, hand delivered this letter to these individuals.  He also informed me that Gianelli may have found a “sympathetic ear” with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me.  That might explain why DA Steve Cooley and Alan Jackson were themes throughout my trial.  The prosecutor actually elicited perjured testimony from Leonard Cohen to introduce testimony about Spector and a gun into my 2012 trial.  She asked Cohen to review the email she was questioning him about to ensure that he was a recipient.  He confirmed that he was and then read the portion of the email wherein I informed Dennis Riordan, Spector’s appellate attorney, that Cohen advised me for 20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and his stories about Spector were good rock ‘n roll stories.  He now has three versions of his good rock ‘n roll gun story about Mr. Spector before LA Superior Court.  I have no idea which version the government believes.  His testimony during my trial about this issue contradicts the version that Spector’s prosecutors used in at least motions in limine re. prior bad acts and, if Mick Brown (UK Telegraph) was correct, the statements or testimony was presented to the Spector Grand Jury.  Leonard Cohen was not a recipient of the email that introduced his testimony about Spector and a gun.  That email also contained requests for tax information and other legitimate IRS and federal tax matters.  In fact, I wrote directly to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff and the prosecutor – who said she “misspoke” – concealed that from the jurors.  That’s partially why my requests for tax information were “hidden” in the volumes of emails they printed out over and over and over again. 
24.    For the purposes of this declaration, the issues related to King Drew and SWAT, that led to
a coordinated custody matter, were sufficiently addressed in my son’s declaration and Ann Diamond’s article, “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch.”  The King Drew file is entirely fraudulent and does not relate to me.  It was used to coordinate a custody matter.  Neal Greenberg’s lawyer, Daniel Scheid, confirmed in writing that they have evidence related to criminal witness tampering with respect to me that involves Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and others.  I also believe he confirmed that they have evidence that Cohen, Kory, Steve Lindsey (my younger son’s father), and possibly others conspired to have me falsely arrested on May 25, 2005.  That led to the coordinated custody matter.  Judge Lewis Babcock, in one of his orders in the related District Court of Colorado matter, wondered if Cohen and Kory’s thuggery worked with respect to me.  The answer is no.  At this point, Gianelli seems dead set on putting further pressure on my sons and others and driving a wedge between us.  My sons have been used as weapons.  LA Superior Court destroyed my sons’ lives based on hearsay and a fabricated narrative.  The custody matter resulted in a default judgment involving a human being’s life.  See Exhibit __:  Ann Diamond article; King Drew report. 
25.    During my 2012 trial, a parody email I sent to the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, news media and
others, was used against me to falsely accuse me of threatening former DA Steve Cooley.  This email was based on a game my colleagues and I played while working on an ACLU campaign.  The ACLU took Cooley to task over his public position that people should be executed using a drug that is used to put dogs down.  The California Penal Code, with respect to perjury (PC 118), permits the government to seek the death penalty when an official – such as a prosecutor – uses willful perjury to obtain a conviction and subsequent death sentence.  I used the penal code in my parody.  The game we played involved taking the position that we were running for President; setting forth our political platforms; and appointing various cabinet members and others.  I decided I would run on the Wedding Party and my campaign platform would be cleaning up corruption in politics.  I intended to ask my Attorney General to prosecute Steve Cooley for setting up an innocent person and seek the death penalty.  Cooley evidently believes, as do other government actors in Los Angeles, that he is the only person permitted to publicly speak about the death penalty and executions.  I appointed my FBI and CIA directors.  My mother is my Deputy FBI director, Michael Ingrassia is the FBI Director, and Robbin Taggles is my CIA director.  Tyler Paxton is my Vice President.  I also decided, if I won the President election, that I might marry single billionaire Ron Burkle in the Rose Garden and permit the citizens of this country to vote on my wedding dress since all the news, day in and day out, is so dismal and we need to take our minds off of endless warmongering and corrupt politicians, etc.  I also thought I might have a Sunday morning chat with various dictators that the public might enjoy.  For some reason, this game threatened Steve Cooley.  It might be due to the fact that it was addressed with IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others. 
26.    In closing, I would like to ask the Court to give some consideration to Neal Greenberg’s
June 2005 Complaint and, in particular, Clause 145:  “When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation.  Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to “crush her” and planned to use restraining orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen’s affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.”  I documented a great deal of information for Boies Schiller in the winter/spring/summer of 2005.  They felt Cohen and Kory were attempting to engage me in criminal conduct and advised me to go wired to my meetings with them.  They also emailed me that Cohen and Kory planned to destroy me and my sons.  I’ve sent that email to the IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:  12 September 2015

                                                                        Kelley Lynch


From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Subject: Your email dated Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel and posted on your public blog

Ms. Lynch,

 1. To be a valid form of testimony, declarations must be signed by the hand of the declarant. It matters not that you claim to have been granted the declarants’ power of attorney before you signed the witnesses’ names to their declarations. An agent may not subscribe a declaration for a witness under California law any more than an agent granted a power of attorney may take the witnesses stand and testify for his principal. Your statement to the contrary is ridiculous.

2. Paulette Brandt testified in her 2013 declaration in support of your motion to vacate the 2006 default judgment that she was “in touch with you” during the purported month of service, August 2005. She said nothing in her original declaration about being physically present at your home on the very date and time the proof of service reflects that you were served there – let alone anything about personally dying your hair to a color inconsistent with the process server’s description of your hair color at the time of service. Paulette Brandt’s declaration in support of your second, 2015 motion to vacate the same judgment, again based on lack of service, for the first time testifying that she was in your home at the exact time of purported service of a “Jane Doe” who refused to give her name, that no one came to the door of the residence, and that she previously dyed your hair a different color can hardly be fairly characterized as mere “clarifications” of her prior testimony that she was “in touch with” you in August of 2005. It was in fact a material change in testimony, and a highly suspect on at that. Notably, both motions supported by Ms. Brandt’s suspicious testimony were denied.

3. Tax court is known as a “court of limited jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction is entirely a creature of statute and is the exception, rather than the rule. Generally, for the tax court to have jurisdiction over a petition, the petition must contest a notice of tax deficiency or a notice of determination by the IRS, and the petition must be filed within a specified number of days from the date of mailing of the notice – which is presumed correct from the postmark. The statutory time limit is strictly enforced and is considered “jurisdictional”.  Tax court jurisdiction is in no way based on what you “think” it should have jurisdiction over. Jurisdiction in this instance is either conferred by statute or there is no jurisdiction. Your notions of common sense have nothing to do with it.

4. Ms. Lynch, YOU are the one who started writing the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and republishing your years running false accusations against me. YOU are the one who filed a formal pleading in tax court exclusively directed at alleged misconduct by me. YOU are the one who has posted those communications and that pleading on your public Google indexed blog. I am simply responding. YOU and the one who opened that door. And the fact remains that you are a convicted serial harasser with a long history of false accusations of criminality against a great many people over a decade and no court or law enforcement agency has ever credited any of your factual assertions during the last ten years. Moreover, none of this constitutes “interfering with a tax court matter” – which is a concept that you have manufactured out of thin air and has zero legal significance.

Very truly yours,

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

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
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 <>,,
Mr. Fabian,

Stephen Gianelli is lying to you.  Is he writing you requesting information?  No, he is not.  

These declarations were all signed based on powers of attorney from all witnesses stating quite clearly that they asked me to conform them.  The declarations, with the original witnesses signatures, and the powers of attorney were submitted to the court.  The limited powers of attorney were signed prior to the declarations being submitted.  These were signed in one's hand and there are no issues.  Leonard Cohen is lying about serving me his lawsuit. I confronted his lies, including with respect to so-called "intrinsic" fraud upon the court.  Each witness offered to speak directly to the Court and informed the Court that they were available or present to testify at the January 2014 hearing.   The Court did not provide the opportunity for witness testimony.  The Court did not provide an opportunity for confrontation per the U.S. Constitution.  Stephen Gianelli is a moonlighting operative who argues Leonard Cohen's cases with various parties.  That now includes you.  The man is a criminal who relentlessly targeted my sons, sister, friends, Paulette Brandt, etc.

Paulette Brandt did not materially change anything.  Based on Cohen's further lies to the Court, she explained in greater detail various matters.  That would include the fact that she was with me on the morning the process server said he came to my house.  He didn't come to my house.  The Court willfully disregarded this evidence of extrinsic fraud and has now condoned further fraud and perjury on the part of Cohen and his representatives.

Paulette Brandt testified at the second false arrest hearing based on a domestic violence order that doesn't exist except in California.  There was no "dating relationship" and this government will not be assigning me one.  It's a disgrace and there is VAWA funding fraud with the City Attorney's office.  Also, the Court attempted to extort from me for "domestic violence."  This is a matter that should be investigated by the DOJ.  Other people have gone to them as well.  Part of the problem appears to be their celebrity justice program.  

I didn't embezzle anything from Leonard Cohen who is not the corporate entities.  Neither he nor LC Investments, LLC own the assets.  He is now attempting to hide and conceal evidence of my ownership interest in corporations.  He has managed to get this Court to conceal my personal K-1s, stock certificates, publicly available documents, etc.  These are his attorney/client privileged documents according to that round of lies.  The Court in the fraud probation matter (since Boulder Combined Court informed me and Paulette - for years - that the permanent order expired in February 2009) refused to review the evidence submitted.  The Court refused to review the Brady motion which is highly relevant and material.  The City Attorney instructed this criminal to continue harassing me and to convey a message to me from their office.  I'm not interested in their messages and am well aware that they lie.  See my trial and all testimony about federal tax matters.  Leonard Cohen still, to this date, has not provided me with IRS required tax and corporate information for the years 2004, 2005, and other periods.  Much of this information was due in the first quarter of 2005.  Cohen hadn't retaliated with his lawsuit yet.  Cohen needed to argue fraud and rescission to explain away his roles in these transactions.  My accountant and lawyers were present when Robert Kory offered me 50% community property, etc. on behalf of Cohen.  I have some of this in writing and my accountant, who was not fired and did not resign, asked me to call the Treasury agents (after I met with them) to inform them that he recalled this meeting distinctly.  He also believes, and worked for IRS, that Criminal Intelligence should be involved in this matter.  

Leonard Cohen is the individual who embezzled approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC alone.  He understood, and signed agreements, that his loans/expenditures had to be repaid to the corporation within 3 years with interest.  I have a letter from Kory confirming that these loans/expenditures are problematic.  I have provided that, and other evidence, to IRS Commissioner's Staff.

Rutger explained his declaration and Gianelli's attempts to explain away his six year campaign of terrorism with my sons is falling on deaf ears.  My sister's lawyer advised him to cease and desist.  My appellate attorney, who believes IRS should investigate my trial, was harassed by this Criminal (and Cohen's fan, Susanne Walsh) for over a year.  He has never seen anything like this in his career.  Many people have been harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, etc.  That includes all the witnesses who provided the declarations Gianelli is lying about.  I have sent you the original signed declarations and the limited powers of attorney.  Gianelli is aware these exist.  He's just a bald-faced liar and routinely lies to IRS, FBI, DOJ, etc.  He believes he is immune and, at times, seems amused by his criminal conduct.  

I think Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter involving fraud upon the court.  It follows Hazel-Atlas.  That was Cohen's argument re. the "intrinsic fraud" false accusations contained in the declarations and reply documents filed in response to my motion to vacate.  I have no idea why this Criminal has written to inform me that IRS declined a whistle blower award when I never applied for me and advised IRS in 2005 that i would rather live in a cave.

This man is definitely interfering with a Tax Court matter.  I want to give some thought, over the weekend, as to how I intend to handle this with the Tax Court and Judge Michael Thornton.  I will probably be forced to supplement the recent Motion I filed regarding this matter together with a request that the Court investigate.  I will probably inform the Court that Gianelli is now writing you and lying about me and witnesses and I will from here on out simply maintain the evidence.  I will probably also let the Court know that we have spoken and I have asked you to maintain the evidence as well.  I will submit the originally signed declarations (that Gianelli is lying about) to Tax Court together with the limited powers of attorney.  I will also let Tax Court know that these witnesses were all criminally harassed, stalked, targeted, intimidated, threatened, and insulted by Gianelli.  I will also submit Paulette Brandt's declarations so the Court can take a look and draw its own conclusions.  Paulette Brandt provided further details.  She and Palden Ronge attended the January 2014 hearing and were not provided an opportunity to testify.  

All the best,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
Ms. Lynch,

I write  to point out that the “original”, court-filed  “declaration” of your son John Rutger Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of Civil Pro. § 2015.5 [a declaration must be “subscribed” by the person making it]; People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59, fn. 5 [à"Subscribe" means "to sign with one's own hand."].)


From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch emails dated Sep 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM to Paulikell A. Fabian, IRS/others
Ms. Lynch,

I write  to point out that the “original”, court-filed  “declaration” of your son John Rutger Penick cut and pasted into the body of the above email was (as you later admitted in signed pleadings) signed by your hand and thus has no evidentiary force as testimony by Mr. Penick. (See Code of Civil Pro. § 2015.5 [a declaration must be “subscribed” by the person making it]; People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59, fn. 5 [à"Subscribe" means "to sign with one's own hand."].)

Regarding your roommate Paulette Brandt’s 2015 declaration, Ms. Brandt materially changed her testimony on the subject of your 2006 service with Leonard Cohen’s civil suit from that of her 2013 declaration, and in any event Brandt’s testimony was evidentially rejected by the court when it denied your 2013 and 2015 motions to set aside the $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment against you. The court also (apparently) rejected Ms. Brandt’s testimony about an alleged conspiracy of harassment between me and Los Angeles prosecutors because it found you in violation of the terms of your 2012 probation at the January 22, 2014 hearing in which Ms. Brandt testified and remanded you to serve an additional 6-months in jail for additional email harassment.

Nor can the substance of Rutger Penick’s “declaration” be reconciled with his June 14, 2013 email to me stating that you are sick and need help and thanking me for my emails.

Nor is any of this likely to aid you in opposition to the pending motion to dismiss your tax court petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated September 11, 2015 11:55 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, IRS Office of the Chief Counsel + others
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Ms. Lynch,

You have a 10-year long pattern of making false accusations of criminality against persons whom you feel aggrieved by. The incident at Juanita’s Restaurant in Boulder, Colorado (where you were arrested by BPD for refusing to leave until the police arrested another diner for “molestation” and a jury convicted you of criminal trespass) is a part of that pattern, as is your 20,000 +/- emails to the IRS/FBI/Justice/LAPD/Santa Monica PD/Houston PD/State Bar of California and many others falsely accusing me of being a “pedophile,”  a “sexual predator,” a “terrorist”, “suborning perjury”, “obstruction of justice”, “interfering with a tax fraud investigation”, “false statements”, etc., etc., etc.

There are two people in the world with an axe to grind against Leonard Cohen: Kelley Lynch and Ann Diamond, a Canadian writer who claims a prior romantic relationship with Cohen but that Cohen claims is a stalker and mentally unbalanced. Ms. Diamonds claims that she was abducted as a child and subjected to LSD experiments and sexual abuse by high ranking US military officials and that the British Royal Family engaged in ritual orgies involving animal sacrifice on an island in Greece pretty much speak for themselves. None of the “articles” you cite by Ann Diamond were ever published except by Kelley Lynch.

I simply wrote to Mr. Fabian in July of this year asking if it would be possible for him to email to me a copy of his motion to dismiss in your pending tax court matter. Two months later, in September of 2011, you then filed a formal “motion to supplement the record” in that matter that exclusively addresses your false accusations against me. You then wrote to Mr. Fabian purporting to “confirm” a telephone conversation wherein Mr. Fabian (allegedly) stated that I contacted him regarding the allegations in your pending petition (which he never did, because that never happened). It is this injection by you of your false accusations against me into your tax court matter, and your additional flurry of 30 +/- scurrilous and libelous emails about me that I have responded with three or four emails of my own setting the record straight – including about your history with restraining orders (having them granted against you and being convicted of violating them).

I have also pointed out that you have a history of submitting fabricated evidence to the Los Angeles Superior Court (including the declarations that you have cited to Mr. Fabian, on which declarations you signed the purported signatures of the “declarants”).

Your subsequent emails (eccentrically cc’d to the Russian state security service and others)  attempting to explain away all of this have made my point for me: You are simply not credible on any level.

The IRS, the FBI and the other agencies that you pester daily with mass emailed accusations of criminality about me and me and others have long ago formally designed you an “unreliable informant”.

You have been engaged in this unseemly and bizarre behavior since being fired for embezzlement in 2004 and it has only brought you world-wide notoriety as a convicted stalker, jail, and the complete and total loss of your credibility. Certainly none of the many hundreds of people whom you have “reported” for alleged criminality have ever been prosecuted. The only one who was ever even investigated as a result of your daily criminal complaints has was Leonard Cohen, who in 2007 was exonerated by the Western Regional Supervisor of the  IRS Criminal Division, Agent Luis Tejeda.

None of the many local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies you have been serially contacting about me for the past six years demanding my prosecution have even CONTACTED me for a statement, let alone investigated or prosecuted me. The State Bar of California has not even asked me to explain your many complaints.

Ms. Lynch, you are living in the past, harping on things that occurred almost 15-years ago transparently to harm the man you blame for the “destruction of your life” – Leonard Cohen. You have only succeeded in making yourself a nuisance to law enforcement and the civil tax authorities and a laughing stock with the public.

Very truly yours,

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

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Cease & Desist, Gianelli
To: STEPHEN GIANELLI <>, "*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 <>,
Stephen Gianelli,

I am addressing your ongoing harassment over Leonard Cohen legal matters, my countless cease and desist letters, your false and slanderous accusations (made to government agencies and others), the harassment of my sons and others, your attempts to threaten and intimidate witnesses, your attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information, your provocations, and your communication with Mr. Fabian of the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office.  Given the fact that you have repeatedly harassed me with docket information from the Tax Court and actually emailed me documents you downloaded from Tax Court (re. my Petition), it is obvious that you did not actually contact Mr. Fabian for copies of documents which would be an inappropriate request in any event.  I have addressed this situation with Tax Court, Mr. Fabian, and advised you to cease and desist.

As for vile and obscene emails, I remain convinced that you sent the “bloody stump” email and other emails using the moniker 14th Sheepdog which you created and used on your entirely slanderous blog.
I, and others, have maintained the harassing emails you have sent since hearing from Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009.  You are a chronic pathological liar so your self-serving characterizations will not replace the actual evidence.  That evidence has been submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. 

I have not accused you of being a pedophile.  You attempted to (and did) lure my then minor son into privately communicating with you.  I have stated – very clearly – that any adult stranger who attempts to communicate with a minor should be viewed as a potential sexual predator.  I have no idea who you are and neither do either of my sons who have addressed this ongoing criminal harassment (and other issues) in their declarations submitted to numerous courts.  Ray was quite clear when he informed you, Walsh, and Lawrence that your emails made him physically ill (and noted that Michelle Rice had been copied in) and Rutger was equally clear when he advised you to “shut up” and then addressed your copying him in on an email to the City Attorney by noting that you and Walsh appear to be two “fruitcakes” who stay up all night conjuring up insane accusations.

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Rutger Penick  wrote [in response to Gianelli/Walsh’s communications with the City Attorney – copying him in]:

Wow, you guys are ridiculous. What did you do last night? Thinking of things to write? Bravo fruitcakes. Suzanne [Walsh]and Gianelli are meant for each other, thunder buddies?

Rutger Penick
IT Support Specialist

I have never accused Leonard Cohen or ripping Rutger’s fingers off.  He and the City Attorney, who elicited that obscene and vile testimony, are the individuals that made this false statement.  I am well aware of the criminal negligence in the Whole Foods matter and repeatedly contacted the District Attorney’s office requesting that they investigate and prosecute the responsible parties.  This is also a very serious public health issue. 

Actually, Leonard Cohen is the individual who sexually harassed me, forced me to read business/legal documents to him while he soaked in bubble baths, and exposed his penis to me.

I have stated that you appear amused by your repulsive conduct and seem to get off on it.  I am aware that Pat Dixon views Eminem’s song “Puke” and his statements about “dry humping” as a threat to him.  I am also aware that Alan Jackson views Eminem’s song “Love the Way You Lie” as being about him.   I am a friend of Phil Spector’s and remain utterly loyal to him.  I have made that abundantly clear since the incident at his home whereby Clarkson shot herself and endangered his life.

I have no idea if Judge Ken Freeman is corrupt or not.  LA Superior Court entered a judgment against me, wrongfully converted my property to Cohen, and failed to obtain jurisdiction over me.  I know a judge in the Bay Area asked if Freeman was senile or old and his clerk simply had him sign a highly questionable judgment that inserted corporations – not named as parties to the suit – into it.

A jury heard the Boulder PD matter and did not believe Boulder PD.  I’m not certain why anyone involved in the matter would brag about that fact.  I have stated, and Rutger’s declaration confirms this, that LAPD informed my son that they would shoot me and my dog.  They also informed my son that they were there because my dog was my alleged hostage and they were taking precautions.  I don’t believe LAPD was at my house for a friendly visit.  I can assure you of that and believe they endangered the life of my son who they willfully disregarded.

My letters, including this one, have advised you to cease and desist and addressed your ongoing criminal harassment, stalking, threats, false accusations, slanderous and defamatory statements, blatant lies, witness intimidation, and so forth.  You most certainly appear to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team. 

Kelley Lynch

P.S.  Leonard Cohen retaliated against me after hearing that I intended to report his tax fraud to IRS.  I was advised that the “informant” actually advised Cohen that I wrote the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office on July 25, 2004.  Cohen personally addressed these matters with me in the fall of 2004.  Given the fact that you were not involved with either Cohen or myself for the 20 years I worked with him, you are not in a position to address his retaliation, theft, tax fraud, or conduct with respect to me.  Cohen has a pattern of falsely accusing others, using operatives, and lying.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: Eminem
To: Kelley Lynch <>

But we are NOT talking about "one" obscene and vulgar mass email sent by you, are we Ms. Lynch?

There have been tens of thousands that are not arguably "cease and desist" emails, including emails falsely accusing me of being a pedophile, and falsely accusing Leonard Cohen of incest, being responsible for "ripping Rutger's fingers off", allegedly having a "small penis" and that Cohen "should be taken down and shot".

You have also copied me with mass emails accusing me of "masturbating" while emailing you, emails (scores of them) referencing "dry humping" Assistant District Attorney Pat Dixon, watching Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson "burn", stating that you were "willing to die for Phil Spector", accusing Judge Kenneth Freeman of "corruption", accusing the Boulder PD (who frequently arrested you when you lived in Colorado) of being "corrupt", the LAPD of trying to "assassinate" you etc. etc. etc.

NONE of these bizarre and patently harassing emails (tens of thousands of them) could be fairly characterized as "cease and desist" letters.  

From: Helvetia Hornwaller <>
Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:44 AM


Your friend,
Simi The Seventeenth Shi-Tzu

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:44 AM
Subject: Additional email to the IRS - posted on your blog on September 10
Ms. Lynch,

The more you try to explain  away your harassing behaviors, malicious false complaints to law enforcement (including the IRS), death threats,  criminal convictions, civil harassment restraining orders against you, the $14MILLION embezzlement based judgment against you, and your tens of thousands of epithet and profanity laced mass emails to all manner of public officials and lawyers, the more your true nature as a crack-pot comes into focus.

Keep up the good work! (You continue to be your own worst enemy.)

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch's flurry of blog posted mass emails to the IRS/others of today
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Ms. Lynch,

You just don’t get it.

I sent a one sentence email to IRS counsel Fabian in July of 2015 asking if he could send me a copy of his motion to dismiss your tax court petition filed that same month. He demurred for technical reasons. We exchanged have a nice weekend’s. That was the totality of it.

In September of 2015, two months later, Kelley Lynch decided that any communications between me and your opposing counsel at the IRS must be an improper “ex-parte communication” and you filed a formal motion “to supplement the record” in your tax court case requesting an “investigation” into same and reiterating the same accusations false and scurrilous accusations that you have made against me in blog posted mass emails for five years. You then sent out your “motion” in mass emails and also posted it on your blog.

Up to that point as far as Mr. Fabian knew you were just another pro se tax court litigant who was trying to impermissibly stretch the tax court’s jurisdiction. I mentioned nothing about you in my email asking for a copy of the motion to dismiss, not even your name.

You then wrote yet another email to Mr. Fabian making even more false accusations against me.

At that point I gave Mr. Fabian the highlights of your illustrious 10-year pattern of electronic harassment and false accusations against others, your son’s email dated June 14, 2013 (opining that you are sick and need help and that I am “right on every level” and thanking me for my emails), your criminal conviction and remand for probation violations as well as your death threats emailed to prosecutors.

You then sent another email to Mr. Fabian claiming that your 20,000 emails to me were all “cease and desist” emails, so I send a second email to Mr. Fabian forwarding an email string to me sent by you earlier this year  liberally using the epithet “faggot” and “faggots” over and over, and linking your death threat email to Steve Cooley. Clearly, this was not a “cease and desist” email, not even close.

The point is that thanks YOU and your opening the door to this discussion – which will only hurt you with the tax court not help – now Mr. Fabian and his office KNOWS EVERYTHING about your history. Your embezzlement, the SWAT standoff at your home, your psychiatric hospitalizations, the $14MILLION  embezzlement judgment, the many civil harassment restraining orders against you, your ten-year pattern of false criminal complaints to the IRS, your criminal harassment conviction – EVERYTHING.


And the more you talk, and the more you try to explain all of this away, the less credible you sound.

From: Kelley Lynch [] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:54 PM
To:; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *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;
Subject: Re: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?

Stephen Gianelli,

Cease and desist, Criminal.  You're not a party to the Tax Court matter and I will bring this letter to the Court's attention.  I will also let Tax Court know that you belong in prison if the judge has been unable to figure out what so many others have.

The only thing of interest re. my PARODY EMAILS is the fact that Steven Machat's name was highlighted.  I suppose his views that Cohen's a thief who stole from him; uses corporations to evade taxes; falsely accuses his representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts; etc. didn't work with the DA's plans for Leonard Cohen.  Those plans evidently involved putting him on the stand to sabotage IRS; discredit me; and testify about some version (there are three or so before LA Superior Court) of the Spector gun story.  It's right up there with his stories about CIA's MKULTRA, Bay of Pigs, and Yom Kippur War.  

Is Cooley on your mind?  Then call him up and ask him to marry you and stop harassing me, my family, and friends while attempting to infiltrate various matters.  

Kelley Lynch

Gods, Gangsters & Honour by Steven Machat

Leonard was desperate to get rid of this two managers, Judy Berger and Mary Martin, who he believed had stolen the rights to his songs and records early on in his career.  Even back then, Cohen was convinced that women were ripping him off.  He signed an agreement, and when he wanted to get rid of the contract, he accused everyone of ripping him off.  You could say it became repeat behaviour.  My father duly got rid of Berger and Martin, set up a new company called Stranger Music for Cohen and agreed to manage Leonard for 15% as well as 15% of Stranger.  The idea of the company was twofold:  one, to maintain ownership of the copyrights duly created; and two, to minimise Leonard’s exposure to American tax, just like any other rich individual trying to minimise their tax liabilities.  

I’ve no problem with people trying to avoid tax, but as the years have passed, I couldn’t help but smile at the apparent contradiction between Leonard’s public persona and his private business arrangements.  This was a supposedly devout Buddhist with no interest in material possessions, who was all the same happy to put his trust in business managers and companies he created with his knowledge and consent whose sole aim was to minimise tax liability.  

Leonard then sold Stranger Music for a small fortune and I’ve seen nothing from Cohen.

Cohen controlled his copyright, not my father.  The irony was that Cohen had total control over my father …  Do you know what happened to the $400,000 worth of bearer bonds in my father’s office?  Bearer bonds are just unregistered bonds or paper money that are used to conceal ownership and, with it, tax liabilities.  Cristini told me (who knows if this is true?) that he had found the bonds in my father’s office hours after he had died but the next day they disappeared.

Cohen denied any knowledge of these bonds.  I was unsure if they existed or were part of my father’s schemes cooked up to conceal Leonard’s money.  

Cohen said:  “Steven, you remember the 1988 tour?  Flemming extorted $100,000 from me.  He wanted 20% managerial commission, in addition to his promoter’s fees.  He thought he was doing extra work for me and wanted me to pay him.”

Far from being the poet of the spirits, Leonard was a hustler using Buddhism as a facade.  

The next time I would see Leonard … We’d just seen The Hand That Rocks The Cradle where Rebecca De Mornay plays the psychopathic nanny who stalks this family.  Who should walk along but Cohen, who was holding hands with DeMornay, his girlfriend at the time.  Cohen was extremely uncomfortable because he knew he had stolen from me and it was clear he couldn’t get away quick enough.  Neither could my son, because he took one look at DeMornay and ran.  He was terrified because he thought she was the nanny in the film!

It was clear that Leonard was also wary of me because, I guess, he thought I might be planning to sue him.

The whole scheme was so ridiculous [Leonard Cohen’s attempts to limit his liabilities on the deals] from the start.  All Leonard had to do to avoid U.S. taxes was tear up his green card, and stop living in and using the U.S. as his base.  

It’s no secret that Leonard has also made a killing on the art market by selling his paintings, plus his touring of the last two years … If that’s true, it doesn’t really tally with the clear implication from Cohen that he is a man who has been robbed of everything.

Leonard told me before I left that he had actually offered Kelley a settlement …

It’s clear that Cohen and his lawyers want to heap the blame on Kelley’s shoulders for more than just revenge.  Because Cohen’s pension assets were cashed in … ahead of schedule they are liable to tax so they need to establish that this situation is her fault.  The penalties could actually be greater than the tax itself.  

Leonard has cast himself into a hell of his own making.  

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mr. Fabian,

This is the reason for Gianelli's original communication with you.  This is his M.O. and that's why he brought his communications to you to my attention.  This man is a criminal and working as a proxy.  I didn't threaten to execute Cooley but have evidently run into the mother lode of lying clowns and other dangerous psychopaths since reporting Leonard Cohen's criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  I believe Kory's memorandum confirming that they failed to report the income from the 2001 Sony sale is definitive evidence of a portion of the tax fraud and explains their motive.

I am not lacking credibility and this criminal wouldn't know credibility if he fell over it.  He has relentlessly targeted my sons and other people in my life.  His emails made my younger son physically ill and I think Rutger was clear when he told him to SHUT UP.  His declaration is even clearer.

Ask yourself this question, Mr. Fabian.  What lawyer would even exert this type of energy on a client?  You're a lawyer, right?  Well, that person doesn't exist.  This man is a criminal and he has motive.

If you would like to discuss anything with me as it relates to the Tax Court matter, please feel free to call me.  Otherwise, this conversation is over.  This man's M.O. is as transparent as the day is long.  I would like to point out that this criminal is not a party to this matter; was able to email me documents he downloaded from Tax Court; and his reasons for contacting you were an attempt to infiltrate and begin a dialogue about the matters he is now discussing.  I've seen it happen for years now.  Everyone I know thinks this man belongs in prison.

All the best,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
To: Fabian Paulmikell A <>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <>

Mr. Fabian,

Despite Ms. Lynch's claim that she has sent me 20,000 "cease and desist" emails over the last five years, the below email string is far more typical. ("Cooley" is former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley whom Ms. Lynch threatened to "execute" in a 2011 email string - see here:

Which of course explains why a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sentenced Ms. Lynch to 18-months in jail upon her April 2012 conviction for criminal harassment, why the court revoked her probation for additional email harassment in January of 2014 and remanded her to jail for an additional six months, and why numerous civil harassment restraining orders have been issued against her in favor of former landlords, her former assistant, and others.

Clearly, this woman is lacking in any semblance of credibility.

For the record I have never represented Leonard Cohen. Mr. Cohen is ably represented by the Los Angeles firm Kory Rice LLP. I speak only on my own behalf, as a victim of Ms. Lynch's electronic harassment.  

Very truly yours,

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

From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
To: Kelley Lynch <>

WRONG. I wrote in JULY to obtain a copy of the motion to dismiss. That's all there was to it. 

YOU are the one - two months later - trying to open "an investigation". 
And in trying to make a federal case out of this simple request for a document you have shot yourself in the foot. Again. 

On Thursday, September 10, 2015, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mr. Fabian,

This is the reason for Gianelli's original communication with you.  This is his M.O. and that's why he brought his communications to you to my attention.  This man is a criminal and working as a proxy.  I didn't threaten to execute Cooley but have evidently run into the mother lode of lying clowns and other dangerous psychopaths since reporting Leonard Cohen's criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  I believe Kory's memorandum confirming that they failed to report the income from the 2001 Sony sale is definitive evidence of a portion of the tax fraud and explains their motive.

I am not lacking credibility and this criminal wouldn't know credibility if he fell over it.  He has relentlessly targeted my sons and other people in my life.  His emails made my younger son physically ill and I think Rutger was clear when he told him to SHUT UP.  His declaration is even clearer.

Ask yourself this question, Mr. Fabian.  What lawyer would even exert this type of energy on a client?  You're a lawyer, right?  Well, that person doesn't exist.  This man is a criminal and he has motive.

If you would like to discuss anything with me as it relates to the Tax Court matter, please feel free to call me.  Otherwise, this conversation is over.  This man's M.O. is as transparent as the day is long.  I would like to point out that this criminal is not a party to this matter; was able to email me documents he downloaded from Tax Court; and his reasons for contacting you were an attempt to infiltrate and begin a dialogue about the matters he is now discussing.  I've seen it happen for years now.  Everyone I know thinks this man belongs in prison.

All the best,
 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: Is Cooley Coming After Me With A Parody Email?
To: Fabian Paulmikell A <>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <>

Mr. Fabian,

Despite Ms. Lynch's claim that she has sent me 20,000 "cease and desist" emails over the last five years, the below email string is far more typical. ("Cooley" is former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley whom Ms. Lynch threatened to "execute" in a 2011 email string - see here:

Which of course explains why a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sentenced Ms. Lynch to 18-months in jail upon her April 2012 conviction for criminal harassment, why the court revoked her probation for additional email harassment in January of 2014 and remanded her to jail for an additional six months, and why numerous civil harassment restraining orders have been issued against her in favor of former landlords, her former assistant, and others.

Clearly, this woman is lacking in any semblance of credibility.

For the record I have never represented Leonard Cohen. Mr. Cohen is ably represented by the Los Angeles firm Kory Rice LLP. I speak only on my own behalf, as a victim of Ms. Lynch's electronic harassment.

Very truly yours,
Stephen R. Gianell
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, the FSB ("russian intelligence") and others
Ms. Lynch,

What Mr. Fabian undoubtedly told you was that on July 30 I emailed him asking “Would it be possible  for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?” and he replied that, for technical reasons (the lack of an electronic copy, the inability to forward documents by email)  “Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case…”.

Aside from the subsequent exchange of “thank you’s” and “have a nice weekend’s” that was the entirety of the communication.

For you to try to spin this email string (copy attached) into something sinister or unethical is typical of the way you conduct yourself but disingenuous in the extreme. Nor is this communication properly characterized as a communication about the petition on file in the above matter.

What Mr. Fabian does not know is that you have a 10-year long history of making false and malicious reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct to the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI,  the United States Department of Justice and other local, state and federal agencies,  against everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but by no means limited to every one of your former employers who fired you (including Leonard Cohen), a half dozen federal and state court judges who have ruled against you in two different states, your opposing counsel in civil harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC338322 where a $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment was entered against you), and various prosecutors  two of whom you have also threatened to  either “kill” or “execute” – before and after your April 2012 Los Angeles County conviction for emailed death threats in violation of a restraining order registered in that county in 2011 and related 18-month jail sentence as well as your January 22, 2014 6-month remand for violating your probation by (among other things) emailing your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter to advise that she had made your “kill list”.

Additionally, Ms. Lynch, you have transmitted to me in excess of 20,000 emails since April of 2009 (when it became necessary to ban you as a commenter on my legal blog) – many of which emails contain both vile expletives and epithets directed at me and others as well as malicious and false accusations of criminality (e.g., you accused me of being a “child molester”, obstructing justice, witness tampering, subornation of perjury and more ) – all cc’d to hundreds of law enforcers and the media and then published on your various blogs.

You have also tried to inject your malicious, false claims against me into each of the many criminal and civil legal proceedings that you have been involved in since 2013, including unsuccessful civil “motions” and even as an unsuccessful defense to the January 22, 2014 revocation of your probation and remand following an evidentiary hearing wherein you called witnesses to the stand (including Paulette Brandt). Therefore, your most recent tax court filing (which you also republished in mass emails and on your blog) is a part of a pattern.

Your adult son Rutger Penick who witnessed your mental breakdown after you were caught embezzling millions from your then employer in 2004, were involved in a 4-hour stand-off with LAPD SWAT (resulting in your first of many involuntary psychiatric commitments), and later spiraled into homelessness and a lifestyle devoted to electronic revenge and harassment said it best in an email to me written on June 14, 2013:


Mr. Fabian is probably also unaware of your unique custom of signing third parties’ names to their “declarations” that are then court-filed by you as you were caught doing in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC338322 earlier this year in support of your second attempt to obtain an order vacating the $14MILLION default judgment against you entered in May of 2006.

In addition, Ms. Lynch, by claiming that your opposing counsel engaged in an improper communication regarding taxpayer information and /or your pending petition, you are indeed “accusing Mr. Fabian of misconduct” since it takes at least two to engage in an (allegedly) improper communication.

Finally, perhaps you wish to explain to Mr. Fabian why you are copying your email communications to him not only to me, but to the FSB (the security service for the Russian Federation, formerly the KGB), the NSA and other persons and agencies who appear to have nothing to do with your pending tax court petition. Because on its face, these cc’s do not enhance your credibility.

Very Truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
To:, STEPHEN GIANELLI <>, "*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 <>,, Michelle Rice <>

Mr. Fabian,

It was nice speaking with you this afternoon.  Thank you for clarifying that Stephen Gianelli contacted you by email with respect to the Tax Court matter and Petition I filed with respect to fraud upon the Tax Court.  This individual has criminally harassed me, my sons and sister, Paulette Brandt, and others since hearing from Leonard Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.  There have been no false allegations about this issue.  I have reported this conduct to IRS, FBI, and DOJ together with evidence.  My sons have also addressed the ongoing harassment in their declarations that have now been submitted to Tax Court.  I want you to be clear that Gianelli does not represent me and is not a party to this matter.  I was the Tax Matters partner on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal tax returns Cohen filed for Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Robert Kory's memorandum to my lawyers clearly states that the income from the Sony deal was not reported to IRS.  There is no delta of $5 million as Cohen's personal expenses and loans are not corporate expenses.  As of 2002, the Sony deal closed and the assets were owned by BMT.  Cohen and his lawyers are now attempting to conceal the corporate evidence submitted to LA Superior Court.  These matters are under appeal.  I would like you to understand that Stephen Gianelli's M.O. involves infiltrating or attempting to infiltrate.  His conduct is extreme and disturbing.  I have no idea who this man is and he targeted my younger son as a minor.  He could be, for all I know, a sexual predator.  He functions as a proxy of Leonard Cohen's and whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists that is factual.  He harasses me with legal opinions, legal research, etc.

I have asked the Tax Court to investigate these communications because there are serious issues related to retaliation with respect to my April 15, 2005 report to IRS that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud.  My lawyers advised me that Cohen/TH failed to report the income in 2001; extinguished the promissory note in 2002; and extinguished the annuity itself in 2003.  Cohen's Complaint confirms that they also failed to file state tax returns.  I have spoken to the State of Kentucky about this matter.  

Paulette Brandt has asked me to inform you that Stephen Gianelli has worked under the direction of the City Attorney's office who instructed him to continue harassing me by emails.  The City Attorney's office advised the jurors that I am in possession of 1099s and K-1s from Cohen/corporations for 2004 and 2005.  I am not and have also asked Cohen to rescind the K-1s LCI transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005 showing $0 income.  Paulette Brandt has received harassing emails from this individual, Gianelli, for several years now.  She has been threatened in writing and she is a witness who has submitted declarations to LA Superior Court.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fabian Paulmikell A <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:53 +0300
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

No problem, the name confusion is pretty common.  Thanks, you too.

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Fair enough.

Sorry about the first/last name confusion.

Have a good Friday.

From: Fabian Paulmikell A [] 
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Good morning Mr. Gianelli,

Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case for a couple of reasons.  Our office is unable to forward attachments by e-mail outside of our organization for security reasons.  Also, Ms. Lynch is currently representing herself in this case.  Because she is pro se, any documents filed by my office would have been served on her by mail at her address of record, or electronically if she elected electronic service.


Paulmikell Fabian
IRS Office of Chief Counsel, SB/SE
300 N. Los Angeles St., Ste. 3018
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:27 PM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Dear Mr. Paulmikell,

Would it be possible  for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?

Thank you,

Stephen R. Gianelli SBN-83476

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:56 AM
Subject: Docket No. 17085-15 - ORDER Re: pening motion to dismiss
Section 7623 (Order, ¶) refers to the determination by the IRS of a whistleblower claim.

The court wants to know whether the IRS previously served you with a notice of determination of your claim to ascertain if there is anything to appeal at this time and if so whether you filed within 30 days of the date of mailing of the notice of determination as required for jurisdiction.

Therefore, your petition, in part at least, purports to appeal the purported denial of a whistleblower claim relating to Leonard Cohen.

Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:07 AM
Subject: FYI- Docket No.: 017085-15; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS
Part 35. Tax Court Litigation
Chapter 3. Motions
Section 2. Jurisdictional Defects

35.3.2  Jurisdictional Defects  (09-21-2012)
Tax Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction

1.     The Tax Court is a statutory court of limited jurisdiction, and strict compliance with all essential jurisdictional elements is necessary before the court is empowered to enter a legal decision in the case. Generally speaking, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine income, gift and estate tax liability, transferee liability with respect to these taxes, certain excise taxes, declaratory judgments under sections 6110, 7428, 7476, 7477, and 7478; and certain other causes of action such as interest abatement, relief from joint and several liability, and collection due process proceedings. With minor exceptions, the jurisdiction of the court with respect to taxes extends only to those years and taxes in which a deficiency or liability was determined in the statutory notice of deficiency or liability and raised in a timely petition to the Tax Court. Jurisdictional questions may be raised by the court upon its own motion or by either party at any stage of the proceeding. Normally, all questions concerning jurisdiction should be resolved prior to the filing of the answer.

2.     A jurisdictional motion is required where the petition attempts to take an appeal from something other than a statutory notice or other valid determination letter permitting Tax Court review; the petition is not filed within the statutory period; the petition attempts to take an appeal with respect to a year or a tax as to which no deficiency (or transferee liability) is determined; the petition is brought by an improper party or a nonexistent party; or, the petition is filed for redetermination of a deficiency or liability which has been paid before the mailing of the statutory notice. Special care should be taken to insure that a corporation, trust, or estate is still in existence and competent to sue. The foregoing jurisdictional items are not all inclusive, and the Field attorney should research the statutory and case law with respect to any case in which there is doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court.

3.     A jurisdictional defect should be raised in a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as soon as the jurisdictional defect is discovered and any evidence needed to support such a motion is acquired. Field attorneys should avoid waiting to raise such defects in the answer, stipulation or motion under T.C. Rule 122 in order to ensure a prompt resolution of the case and to avoid unnecessary work for the Tax Court.

4.     There is no jurisdictional defect in a petition when a petitioner seeks a determination of a section 6651(a)(2) (failure to pay) addition to tax when the Tax Court already has jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency of the tax for the period upon which the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax is based. See Estate of Hinz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-6; Estate of Nemerov v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-186. Motions to dismiss this claim on jurisdictional grounds should not be filed.
5.     See CCDM 35.3.8, Motions in Declaratory Judgment Cases and Section 7436 Worker Classification Cases, for guidance concerning motions in these types of cases.  (09-21-2012)

Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

1.     If the document filed with the court as a petition is not properly within its jurisdiction, such as in instances in which a petition was not timely filed, the response should be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Exhibits 35.11.1-34 through 35.11.1-40. When the petition is late, the Field attorney assigned the case should immediately obtain proof of mailing (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877, Firm Mailing Book For Accountable Mail, or equivalent with legible United States postmark or an appropriate affidavit) from the office that issued the notice and attach the same to the jurisdictional motion. The motion should be filed with the court, if possible, before the answer due date.

2.     Any motion based upon a jurisdictional defect must be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and not a motion merely to strike the petition, in whole or in part. Likewise, a jurisdictional defect concerning a party must be raised in a jurisdictional motion, not merely a motion to change caption. The jurisdictional defect may extend to the entire case, or it may extend only to some taxes or some years or some persons which the petition attempts to bring before the Tax Court. Since the Tax Court must in its final order or decision cover all taxes for all years placed in controversy, and since the court may not enter a decision or final order with respect to any year, tax or person over which it does not legally acquire jurisdiction, a motion should be made to eliminate from the case all parts thereof over which the court does not acquire jurisdiction at the earliest time in which the jurisdictional defect appears in the case. When a jurisdictional motion is not intended to resolve the entire case, it is generally combined with an additional request such as a caption change or striking of certain allegations, signifying that the motion will result in only a partial disposition. Such a motion may be titled Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Change Caption or Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2003 and to Strike.

3.     In dismissing a case, in whole or in part, for lack of jurisdiction the court does not determine any tax or transferee liability. Thus, such motions should be filed regardless of whether the respondent has a statutory burden of proof as to the year, tax or person over which the petition attempts to place in controversy but over which the court lacks jurisdiction.

4.     The petitioner has the burden of alleging and proving, when questioned, that the court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy in the petition. At the same time, the moving party has the burden to establish a prima facie case for the relief requested in the motion. Thus, jurisdictional motions must be based upon facts and not upon failure to allege in the petition a jurisdictional fact known to the respondent. If the court has jurisdiction over all items or persons placed in controversy, and if such fact is known to the respondent although not alleged in the petition, the essential jurisdictional facts should be alleged in the answer so that jurisdiction will appear on the record. Thus, in the latter instances a jurisdictional motion would not be filed, but the missing jurisdictional elements in the pleadings would be cured by allegations in respondent’s answer. In the case of a timely, yet imperfect petition that the court has served on respondent without ordering it perfected, necessary jurisdictional facts such as the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of the petition may be made in a motion for more definite statement with respect to the imperfect petition.  (09-21-2012)

Timeliness of Petition

1.     In every case a computation must be made to determine the number of days between the mailing of the statutory notice of deficiency and the filing of the petition. The mailing date of the statutory notice is always the date certified or registered mail was sent to petitioner’s last-known address. The envelope in which the petition is mailed to the court bearing a postmark or postmeter mark after the prescribed date is conclusive as to the date of mailing, for purposes of section 7502, precluding the consideration of conflicting evidence as to date of mailing. Thus, in every such case, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be filed. Section 3463(a) of RRA 98 provides that the Service shall include on each notice of deficiency the date determined by the Secretary as the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court. Even if the date listed on the notice of deficiency for the last day to file is incorrect and allows more than the statutory 90 or 150 day period to timely file a petition, a petition mailed to the Tax Court on or before the date listed on the notice will nevertheless be deemed timely. If the notice of deficiency fails to list the last day on which the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court and the petition is otherwise untimely, the Field attorney should contact the office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) concerning how to proceed with the case.

2.     Section 7502(f) treats any private delivery service designated by the Service (Designated Delivery Service) as if it were the United States Postal Service for purposes of the timely mailing as timely filing provisions of section 7502. See Rev. Proc. 97–17, Notice 97–26 and Notice 2001–62.

3.     If a petition is untimely and the address on the petition differs from the address on the statutory notice of deficiency, a computer check should be made of the petitioner’s last known address and the Field attorney should attempt to obtain the petitioner’s most recently filed return as of the date that the notice of deficiency was issued. Ordinarily a jurisdictional motion should be filed if the petition is not filed within the 90–day period or the 150–day period. See Exhibits 35.11.1-41 and 35.11.1-42 for tables to compute 90- and 150- day periods. Common sense must be used in close cases. For example, if the petition was mailed from San Francisco, the postmark date is illegible, and it is filed with the Court one day late, common sense dictates that it was mailed timely. Any questionable calls should be brought to the attention of Procedure and Administration. Bear in mind that the filing due date of the petition may vary in some circumstances. The 90-day or 150-day period is extended if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or any legal holiday in the District of Columbia, see section 7503; and the time is suspended in some cases falling within section 7508. The petition served upon the respondent should normally bear the notation of the court as to the postmark date shown on the envelope in which the petition was mailed to the court, the lack of a postmark, private delivery service information, or the illegibility of the postmark or delivery service received date. If a postmark is made other than by a United States Post Office, e.g., by a private postal meter registered with the United States Postal Service, and the petition is received by the Tax Court within the time a letter ordinarily would have been received had it been mailed on the last day of the statutory period, no jurisdictional motion should be filed.

4.     When the envelope in which the petition was mailed bears a private postmeter mark, section 7502 applies. Under the implementing regulation, Treas. Reg. § 301.7502–1(c)(1)(iii)(b), if the postmeter date is within the 90–day period and the petition was received no later than the ordinary delivery time for mail postmarked at the same place of origin by the United States Postal Service on the last day of the statutory period, the petition will be considered timely filed. If the petition is received later than the ordinary delivery time for documents so mailed and postmarked by the United States Postal Service, it will be considered timely only if petitioner can prove three things: first, that the petition was actually deposited in the mail before the last pickup from the mailbox on the 90th day; second, that the delay in receiving the petition was due to a delay in the transmission of the mail, and third, the cause of the delay. The jurisdictional issue should not be raised if the petitioner can demonstrate informally that the petition was timely mailed. See Exhibit 35.11.1-43, Letter to Petitioner Regarding Late Filed Petition. If a motion to dismiss is filed based on the receipt of the petition beyond the ordinary mailing time, and the petitioner’s response is fairly specific that the petition was mailed on or before the 90th day, the motion may be withdrawn or conceded. The petitioner has the burden of proof, but the Tax Court will not lightly dismiss a petition and thereby deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to litigate the deficiency in the Tax Court. The controlling regulation suggests that a petitioner can avoid the risk of an untimely filed petition by using certified or registered mail. As to registered mail, the date of registration is treated as the postmark date; as to certified mail, the mailer can obtain a postmarked receipt which is evidence of timely mailing and hence timely filing.

5.     Every motion filed to dismiss upon the basis that the petition was not timely filed must make out a prima facie case on the untimeliness of the petition. The date the statutory notice of deficiency was mailed must be alleged in the motion. In addition, the filing date of the petition and facts which show that the case does not come within any of the statutory exceptions to the 90–day or 150–day period must be alleged. See Exhibit 35.11.1-34, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition — Late U.S. Postmark. The motion should have attached a photocopy of the executed Application For Registration or Certification (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalent) from the United States Post Office. This form sets forth the name and address of the sender of the documents, whether sent by registered or certified mail, the article number, the name and address of the addressee, the type of document mailed, the signature of the employee of the Postal Service receiving the document, and the post office stamp showing the date of the mailing and the post office in which mailed. This application is sometimes referred to as the "mailing list" of statutory notices. On occasion the Tax Court has, on its own, raised a question as to the sufficiency of the mailing list in proving the mailing date of the statutory notice when the mailing list did not set forth the type of document mailed. In some instances, in the absence of a description of the document on the mailing list, it may be necessary to obtain from the person in the office of the Area Director, Service Center, or Appeals, as applicable, who mailed the document an affidavit that the document set forth on the mailing list is in fact the statutory notice upon which the petition to the Tax Court is based. The names and addresses of other taxpayers on the mailing list must be redacted or blocked out to comply with disclosure restrictions. Only the United States postmark and the lines applicable to the petitioner should be exposed when making copies. If the United States postmark is placed on a typewritten or handwritten portion of the list, the postmark must remain readable and any words underneath cannot be eradicated. The minor information that might appear beneath the postmark will be insufficient to disclose anything subject to disclosure or Privacy Act restrictions.

6.     If the U.S. postmark on the copy of the mailing list (submitted to the court as an attachment to the original of the motion) is not legible, or if there is no United States postmark on the list, it will be necessary to secure and attach to the motion an affidavit or declaration attesting to the date of mailing of the notice by the person who prepared the mailing list, or that person’s reviewer, or other custodian of the Service’s records of mailing. Where the mailing list or certified mail receipt (U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalent) is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unavailable, the Tax Court has held that the testimony of the 90-day clerk relative to the procedure for mailing the deficiency notice, while admissible, is not alone sufficient to prove that the notice was mailed. On the other hand, the presumption of official regularity and absence of direct evidence contradicting the government’s evidence of mailing was held sufficient by a district court. Any questions concerning this area may be directed to Procedure and Administration.

7.     If the postmark date on the envelope containing the petition is illegible, or if there is no postmark, and there is a substantial question of fact as to whether the petition was timely mailed, a jurisdictional motion may be filed requiring the petitioner to sustain his or her burden as to the timely mailing of the petition. Such a motion is not required if the petitioner’s position is documented as to the circumstances surrounding the mailing and such evidence is a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances. See Exhibit 35.11.1-36, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: Untimely Petition — Illegible Postmark/ Postmeter.

8.     A question occasionally arises as to whether the petitioner is entitled to 90- or 150-days after the mailing of the statutory notice within which to file a petition with the Tax Court. The taxpayer may claim to have been a nonresident or out of the country at the time of the issuance of the notice and, therefore, entitled to 150 days. In instances of this type, the Field attorney should research the statutory and case law before filing a jurisdictional motion, since there is not always a bright line test to determine the applicability of the 150-day rule.

9.     In the event further litigation over a jurisdictional issue becomes necessary, the Field attorney will need to present direct testimony or prepare several affidavits in support of the Service’s position. At a minimum, the Field attorney should have an affidavit from the preparer of the notice of deficiency or another knowledgeable person about the issuance of the particular notice. As needed, depending on the complexity of the particular factual situation, direct testimony or an affidavit from the Service Center Witness Coordinator should explain the particular processing of address information. Additionally, if a taxpayer questions the efficacy of the Postal Service’s proper handling of the notice of deficiency, direct testimony or an affidavit from a postal representative may be needed.

10.                       Cases challenging the processing periods contained in Rev. Proc. 2001–18, 2001–08 I.R.B. 708, should be defended utilizing the existing case law, which generally gives the Service a reasonable processing time to input change of address information. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised in the development of cases questioning the efficacy of the Service’s processing of tax returns. Whenever possible, direct testimony or an affidavit from a knowledgeable Service Center employee should be utilized so that the courts are aware of the lengths the Service must go to in processing the millions of returns received each year. Inasmuch as the Service may now update a taxpayer’s address based on a change of address request filed with the Postal Service, the Service’s procedures for updating addresses based on return information should rarely be at issue in cases before the court.  (08-11-2004)

Absence of Valid Statutory Notice

1.     Petitions to the Tax Court may be predicated only upon the issuance of a valid statutory notice of deficiency or liability.

2.     The Tax Court does not acquire jurisdiction upon the issuance of a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notices with respect to the taxpayer’s tax liability. If the petition is based upon the issuance of a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notice, a jurisdictional motion should be filed. In this instance, the motion should make out a prima facie case that the petition is based upon a 30-day letter, notice of rejection of a claim for refund, or other similar notice. A search must be conducted by the Field attorney, including a computer search, to verify that a notice of deficiency or other determination letter that would confer jurisdiction on the Tax Court has not been issued to the taxpayer. The fact and results of such a search should be reported to the court in the motion by stating that the Service has not issued any other determination letter that may form the basis of a petition to the court.  (09-21-2012)

Jurisdiction Over Party Petitioners

1.     The court must have jurisdiction over the party or parties who are filing the petition from the statutory notice. If one or all of the listed parties are not the party or parties to whom the statutory notice was issued, a jurisdictional motion should be filed unless it is clear from the petition that the "substitute party" has legal authority to file a petition for or on behalf of the party to whom the statutory notice was issued. See Exhibit 35.11.1-37, Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: No Statutory Notice. In that event, a motion to correct caption may be required.

2.     In the research of the statutory and case law, it may be necessary not only to examine federal statutes but also state statutes and federal and state court decisions on the legal authority of the purported petitioner to prosecute an action in the Tax Court. Most frequently this question arises in statutory notices issued to dissolved corporations, merged corporations, discharged executors, sham trusts, etc. The question also arises under state or foreign law as to the authority of former officers and stockholders of dissolved corporations or discharged executors to bring the action in the Tax Court. Questions may also arise under state or foreign law with respect to statutory notices to unincorporated associations; in cases in which the notice was issued jointly and severally to a husband and wife and the petition is executed only by one of the parties even though the name of the other party is set forth in the caption and body of the petition; or in cases in which the statutory notice is issued to two or more persons and the petition is executed by only one of such persons and the term petitioner is used rather than petitioners in the caption and body of the petition. In these instances, the entire petition must be examined to determine whether the petition is intended to include all parties to whom the statutory notice was issued. For petitions based upon a statutory notice issued to two or more persons, it is important that it be determined if all of such persons are in fact proper party petitioners so that immediate assessment may be made against any person who did not in fact petition from the statutory notice. If the petitioning spouse, who intends to file a joint petition, fails to clarify his or her intention by filing an amended petition promptly, then a motion to dismiss the nonpetitioning spouse should be filed. Prior to filing such a motion to dismiss, consideration should be given to informally contacting the petitioner to see if the omission was inadvertent.

3.     If petitioner’s counsel executes and timely files a petition on behalf of the petitioner, but at the time of filing was not admitted to practice before the Tax Court, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that suit was instituted by a third party should only be filed if there is a question that the attorney is acting on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioner’s counsel should be notified in writing that he or she must take the steps necessary, under T.C. Rule 200, to be admitted to practice before the court and file an entry of appearance after becoming admitted. Otherwise, he or she cannot be recognized by the court or respondent as petitioner’s counsel of record and a motion may then be required to cure the pending jurisdictional defect.

4.     As to whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction over a petitioner-corporation to which a deficiency notice was issued as a possessor of cash, see CCDM, Possessor of Cash.

Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch email dated Saturday, July 25, 2015 6:55 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Not to worry! The IRS Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and I are getting along fine!

Thank you for asking! Good luck with the pending motion to dismiss!

Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:52 AM
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15 

Docket Inquiry - Index
Docket No.:
Kelley Ann Lynch


Exactly the response I predicted.

And it will be granted.

Date: Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Subject: Blog posted email dated Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:20 PM
Ms. Lynch,

Everything that you chose to try in the court of public opinion through mass emails and blog posts is fair game for the public to debate/discuss/disagree with. The “public” includes me.

That includes your “tax court petition” that YOU announced on your blog.

I am well aware that your pending tax court filing does not attempt to relitigate your motions to vacate the $7M judgment against you denied on January 17, 2014 and June 23, 2015. Your prior emails dated April 5 and 29, 2010, threatening to file a “tax court case” (and I have more) were cited solely to prove the falsity of your email and blog-posted statement on July 9, 2015 categorically stating: “I have most certainly not stated for years that I was filing a Petition with Tax Court.”

Rather, your pending tax court petition attempts to overturn the determination by the IRS that Leonard Cohen does not owe you any forms 1099  for 2004 or other tax years – in other words, that your entire stated rationale for harassing Cohen and his lawyers for a decade is nonsense.

As I said, as with your other legal proceedings that  you have announced and attempted to sway public opinion about through mass emails and/or weblog posts, I will be here to correct any false statements by you and to comment when you (predictably) lose those proceedings (as you have lost all civil and criminal proceedings in the past).

As stated by your guest blog poster and rare supporter Ann Diamond “…reiterating the obvious: that [Lynch] will lose every time in court…”.

Apparently, you are the only one refuses to acknowledge what (in Diamond’s words) “everyone else on the planet over the age of 10” knows will be the “inevitable outcome”. (Diamond email, 6/27/2015 1:23 PM Athens time.)

As I have said in the past, I am always glad when a Kelley Lynch matter is (finally) submitted to a court for an up or down vote, because there is always a clear-cut winner and a loser.

Very truly yours,

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

Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:43 PM - republished on Lynch's public blog
Ms. Lynch,

If in fact your tax court petition was in response to a “determination” by the IRS as you now assert (you are simply being coy about “what” determination – see yellow highlighted, below) there is only one “determination” this could be.

After your release from jail in 2014 you wrote to Jeff Korn, copy to me, advising that there was no need for you to continue to write Cohen requesting a 1099 for 2004 because you had filed a form with the IRS requesting it to demand the 1099s directly from Cohen.

Apparently, the IRS has now formally agreed with Cohen  that you are NOT entitled to any additional 1099s.

No wonder you don’t want to disclose the IRS determination that went against you.

It means your excuses for harassing Cohen all of these years were groundless. As the IRS has directly ruled, you are NOT entitled to 1099s from Cohen.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli

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,

Date: Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:47 AM
Ms. Lynch,

I have surveyed a decided motions to dismiss tax court petitions for lack of jurisdiction filed on or after 2011 (the period covered by the motions search feature on the tax court website).

If you failed to attach either a notice of deficiency OR a notice of determination to your petition and your tax court petition was NOT mailed to the tax court for filing WITHIN 90-days of the date the notice of deficiency and/or determination was mailed to you, you can expect a motion to dismiss by the IRS for lack of jurisdiction, and it will be granted.

Attached is a representative order dismissing a tax court  petition for filing it 2-DAYS late. (See yellow highlighting.)

Since you have been taking about filing a tax court case for YEARS now, I am skeptical that you filed your pending petition in response to a notice of deficiency and/or determination – let alone within 90-days of its date of mailing. But we shall see in the coming months. (Docket entries, orders, and opinions of the tax court are public record, and you have already discussed this tax court petition, filed July 6, 2015, on your blog.

Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Subject: No tax court case - despite a claimed filing in several months ago...No motion to vacate protective order...No RICO suit either...

United States Tax Court, 400 Second Street, NW, Washington, DC 20217 Telephone: 202-521-0700
You are here » Home » Docket Inquiry
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Go to » Docket Inquiry Home, Docket Number, Individual Party Name, Corporate Name Keyword

Docket Inquiry - Individual Party Name Search

Last Name:
First Name:
Year Filed:
From To


No Results.


Subject: Fwd: Emails to Kelly Lynch
To: Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan <>
CC: Kelley Lynch <>,
Ms. Swanigan,

Here is an email wherein you recently expressly REQUESTED ME TO SEND several emails to Kelley Lynch clarifying that I have never met or communicated with Sandra Jo Streeter and am not in cahoots with her - which I subsequently did as requested, copy to you.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vivienne Swanigan <>
Date: Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Emails to Kelly Lynch
Since you are still intent on "poking the lion", could you please send emails (several) to Kelly Lynch stating that you are not connected to Sandra Streeter, have never met her, and you are not involved with a conspiracy with her?  Because, unfortunately, your poking at Lynch and defending our prosecutor is making her focus more and more on Ms. Streeter and a delusional belief that Streeter and you are cohorts in a conspiracy against her.  

Also, could you please not give Lynch any further information about what we are doing/planning?  My intent in emailing you about the hearing was just to let you know what happened as a courtesy, not to give you more ammunition to throw at Lynch. I do not like the fact that I have unwittinglin fueled the fires of Kelly Lynch's imaginary Gianelli-Streeter conspiracy by giving you information about what happened at the hearging.  - Vivienne

*****************Confidentiality Notice *************************
This electronic message transmission contains information
from the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney, which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Subject: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
Your decade long habit of falsely accusing others (including lawyers with unblemished reputations, including the opposing counsel in your tax court case)  whom you happen to not like of serious  misconduct in every forum in which you appear without ANY admissible, supporting evidence does not aid your credibility or cause.

From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:14 AM
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Wrong again!

I didn't say that I had no discussions with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel. I said those discussions were not about taxpayer information OR your pending tax court petition. 

Nor did I say that the discussions were extensive. 

They were nevertheless sufficient to form an impression about the courtesy and collegiality of opposing counsel in your matter.  

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 2:29 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch blogposted email dated Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Ms. Lynch,

There you go (again) confusing speculation and malicious wishful thinking with fact.

I never said that I “discussed” your tax court petition with the IRS. Nor did I ever have any such discussion.

You wrote to me that the IRS was “reading about” me on your blog, and cut and pasted the activity log on your blog showing that someone using an IRS IP address was on your blog. You implied that I was in trouble or should be worried.

I replied “not to worry” and that “I get along with the office Chief Trial counsel just fine” and that the lawyer representing the IRS in opposition to your tax court petition was a “nice guy” – all of which is true, not of which states that any taxpayer information was discussed at any time.

This is not “rotten logic” it is fact – as is your 10-year pattern of making unfounded, serious accusations of misconduct against people you bear grudges against without any facts to support those accusations.

In addition, tax court proceedings are public record. When the tax court grants the pending motion to dismiss or otherwise issues a decision or other order disposing of the case, that decision will be available to any member of the public, including me, on the tax court website.

Very truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:53 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" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,


I'm not convinced about the proxy ambulance chaser (Gianelli) and his argument re. ex parte communications.  First of all, I can assure IRS that Gianelli does not have a power of attorney from me to speak to IRS about any tax matter that involves me whatsoever.  This man is a criminal.  If I wasn't afforded the opportunity to participate in any communication this criminal had with IRS about my Petition, that would be a serious problem.  This man appears to be an agent provocateur/infiltrator.  Isn't that why he hunted down Agent Sopko's partner or husband at DOJ?  I didn't ask the Court to decide my Petition based on Gianelli's self-proclaimed communications with the gentleman handling the Tax Court Petition at the Chief Trial Counsel's office.  I asked the Court to investigate that matter.  I think that will protect the communications.  I also view this as blatant retaliation.


January 16, 2010

September 21, 2009

Hand delivered (by Investigator William Frayeh) to DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do

Alan Jackson
District Attorney’s Office
County of Los Angeles
210 Temple Street
Suite 18000
Los Angeles, California 90012-3210

Re:   Kelley Lynch vs. the District Attorney of Los Angeles, et al.

Alan Jackson:

I am in receipt of your email dated September 9, 2009 demanding that I remove you from my “recipients list.” My emails, as I have repeatedly stated, document the destruction of my life, the destruction of my children and parent’s lives, the targeting of my family, etc., due solely to the fact that I was told Leonard Norman Cohen committed criminal tax fraud and reported that to the IRS and others.

I can assure you that all matters involving Cohen and myself are IRS matters and there is no need to “convert” anything into a tax matter. I would not be in an adversarial position with Cohen had I not reported his tax fraud and, instead, accepted 50% community property or whatever “bribes” I was being offered – presumably to lie and say Cohen was defrauded by his advisers.  He does address his “massive tax hit” in the interview he gave Brian Johnson for MacLean’s Magazine in Canada.

I am absolutely convinced that Cohen’s tax fraud relates to the Phil Spector murder trial. I refused to cave into extremely vicious coercive tactics – such as Ray Charles Lindsey’s custody matter that was coordinated with the SWAT incident of May 25, 2005 and my being dragged to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector.  I mailed Detective Silva documents  including relevant portions of the Killer King file.  That file relates to Kelly Annette Lynch.  Nearly every detail in the file is falsified – excluding my street address and Steven Clark Lindsey’s cell phone number.  The conversation “Erma Oppenhein” alleged had with my son, as recounted in her report, is a lie.  I have repeatedly attempted to determine why I was taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector – by LAPD.  This seems to upset your office.  It clearly upsets Marko who has threatened me and instructed me to tell the FBI in Denver “Merry Christmas.”  It is extremely coincidental that Marko posted on on Christmas Day.  I do not know if this is Steve Cooley’s investigator Marko but intend to find out.

marko says:

Leonard  Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted a Declaration filed in my minor son’s alleged custody matter but he does not know my son. He did, however, note that he and Cohen did not want to be “identified” as the individuals encouraging Steven Clark Lindsey to take Ray away from me.  My minor son accompanied me to Kory’s office sometime in the spring of 2005.  I documented the conversation my minor son witnessed for Boies Schiller and others at the time.  Kory and I discussed the allegations raised that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, used me as an unwitting pawn, and exposed me to that tax fraud.  We also discussed the missing State of Kentucky tax returns, my intellectual property that has been stolen – by Cohen, and their threats.  Kory apparently did not like the fact that I stopped by “unannounced” after our luncheon where he advised me that he and Cohen were going after every one of Cohen’s advisers, confirmed that there was tax fraud on every entity, confirmed that the holding periods relating to certain assignments were illegal, told me I had a cause of action against every one of Cohen’s advisers, mentioned the mediations I thought were illegal and an attempt to cover up tax fraud, and told the waitress that he and I were there to discuss a divorce and taxes.  This is the meeting Boies Schiller suggested flying in for.  They also suggested that I have Investigator Brian Bennett of your office wire me for that luncheon.  Why?  Because they felt I was being asked to participate in illegal activity and assured me that recording the encounter was not illegal in that context.  I would like to note, at this point, that my lawyers felt Brian Bennett actually rolled by my house “unannounced” about Cohen’s tax fraud.  I found that inconceivably bizarre given the fact that Brian Bennett told me the District Attorney received an anonymous call from a woman about my friendship with Phil Spector.  He took a letter Phil Spector faxed me after the Lana Clarkson incident and is well aware of the date of that letter and the fact that Mr. Spector invited me to the Alhambra castle.  I have asked that this letter be returned and have been threatened over that request – by your office.  I have, of course, brought these threats to the attention of the FBI.

 I am absolutely convinced that I was taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector in an attempt to prevent me from testifying against Cohen in any IRS matter - whether it is currently “pending” or not or an attempt to undermine my credibility as a witness.  Many parties were well aware of my conversation with Agent Betzer/IRS on April 15, 2005.  It seemed to concern Norman Posel of Boies Schiller who later wrote me that Cohen and/or Kory were going to destroy me and/or my children.  I mailed that email from Boies Schiller to the Denver FBI with other evidence of matters I believe crossed state borders and related to the accusations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud.  I do not know how would anyone, other than the IRS, would know what is or or is not a pending matter? The IRS seems to have a policy that does not include revealing pending matters.  The IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Agent Sopko of the U.S. Treasury Department are copied in on my public emails.  These emails document the destruction of my life since reporting the allegations regarding Cohen to the IRS and others.  I am not convinced the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or the Treasury Department are engaged in a major prank and feel it would be prudent to assume that there may very well be serious issues at hand. I discussed this with Investigator William Frayeh of your office.  He didn’t seem to think these federal agencies were engaged in a prank either.  As you should know, I also reported the allegations relating to Cohen to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit.  I spoke to Jeff Jonas in that office about my Complaint.  I was then threatened by Brian Bennett.  I view a threat to “report” me in connection with a Complaint filed with your Major Fraud Unit as a very serious matter.  In fact, I view it as witness tampering.

I intend to litigate these issues once I receive the Opinion Letters I have requested from the IRS and State of Kentucky with respect to the entities related to Cohen and my “instant legal matters.”  I am also waiting to hear the results of an investigation into the SWAT incident, the Killer King incident, and so forth.  Once I have this information I intend to file lawsuits addressing everything my children, family and I have been dealing with since approximately 2004.  At  the very heart of my lawsuit will be the fact that my life was destroyed due to the fact that I am a friend of Phil Spector’s, was dragged into his murder trial, told by Investigator John Thompson of your office that I was probably a witness in Phil Spector’s murder trial, and had the audacity to report Cohen’s tax fraud  to the IRS and State of Kentucky.  It is my opinion that the District Attorney office needs to keep Leonard Norman Cohen credible.  He does, after all, appear in your Motion in Limine and Mick Brown/UK Telegraph wrote me that he was in possession of the grand jury transcripts and advised me that Cohen testified against Phil Spector in his grand jury.  Cohen personally told me and Steve Cron, and then confirmed this for me after his interview with the detectives I met, that his comments about Phil Spector over the years were good rock ‘n roll stories.  Here’s one example of Cohen’s rock ‘n roll stories about Phil Spector.  Was Leonard Cohen actually biting into a revolver in a hamburger and can he prove that Phil Spector put that revolver in his hamburger and forced him to bite into it?  That sounds preposterous.  For the record, Leonard Cohen didn’t produce Death of A Ladies’ Man with Phil Spector.  Phil Spector produced that album and Cohen did not like the way Mr. Spector handled his vocals.  He personally calls the record “grotesque” and has, from what I could tell, held a grudge against Mr. Spector since 1977.  The hamburger incident seems to relate to the incident you raised in your Motion in Limine in Phil Spector’s matter and yet it has not been addressed.  I cannot imagine why you wouldn’t want to address the totality of circumstances and intentionally overlook what Cohen discussed with the detectives and other comments that are readily available on the internet.  Cohen, from my perspective, is a calculated fraud and a pathological liar.

Leonard Cohen
My first album came out in, I think it was 1967, and I worked with John Hammond Senior and John Simon on that record, subsequently with Bob Johnson. My most bizarre experience with a producer was with Phil Spector, with whom I worked in 1977 or 78, and we produced that grotesque album called Death of a Ladies' Man.

Don't Go Home With Your Hard-On

Leonard Cohen
That happened at a very curious time in my life because I was at a very low point, my family was breaking up, I was living in Los Angeles which was a foreign city to me, and I'd lost control, as I say, of my family, of my work, and my life, and it was a very very dark period … so you were slipping over bullets, and you were biting into revolvers in your hamburger.

Not only do I believe Cohen committed tax fraud with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., LC Investments, LLC, Traditional Holdings, LLC, possibly Old Ideas, LLC, personally and in connection with other entities, I believe he may have a lifelong history of tax fraud in the United States and Canada. In fact, I emailed the IRS Commissioner’s Staff a 1977 tax memo prepared specifically for “Cohen” advising him that he did not have to pay taxes anywhere he had residences (United States, Canada, and Greece) but cautioning him not to have a green card. Cohen had a green card and informed me that he abandoned it because the IRS does not ask where you paid taxes the prior year while Canada does. This might explain why he applied for and obtained a new green card in 1991. It might also explain the social security number insanity his accountant, Burt Goldstein, sorted out after Marty Machat’s death in 1988. Cohen had more than one social security number.  Marty Machat was Phil Spector and Cohen’s attorney and I worked for him from approximately 1984 until his death in April 1988. The lengths Cohen went to obtain a new green card were extraordinary and I personally believe, based on conversations I had with Cohen, he intended to blame Mr. Machat for any issues the IRS and/or Canada might raise with respect to his residence issues and/or tax issues.  My former brother-inlaw, an attorney in Canada, advised me that there was no good news with respect to Cohen’s residence (and attendant tax problems) in Canada either.

Cohen’s tax fraud, that I was told is criminal, appears to follow him from adviser to adviser. He also has a pattern of blaming advisers and stealing from them. I provided Boies Schiller (who I permitted to review a great deal of evidence relating to the Leonard Cohen Tax Fraud Matter) with Marty Machat’s letter to Irving Trust transmitting a $30,000.00 final payment for his and Bob Johnston’s respective 15% shares of Stranger Music, Inc. Unfortunately, when Cohen sold Leonard Cohen Stranger Music, Inc. and Bad Monk Publishing Company (a d/b/a of Cohen’s) to Sony he did not inform me that he was selling Mr. Machat and Mr. Johnston’s shares. I do not know what he personally advised Sony and/or his advisers with respect to this matter.  I believe the IRS Commissioner’s Staff should review that sale and, specifically, look into why Cohen and Westin were concerned about issues relating to the assignments of copyrights into Bad Monk Publishing. I also believe the IRS Commissioner’s Staff should look into the failed C.A.K. bond deal (that apparently concerned Robert Kory) and the formation of Cohen’s two charitable remainder trusts. Ed Dean, Cohen’s lawyer, was concerned about personal service contracts being assigned to these trusts and other legal issues relating to the assignments. Kory emailed me on May 24, 2005 that the IRS would demand answers to questions, relating to Cohen’s taxes, going back many years. I was told by Steve Blanq of Hochman, Rettig that Richard Westin, Cohen’s tax lawyer, made the IRS nervous with his evasiveness. I can understand why. He made me nervous – particularly when he wrote that Neal Greenberg was going to screw me over and he would stand up for me. I have no idea what that means but intend to find out.   Steve Blanq also emailed me and asked if I was being blamed for Richard Westin’s actions?  I am being blamed for the actions of Leonard Cohen, Neal Greenberg and Richard Westin who were wrapped in attorney/client privilege – essentially leaving me in the dark.  I also want the IRS to investigate why Robert Kory personally told me that I have a cause of action against every one of Cohen’s advisers.  Fortunately, Westin confirmed – via email – that Traditional Holdings, LLC was a “real entity” (although I personally believe it is a “sham”) and the annuity obligation was real.   Unfortunately, Westin – on behalf of Cohen - had already extinguished the annuity obligation from the tax return in 2003. He extinguished the promissory note on the 2002 tax returns and did not report the Sony sale on the 2001 tax returns. He used two separate tax identification numbers which was probably done intentionally to deceive the IRS. Westin also confirmed – via email – that he only represented Leonard Norman Cohen. Truer words have rarely been spoken.  My advisers informed me that the annuity and promissory note were extinguished.  They advised me that the income from the Sony sale was not reported on the tax returns.  Leonard Cohen is well aware that he signed an Indemnity Agreement relating to my involvement with Traditional Holdings, LLC.  I did not understand the structure and I did not understand how one invested in anything using a promissory note and therefore requested an Indemnity Agreement.  I believe it will be difficult for Cohen to address the corporate documents, minutes signed by him, documents signed by him and notarized.  Cohen personally responded to CAK’s lawsuit against him and in his Declaration acknowledges the income related to royalties on intellectual property, etc.  Is Cohen going to take the legal position that he is functionally illiterate? 

My advisers, DiMascio & Berardo and Dale Burgess, confirmed that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud and “exposed” me to that fraud. In our last meeting, inexplicably, DiMascio & Berardo wanted to figure in a “settlement” amount for my exposure to Cohen’s fraud.   In our first meeting, however, they advised me that once fraud is brought to one’s attention no deals can be made and explained that I had two choices: report the tax fraud to the IRS and/or amend the tax returns.   Reporting tax fraud to the IRS turned out to be incredibly dangerous for me and my family but I did not trust anyone to amend the returns.  I felt a better course of action would be to report what I was told to the IRS, the State of Kentucky, and others.   DiMascio & Berardo calculated the penalties and interest – as of the fall of 2004 – with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC at approximately $10 million. This is what they told me Cohen would have to pay if he personally wanted to report the tax fraud.  I suppose this is what Cohen is referring to when he publicly addresses his “massive tax hit” that I view as his motive as it relates to me.  I also believe that were Cohen’s allegations that his advisers defrauded him realistic,  he would have gone to the IRS with me.  My advisers wrote me that Robert Kory was concerned about requesting copies of certain tax returns from the IRS lest it raise unwanted inspections into Cohen’s finances and these entities.  He was particularly concerned about the IRS and Traditional Holdings, LLC.

DiMascio & Berardo seemed to understand that similar penalties and interest were accumulating with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and LC Investments, LLC. Dale Burgess, my former accountant advised me that there was fraud on three entities and both he and Ken Cleveland, Cohen’s former accountant, believe the intellectual property is still in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. or should be.  I own 15% of that intellectual property – wherever it has gone - and have repeatedly requested a complete and proper forensic accounting with all assets on the table.  I would like the IRS Commissioner’s Staff’s Opinion on that issue and others.  Due to the extreme lengths Cohen has gone to silence me I have now concluded that the IRS will be forced to undertake the complete and proper forensic accounting I have attempted to request since approximately 2004.   Agent Betzer, a Collection Agent with the IRS, also believed I owned 15% of Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and 99.5% Traditional Holdings, LLC. He advised me to go get what was rightfully mine and appeared to be an exceptionally helpful and brilliant man.  Agent Betzer understood that I paid approximately $165,000.00 in taxes on a company that Cohen has ultimately attempted to prove I did not own.  I did not pay taxes on that entity because I was making a charitable donation to the IRS on Cohen’s behalf.  I believed I owned it and I believed there might be something suspect about that entity and the promissory note – which is why I demanded and received an “Indemnity Agreement” from Cohen. For these reasons, one might imagine, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Agent Kelly Sopko of the U.S. Treasury Department are copied on my emails.

DiMascio & Berardo were apparently impressed with and/or intimidated by the fact that Cohen was represented by former District Attorney Ira Reiner and perhaps this is why they encouraged me to participate in what I believe would have been an illegal deal, illegal meditation, and possibly insurance fraud.  Ira Reiner was brought in, according to Kory, to handle the mediation because Kory does not understand litigation.  I would like to point out that Dale Burgess asked me to confirm for the IRS Commissioner’s Staff and the Treasury Department that my lawyers understood this was criminal tax fraud and confirmed that he would answer a subpoena and testify to the fact that I was offered 50% community property by Cohen – presumably to lie and say he was defrauded by his advisers.  DiMascio & Berardo told me Cohen wanted me to say his advisers defrauded him.  That is not what I witnessed.  Cohen, Greenberg and Westin are the three parties that set up these structures and demanded that the sale of intellectual property be handled as stock sales.  In fact, that is the precise reason for Greenberg introducing Richard Westin to Leonard Cohen – to structure the first stock sale.  That ultimately led to an IRS audit of Cohen’s donation of stock to the Mt. Baldy Abbot’s Fund which I personally believe the IRS should revisit.  I also think the IRS should look into why Cohen received 1099s from Sony for $1 million and $7 million, respectively, which were then turned into $0 1099s.  The IRS also audited the deposit Cohen claimed as a loan on his tax returns – after consulting Westin about this.  I think there was a reason that this $1 million was treated as a loan rather than a deposit.  There are also other issues that the IRS might want to look into with respect to that deposit involving recoupments if I recall correctly. 
The IRS Commissioner’s Staff and Department of Justice are referenced in the subject line of the email you responded to and it seems odd that you would permit yourself to be copied in on so many emails from and (and other email accounts) and only now ask me to “immediately” remove you. I have asked you to explain why I was taken to Killer King and questioned about Phil Spector.   My email accounts and Blogs, I might add, have been targeted by Michelle Blaine (who confirmed this publicly and thanked Blogonaut for his assistance in targeting them), Gianelli, Blogonaut, Belark, and others – including someone who posts as “Bird.” That is the “crowd” you are apparently associate with which is unconscionable – given what has gone on and what is going on with those Blogs. 

What has gone on with these Blogs – particularly with respect to Gianelli-Blogonaut’s Law Blog, from my perspective, is an attempt to sabotage a Denver FBI investigation.  I brought this to the attention of the Denver FBI.  Gianelli-Blogonaut has a signature from what I can tell – sabotage.  That is precisely why I believe he communicated with Leonard Cohen’s legal representatives, contacted Investigator Frayeh in your office about HIS off-the-cuff remark that Pat Dixon is good looking, contacted Agent Sopko/Treasury Department in an attempt to determine if I was “spamming” Agent Sopko who is now being referred to by Gianelli-Blogonaut as my “pet” agent which is outrageous, contacted Agent Wynar of the Oakand FBI in an attempt to determine (I suppose) if I was spamming Agent Sopko (he must not have trusted Agent Sopko), has targeted both of my children and refused to cease communicating with my older son, has received a private email from my minor son, contacted the custody lawyer representing my minor son’s father and offered to provide a Declaration about me athough he doesn’t know me, may have been involved in providing Boulder PD with an email dictated by my older son’s father, and is all over my instant legal matters.  Gianelli-Blogonaut clearly likes to play high stake games and may want to lay off the white wine.  He also contacted Bruce Cutler in what I view as an attempt to determine if Mr. Cutler still represents Phil Spector.  That was discussed.  Bruce Cutler confirmed that his office sent me a fax and received my faxes.  Gianelli-Blogonaut is very interested in my sex life.  He publicly alleged that I have sexual fantasies about Pat Dixon.  That is preposterous.  He publicly wrote that Pat Dixon  “fears for his life” because I quoted the lyrics to Eminem’s live version of “Puke” and made a reference to Larry Fidler’s remarks about what he does or does not wear under his robes. 

Investigator William Frayeh, of your office, felt Gianelli might have found a sympathetic ear – yours.  That is truly appalling and I absolutely believe the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Invetigation, Treasury Department, DEA, Immigration, Phil Spector and his legal team should investigate what is going on here and what has gone on.  Stephen Gianelli has, from my perspective, lied to Special Agent Wynar of Oakland FBI. He had the audacity, from what Belark-Gianelli-Blogonaut advised me, to go to the FBI with allegations that I am spamming Agent Kelly Sopko of the United States Treasury Department as I have just stated. It would seem that Gianelli now has the FBI investigating the Treasury.  Given the fact that Agent Sopko was able to call me, fly into see me in Santa Ana, California, and email me Agent Tejeda’s information (IRS-Fraud Unit-Los Angeles), one can safely assume that she personally can determine whether or not I am spamming her and advise me to stop.  I remain unconvinced, as has been publicly posited on public Blogs, that Agent Sopko’s email to me was innocent and/or benign.  I would not characterize it in that manner.  Agent Sopko advised me to take the accusations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to Agent Tejeda/IRS and advised me to provide Agent Tejeda/IRS with the evidence she, her partner, and I discussed.  This evidence has now been used to publicly threaten my older son who is absolutely a witness to much of what has unfolded.  Please see comments from enclosed.

Gianelli is apparently extremely eager to determine what’s on Bruce Cutler’s mind and has name-dropped Mr. Cutler ad nauseum.  In fact, he advised me that Bruce Cutler and Pat Dixon had a conversation about me which is quite startling.  I do not know Pat Dixon and would like the IRS and FBI to investigate why I was being discussed.  One thing that should be on Bruce Cutler’s mind is the fact that Nat McBride, an acquaintance of Nicole Spector’s, received a “death threat” from one Brian Peterson (bpeterson999@yahoo) and received at least one email from someone purporting to be Bruce Cutler. I, naturally, have been accused of sending that email. I can assure you that I would not criminally impersonate Bruce Cutler and have now reported those threats and the criminal impersonation of Mr. Cutler to the Department of Justice and Interpol.  Nat McBride resides in the U.K.

Gianelli phoned Investigator Frayeh to determine, from what I can tell, if William Frayeh thinks Prosecutor/Judge Pat Dixon is “good looking.” Please keep in mind that this is a murder trial. Gianelli/Blogonaut is all over this story and his role seems sinister – particularly given the fact that Blogonaut publicly stated (and emailed me) that “it” had been in contact with Cohen’s advisers on three separate occasions, was communicating with people who knew me in Los Angeles, and offered to put me in touch with Cohen who is apparently willing to help me. All I have to do in order to get my life and children back is lie. I have captured much of the activity on Blaine’s Blog, Blogonaut’s Blog, the Hartford Courant’s website, my own Blogs, and so forth because I thought some of the slander and malicious allegations might ultimately be pulled down which is precisely what has occurred. I have forwarded the captured Blog content to Doron Weinberg, Dennis Riordan, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Agent Sopko of the U.S. Treasury and others.  Lying seems to be the name of the game. I refused to lie in any mediation with Cohen and I refuse to lie the IRS in connection with any defense alleging that Cohen was defrauded by his advisers.  The idea of Cohen being defrauded by his advisers is laughable. His disdain for “ordinary income taxes” may be unprecedented. He had similarly disdainful views of gift taxes.  His estate planning  lawyer,  Reeve Chudd, emailed me that he was not an “alchemist” when Cohen attempted to donate his body of work to the Toronto Library in exchange for a United States tax credit.  I realize this may complicate matters for the District Attorney as it seems that Cohen is a pathological liar with motive.

But let me state, for the record, what Boies Schiller advised me to do when they realized I was meeting Robert Kory for our luncheon: Call Brian Bennett and have him wire me. They seemed to believe I was being asked to participate in criminal activity and were clear – in their emails – that recording Kory would not be a “set up” because what I was being asked to do was illegal. Betsy Superfon, who was apparently negotiating (on my behalf) with Cohen and Kory (without my knowledge, awareness and/or consent) ultimately spoke to Cohen/Kory. Yongzin Rinpoche, who was visiting with his wife, advised me to have her drop by. I asked her to have Cohen/Kory put the terms of their “deal” in writing and fax it to me. Kory advised Superfon that this is not the type of deal that could be faxed and suggested that he, Superfon, and I meet for lunch. Later, Superfon told me the type of deal Cohen wanted me to make was an illegal one and advised me that Lindsey took my son away from me to keep him out of Cohen’s tax fraud and there was something – like money – in it for him. There must have been. Why else would my “ex-husband” meet with Cohen and Kory and accede to their requests to take Ray away from me. I was initially told that Cohen and Kory went into Lindsey’s office and accused me of having sex with Oliver Stone. I remain unconvinced that this is defense to tax fraud and tend to doubt it’s a “crime” in any event. The focus on my sex life – by Cohen, Lindsey, Kory, Gianelli/Blogonaut, etc. - is perverse and obsessive. My son’s grandfather, Mort Lindsey, even inserted himself into this situation when he contacted Cohen and/or Kory and phoned me in an attempt to have me make what I was told would have been an illegal deal. Cohen thought I was close with Mort Lindsey, a man I viewed as my father-in-law, and thought he could coerce me into a deal. That is precisely what I was told by Lindsey. Cohen, Kory, Lindsey, and Superfon have been “named” in Greenberg’s lawsuit against Cohen. The FBI in Denver told me they would be brought in if there was witness or evidence tampering and explained that it is criminal. Dan Scheid, Greenberg’s lawyer, apparently has evidence relating to criminal witness and evidence tampering. He confirmed that this evidence relates to Cohen, Kory, Lindsey and Superfon – who apparently “conspired” to have me falsely arrested. The next question one must ask is “by whom. Clearly they couldn’t, on their own, have me “falsely arrested.” Ed Dean informed me that if the IRS Commissioner believes this is fraud and not negligence he will come in after the lawyers and accountants as well. One can only hope and pray that Kory is at the top of the list of lawyers – together with Scott Edelman/Gibson, Dumb and Dumber who had no qualms “seizing” evidence they understood I intended to send to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff. Of course, I wasn’t served that lawsuit and have noticed that rotten lawyers who lie for a living think they are above the law and tend to ignore due process. In light of what has happened it was shocking to read that you view my emails as “spam.” It made me realize that you are a vicious and sadistic individual who is capable of anything. I realize my emails may be unwanted but they are definitely not “spam.”

I would strongly suggest that you review the police reports of Cohen’s interview with the detectives Steve Cron and I met at his house. He either lied to them or, if Mick Brown was accurate when he advised me that Cohen testified before Phil Spector’s grand jury, perjured himself. That would seem to raise issues having to do with obstruction of justice as well. The detectives I met seemed professional so perhaps they too will be confused about Cohen’s testimony before the grand jury – or, possibly, that you referred to an incident between Cohen and Phil Spector in the Motion In Limine. For the record, Cohen advised me that he confirmed – for the detectives – that his comments, over the years about Phil Spector, were good rock ‘n roll comments which is precisely what he told me over the course of 20 years. He also told me that he did not like his vocals and felt humiliated that Phillip did not want to mix the album – putting him in the position of being forced to telegram Phillip. Phillip told me he received hate mail from all 8 of Cohen’s fans and found working with Cohen depressing. I can assure you that I found working with Cohen unbelievably depressing. Cohen certainly did not mind his daughter, Lorca Cohen, accompanying me to visit Phil Spector one night at the Bel Air Hotel. In fact, he seemed rather delighted and intrigued. That is precisely how he felt when he heard that I was having dinner with Phillip in Beverly Hills after the Clarkson incident.

I also reported Cohen’s tax fraud and the fact that he has defrauded me of millions to the District Attorney’s Major Fraud Unit. Please speak to Jeff Jonas about this Complaint. He may be the same Jeff Jonas whose name appears in your office’s Internal Memorandum relating to King Drew and questioning the credibility of coroner Luis Pena. Apparently my Complaint to your Major Fraud Unit was problematic for the District Attorney as it resulted in Brian Bennett threatening to report me to someone. To whom I cannot say. I can say this though - I spoke to Brian Bennett about the fact that I filed the Complaint with your Major Fraud Unit. I also spoke to Brian Bennett about the fact that I felt Cohen was attempting to blackmail me and the fact that I thought he perjured himself and should be arrested.

Why have I been emailing you and Truc Do and leaving messages for various people at the District Attorney’s Office? I can assure you this is not “harassment.” Your office dragged me into the Phil Spector murder trial – not I. On May 25, 2005, I was held hostage by a S.W.A.T. Team comprised of Los Angeles Police Department and Inglewood Police Department. Sergeant Joe ___________/LAPD, who monitored my only visit with Ray Charles Lindsey since May 25, 2005, told me Beverly Hills Police Department may have been present as well. I was taken to Killer King, questioned about Phil Spector, and ultimately determined that the entire King Drew file was falsified. In fact, the individual in that file is apparently one Kelly Annette Lynch who would have been 19 at the time. Rutger and I did not spontaneously manifest on this planet at the same moment in time – which is basically what would have needed to occur were Kelly Annette Lynch actually his mother. She is, however, the woman that seems to have lost custody of my son Ray Charles Lindsey. The bizarre part of the King Drew report is that my address is correct. My name, however, is spelled incorrectly and on one page alone the following details are false and/or wrong: the social security number, my place of birth, date of birth, religion, and the insurance number. I was born in Pennsylvania and while I consider myself a devout Christian I am also His Holiness Kusum Lingpa’s lineage holder and generally note – in medical documents – that I am “Buddhist.” The primary reason for this has to do with how I want my body handled should I die. Very little, if anything, in that file relates to me. A nurse informed me that there was fraudulent information in the file and someone was planning to transfer me. Fortunately, after requesting a new doctor, Dr. D’Angelo took my file and determined that I was not dangerous to myself and/or others. Most people who are held at gunpoint by approximately 30 armed men aren’t dangerous – particularly when they are alone in their homes wearing a bikini which is what I was wearing.

A custody matter was obviously coordinated with my “visit” to Killer King and Steven Clark Lindsey’s cell phone number appears in the attendant falsified police report. For the record, the actual conversation Rutger had with “Erma Oppenhein” after the S.W.A.T. incident was limited to two questions: Is your Mother on any medication and are you ok? His answers: Yes, heart medication and yes, he was ok. Steven Clark Lindsey is my younger son’s father and, after inserting himself into the Leonard Norman Cohen Tax Fraud Matter, filed Robert Kory’s Declaration in that matter. My son, Rutger, was asked to go in and sign over/transfer/sell my former house to Cohen/Kory – by Lindsey – while I was en route to Killer King. I would like to point out that there is no signature permitting anyone to treat me at King Drew and Steven Clark Lindsey had no legal right, whatsoever, to speak to any doctor or medical provider on my behalf. His lawyer, Daniel A. Bergman, apparently faxed Superfon’s Declaration to her while I was being taken to King Drew. When I have the money I intend to obtain a complete copy of the custody file – including transcripts of hearings – and will turn that over to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, and – most definitely - Phil Spector. For now, I am living in a homeless shelter in Houston and Blogonaut/Gianelli have “urged” Boulder Police Department and Los Angeles Police Department to further target me. Law enforcement is all over this story and it is revolting. This is why I contacted the Department of Justice and the FBI.

I have brought the fraudulent use of someone else’s social security number (in the King Drew file and in the so-called “police report”) to the attention of the Social Security Administration, the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, Agent Kelly Sopko – Treasury Department, the FTC, the Postal Inspector Phil Spector and his legal team, and others. The Social Security Administration advised me to file a criminal complaint with the Houston Police Department after I discussed, with a representative, the fact that Cohen issued illegal K1s using my Social Security number and with respect to the number that appears in the King Drew file. Apparently it is also identity theft. This might be a good time to note that Leonard Norman Cohen seems to have attempted to change the address where I received my mail (at my home) sometime in 2004/2005 to his address on Tremaine. I filed a Complaint with the Postal Inspector about this matter which I assume is “mail fraud” and gave the IRS Commissioner’s Staff and others the details.

I advised Agent Sopko and her partner, in our meeting, that I believe the custody matter arose from Cohen’s tax fraud – that I was told is criminal and relates to the Phil Spector murder trial that I definitely view as a set up. I have provided the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Phil Spector, and others, with Robert Kory and Betsy Superfon’s Declarations that were filed in the custody matter. I intend to provide them with a transcript of the “ex parte hearing” as well. Ray Charles Lindsey, my son, “witnessed” a conversation between me and Kory about 1) Cohen’s tax fraud that I was told is criminal; 2) the missing state tax returns; 3) my intellectual property that appears to have been stolen (see Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and evidence I filed in Boulder, Colorado with my Motion to Quash Cohen’s fraudulent restraining order – meant to silence me and prevent me from contacting Kory with respect to 1099s, illegal K1s issued me by LC Investments, LLC, my intellectual property, a complete and proper forensic accounting, etc. – all of which is an “IRS matter”); and, 4) their threats. I would like to point out that I discussed Cohen and Kory’s threats to put me in jail with Agent Sopko and her partner. Agent Sopko asked me how “they” intended to do that. I have no idea and would have demanded a jury trial in any event. At this point, I would like to underscore this fact: I did not enter an appearance in Cohen’s bogus lawsuit with fraudulent financials attached because I believe it is an attempt to cover up criminal tax fraud and/or criminal conduct – an attempt to obstruct justice. The financial “ledger” attached thereto is fraudulent. Please see Dale Burgess’ fax to DiMascio & Berardo (also filed with my Motion to Quash in Boulder, Colorado) setting forth – after meeting with Kevin Prins/Moss Adam’s (Cohen’s accountant) – the tremendous amount of missing back-up documentation (including asset valuations).

Leonard Norman Cohen has gone to extraordinary lengths to silence me and has noted, for the news media, the massive tax hit he will take in connection with his creative tax planning. In other words, Cohen has publicly stated his motive. Cohen and Kory were going to “destroy” me and my children and I can assure you that when you are talking about destroying children you are not speaking legally. I mailed Norman Posel’s email (from Boies Schiller) regarding one of these threats to the FBI in Denver. Boies Schiller felt Cohen was attempting to silence and terrorize me and wondered why he would make me an enemy. His tax history is the correct answer. Let me explain how DiMascio & Berardo saw these entities: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owns the assets; LC Investments and Leonard Cohen personally collect the income; and Traditional Holdings, LLC sold something it did not own. I was not part of the team of legal and accounting professionals who tended to the tax planning (while I tended to Anjani Thomas’ garden …) and/or corporate structures but I do know this: Cohen’s tax lawyer, Richard Westin, wrote that Cohen’s level of borrowing from Traditional Holdings, LLC was “dangerous” and felt the IRS could overturn the entity if it noticed a disregard for substance and/or form. There seems to be a disregard for everything – including a “business purpose” as Mr. John Maunts/Kentucky Revenue Cabinet pointed out. I was not a trustee – constructive or otherwise – on any of these entities and am awaiting Opinion Letters from the IRS and State of Kentucky on that issue. There is no way I am in a position to respond legally to the allegations raised by Leonard Norman Cohen and/or Neal Greenberg in his “companion suit” filed in the U.S. District Court in Denver until I have the Opinion of the appropriate tax authorities. In the meantime, I have dissolved Traditional Holdings, LLC and filed final tax returns – so that nothing else can be done in my name.

After receiving your email I phoned Investigator William Frayeh. It seems inconceivably bizarre that Stephen Gianelli/Blogonaut would know what you wrote me. They were not copied in on that email. I tend to doubt “it” reads minds, has a crystal ball, or hacked into your email account. I have previously spoken with Investigator Frayeh regarding the Phil Spector murder trial. As you, no doubt, are aware Detective Brian Bennett came by my former house to interview me after the District Attorney received an anonymous call (from a woman) in connection with Phil Spector and my friendship. Phil Spector and I have known one another for approximately 25-years and I believe it is safe to say that we are dear friends. I worked for Mr. Spector, as an intern, in 1988 and 1989 (and at times thereafter) after Marty Machat’s death in 1988 and have remained friends with Mr. Spector and the Mother of his children, Janis Zavala Spector. Investigator John Thompson told me I was probably a witness in that matter when I met with him and Detective Silva in Santa Ana, California. At that time, we also discussed the fact that I was taken to Killer King, questioned about Phil Spector, and the outrageous fact that “Inglewood Police Department” was present at my home on May 25, 2005. A sadistic police officer told my son that they intended to shoot me and my dog. Ultimately, they ended up informing Rutger that my dog was my hostage and they were merely taking precautions. That is ludicrous and absurd. The police were told, by Rutger and his friends, that my younger son Ray had been taken down the street and left with Cloris Leachman and there was no hostage situation.

Based upon what has unfolded it is nearly impossible for me to believe that you feel I am “spamming” you – as Gianelli stated. Apparently you and Gianelli/Blogonaut have this in common and, I suspect, you are or were communicating with Gianelli and Blogonaut. That seems like a very reasonable conclusion. It is shocking, however, given the attempts Blogonaut-Gianelli-Belark-Blaine, and others, have gone (on Blogonaut’s Blog, mControl’s Blog, the Hartford Courant’s site and elsewhere) to undermine my credibility through slander, malicious gossip, libel, defamation, bald-faced lies, etc. Of course, it is impossible to undermine someone based on lies that must now be proven – as fact – in a court of law. I have brought these Blogs to the attention of the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, Agent Sopko – Treasury Department, Agent Wynar-FBI Oakland, Doron Weinberg, Esquire, Dennis Riordan, Esquire, Ron Burkle, Robert MacMillan, Lee Kanon Alpert, Bruce Cutler, Esquire, Kyabje Thinley Norbu, Karmapa, Sharmapa, Bhakha Tulku Rinpoche, and others. I am convinced that Blogonaut-Gianelli-Belark, Blaine, - and, of course, you and others - have attempted to obstruct justice and have engaged in witness tampering, witness retaliation, witness intimidation, harassment, stalking, and a coordinated campaign of cyber-terrorism clearly designed to silence and undermine my credibility.

Gianelli/Blogonaut “have” also lied to the FBI in Oakland. Furthermore, “they” have publicly confirmed their communications (on at least three separate occasions) with Leonard Norman Cohen’s advisers and/or legal team. I am assuming this is the Law Offices of Robert Kory. They mentioned Kory and his associate Michelle Rice in some of their posts and/or emails to me. Blogonaut’s Blog appears to be affiliated with Michelle Blaine’s mControl Blog which is a vile, filthy site that was public but is now invitation only or private. I was also slandered on that Blog (as were the Karmapa, Sharmapa, Jigme Rinpoche, and Lama Karma Wangchuk) – that is obviously affiliated with Sprocket’s Trial & Tribulations Blog. It has been suggested, to me, that Sprocket’s Blog is the “mouth-piece” for Donna Clarkson.

Needless to say, this is an outrageous, outlandish, and unconscionable situation that has exposed Phil Spector, me, our families, and others, to the whims of possibly unstable people and vigilantism. I am absolutely convinced that the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, the FBI, the DEA, the Social Security Administration and Immigration should look into the role – if any – the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office played in having me dragged to Killer King, questioned about Phil Spector, and falsifying the file. It is my opinion that there was a two-fold reason for taking me to King Drew: 1) to determine what, if anything, I knew about Phil Spector and guns. Officer Maurice Hampton/LAPD and Erma Oppenhein/SMART questioned me about this en route to Killer King; and, 2) to prevent me from successfully reporting Cohen’s tax fraud to the IRS and serving as a credible witness.

I informed Agent Bill Betzer/IRS on April 15, 2005 that I believed I had been exposed to tax fraud and he advised me to bring the fraud into the IRS with a lawyer. Agent Betzer then advised me to call the IRS Fraud Hotline – which I did. Ultimately, I contacted the IRS via its website – reporting the tax fraud – and called the IRS in Washington, D.C. I asked Miss Hall, who advised me that she could not talk to the public, that I was in a very dangerous situation and she took down my name and certain information. Sometime thereafter I received an email from the IRS and began emailing the IRS Commissioner’s Staff evidence – including the corporate indexes, and other documents, that I filed with my Motion to Quash in Boulder, Colorado. I also gave the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, Phil Spector and his legal team, and others the passwords to my and email accounts. The reason I did this is so the IRS, primarily, could make an independent determination – based on emails between me-Cohen-his advisers, etc. – as to what actually occurred. I thought this might prove helpful in conjunction with the evidence I sent them and the evidence I intended to send them – which was, from my perspective, unlawfully seized by the Sheriff’s Department on behalf of Cohen, Gibson Dumb & Dumber, and others.

Investigator Frayeh advised me to stop emailing you [for 10 days]. I have stopped. I am, however, transmitting this letter to you via email. Investigator Frayeh also suggested that I ignore Blogonaut, Gianelli, and Belark. They have since removed the slanderous and vile articles and comments on their Blog but the lie disguised as an article (written by Joff Belark) remains and I would like to determine who released my so-called “booking” photograph to Belark in connection with some of the insanity I dealt with in Boulder, Colorado. I called Investigator Frayeh to inform him that I was being accused of having sexual fantasies about Pat Dixon. This is preposterous. I sarcastically put a photograph of Dixon and Judge Larry Fidler in one of my extremely public emails and quoted Eminem’s live version of “Puke.” Please review the lyrics to Eminem’s live MTV performance of “Puke.” He, not I, refers to “dry humping.” Larry Fidler’s own remarks, about what he may or may not wear under his robes, have even come back to haunt me – as inconceivable as that may be.

Blogonaut publicly announced that Pat Dixon actually fears for his life because I informed government, law enforcement, and the news media – via my public emails documenting the destruction of my life – that every time I think of “Dixon” I want to “Puke.” Most parents would. I personally believe it is going to be impossible to prove I have a pattern of sexual fantasies involving Pat Dixon and others lawyers or judges. In any event, sexual fantasies – real or imagined – do not appear to constitute a predicate act under R.I.C.O.

Blogonaut-Gianelli-Belark targeted my son Rutger as well and sent him vicious and malicious emails (such as “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead”) and – for reasons I cannot imagine – forward Douglas Penick’s dictated response to Boulder Police Department. Boulder Police Department is all over this story. After attempting to leave “Officer Maurice Hampton” a message with “Officer Garrin – LAPD” – some time ago – Officer Storbeck of Boulder Police Department rolled into Deneuve Construction (with the Police Chief’s secretary) to determine if I was dangerous to myself or others. He was armed and clearly far more dangerous than I. The Denver FBI instructed me to contact the Boulder District Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General of Colorado. To date, I have heard nothing from either with respect to their investigations into this deadly serious matter. Rutger has witnessed a tremendous amount of insanity during this ordeal and was actually asked by Steven Clark Lindsey (immediately following the S.W.A.T. incident) to go in to Cohen/Kory’s office and sign over/transfer/sell my house to Cohen and/or Kory. He also had his fingers ripped off in a meat grinder incident at Whole Foods. OSHA felt there might be criminal negligence on the part of Whole Foods and thought the District Attorney could look into that. Perhaps the phone messages I left regarding that “incident” were misconstrued as “harassment” by Pat Dixon. The targeting of children is inconceivably brutal and I personally believe Steve Cooley and you are involved. No one on earth can convince me otherwise. I also believe the slander, etc. on Blogonaut’s Blog was timed to coincide with the Phil Spector appeal and the Clarkson civil suit. In any event, I view Rutger as a witness and am convinced that Gianelli-Blogonaut-Belark (and others) have engaged in witness retaliation, witness intimidation, and worse, with respect to my son. Since Lindsey emailed me that Cohen/Kory were encouraging him to take Ray away from me (after the conversation he witnessed) it is clear that he too is the victim of witness retaliation and intimidation. The entire custody matter appears to be nothing other than an attempt to coerce me into a deal with Cohen and an attempt to obstruct justice.

Blogonaut publicly noted that he/Gianelli made an “educated guess” about the content of your email to me. I find that absurd. Blogonaut noted that you contacted its Blog with respect to my extremely public emails. Investigator William Frayeh, who will receive a copy of this letter, said he would look into this situation. I will, of course, copy in the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, Agent Kelly Sopko – the Treasury Department, Phil Spector, Bruce Cutler, Doron Weinberg and Dennis Riordan. Irrational hardly begins to describe the following comment posted on Blogonaut’s Blog with respect to your email to me. It begins shamelessly with “Uh.” That sets the tone. Blogonaut then publicly declares that the Department of Justice is on my “spam list” although I don’t believe I have spammed anyone – least of all the Department of Justice. I don’t know if I received a “substantive communication” from you but the reason I was focused on Blogonaut’s Blog is due to the fact that I thought you, the District Attorney of Los Angeles, and possibly the Clarkson family or their lawyers, might somehow be associated with and/or communicating with this Blog. Leonard Cohen’s advisers were and Blogonaut has publicly noted that. Nothing about you, as Phil Spector’s “prosecutor,” can be viewed as “simply nothing more than” anything. You are communicating with a Blog that is dead set on maligning me – based entirely on lies. Why did Blogonaut have to point out, to you, that it would “endeavor” when it hit “reply all” (to my emails). Endeavor means “to attempt” or “to make an effort.” That makes absolutely no sense – whatsoever – in this context and Blogonaut/Gianelli, I might point out, is a lawyer and a liar. This is blatant legal maneuvering at its most shameless. There was no “educated guess” about your email to me. You wrote Blogonaut and I confirmed what you said in your email to me. This did not send me into a tizzy. It confirmed my worst suspicions. It did generate emails to “high places” – to quote Blogonaut/Gianelli in all his arrogant glory: the IRS Commissioner’s Staff, the Department of Justice, Agent Kelly Sopko – Treasury Department, Doron Weinberg, Dennis Riordan, and others. It also prompted a phone call, by me, to Agent Wynar/Special Agent FBI who has apparently been asked – by Blogonaut/Gianelli – to investigate whether or not I am “spamming” the Treasury. In conclusion, I would like to point out something that I feel strongly about – that is not only frivolous, probably criminal, it is a waste of resources that the FBI could better spend on things like protecting our citizens from terrorism. I do not like phoning Agent Wynar, or the FBI in Denver, actually. It seems preposterous to me but I have been forced into this position and do not have a choice. Beyond that, there is official misconduct and law enforcement conduct that crosses state borders at hand. You might understand the seriousness of this situation better than I.

Blogonaut said...

Uh, the reason that we knew that Alan Jackson's email to KL, that KL was touting to the DOJ (and her usual spam list) as a substantive communication from the Spector prosecutor was simply nothing more that a request to drop him from the cc list--was that we received the same request from Mr. Jackson yesterday, we pointed out that the only one that could do this was Lynch—but we said that we would endeavor when we hit “reply-all” to one of Lynch's emails to make sure he was not copied with our reply.

No, we cannot read minds; it was an educated guess—and a correct one at that—sending KL into a tizzy, and generating a half dozen emails to “high places” (cc to this blog).

For the record, Phil Spector and I had dinner and drinks after the Lana Clarkson incident and I asked him – point blank – if he shot Clarkson. He told me that he did not. Rather, Clarkson was apparently dancing around in his foyer singing “Da Doo Run Run” prior to shooting herself. This “theory” is supported by forensic science and the expert opinions of Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Werner Spitz, and Dr. James Pex. To assume that these men would conspire to lie and destroy their careers is blatantly ridiculous. Furthermore, I know Mr. Spector, believe he is absolutely innocent, and will continue to stand by him come hell or high water. That is what friends do. They do not betray people, sell stories to the news media, and fabricate or revise the past for their own suspect reasons and/or motives.

I await your response to this question: why are my emails documenting the destruction of my life spam and did Pat Dixon personally authorize Blogonaut/Gianelli to publicly state that he feared for his life when I quoted Eminem’s live version of “Puke?”

/s/ Kelley Lynch

I cannot imagine the type of person or people who would target a Mother and her children.