Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. The Criminal Stalker Proxy's Latest Criminally Harassing Email Regarding The Tax Court Petition & Matter

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*IRS.Commisioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Division, Criminal" <Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, MollyHale <MollyHale@ucia.gov>, nsapao <nsapao@nsa.gov>, fsb <fsb@fsb.ru>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, khuvane <khuvane@caa.com>, blourd <blourd@caa.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@firstlook.org>, Harriet Ryan <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, Stan Garnett <stan.garnett@gmail.com>, Mike Feuer <mike.feuer@lacity.org>, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, Opla-pd-los-occ <OPLA-PD-LOS-OCC@ice.dhs.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, Whistleblower <whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov>, Attacheottawa <AttacheOttawa@ci.irs.gov>, tips@radaronline.com
Cc: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Please see Rutger and Ray's declarations.  Who is opposing counsel in my tax court case and what false accusation have I made against that individual?  Is this the individual listed on the Tax Court Petition?  I have reported nothing false to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.  And that includes the witness tampering, witness intimidation, harassment, stalking, etc. as it relates to Stephen Gianelli.  Of course the Tax Court should take this information into consideration and should ensure that all evidence of any calls on the part of Gianelli - to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office - is preserved.  That would include, but is not limited to, any recordings of his call and/or calls.

I was the Tax Matters partner, as my accountant advised me in September 2004, on the TH 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal returns.  The $1 million downpayment was part of the TH deal that closed in 2001.  The assets are owned by BMT.  This information was concealed from IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office and Tax Court when the stipulated decision was entered.  Furthermore, Cohen and his personal tax/corporate lawyer hadn't "rectified" the "mistake" re. my ownership interest in TH (using LA Superior Court's mediation processes) in 2001, 2002, or 2003.  Cohen testified that this occurred in 2007.  I have no details regarding this matter so cannot address it and Cohen refuses to provide me with this extremely material information.  I also have no evidence related to the IRS "holding" Streeter raised with the Trial Court.


PD:  Now I want to talk to you about this issue in 2004.  You had a financial crisis, correct?  Cohen:  That’s right, Sir.  PD:  And you – you had a company that’s called Traditional Holdings, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  Now, this company, you created this company before you sold copyrights to Sony, correct?  Cohen:  I don’t know.  PD:  Okay.  Do you know why you created this company?  Cohen:  No, not really.  PD:  Okay.  SO you had no involvement with the creation of the company?  Cohen:  It wasn’t – it was – it was created in some – some tax purposes.  I asked two questions when it was created.   I asked:  Is it legal and it is safe?  PD:  And what were the answers to those questions?  Cohen:  The questions’ answers were yes and yes.  But, Sir, all these matters – PD:  Objection; no question pending.  Court:  Just wait for a question.  PD:  Now, you agree with me that you created this company, Traditional Holdings, for tax purposes, correct?  Cohen:  I don’t know, Sir.  It was created and I asked two questions concerning the creation.  PD:  Okay.  Now, you were aware that 99.5% of that company was owned by Ms. Lynch, correct?  Cohen:  That was a mistake and it was rectified by the lawyer who drew up the papers.  And in arbitration a substantial sum of money was awarded me for his mistake.  PD:  And that lawyer’s name?  Cohen:  Richard Westin.  PD:  And you had arbitration with him?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  And when did you have that arbitration?  Cohen:  I don’t remember the exact date.  I think it was perhaps 2007.  PD:  Now, you learned in 2004 that your – that the account – that Traditional Holdings account, the money – that you were running low, correct?  Cohen:  It was running low – PD:  That funds in that account, that Traditional Holdings account, they were running low, yes or no?  Do you remember that?  Cohen:  I - I discovered that they were being dissipated.  PD:  Okay.  Now, you panicked correct?  Cohen:  I was concerned, yes.  PD:  And in fact you had actually taken money from that account to buy homes, correct?  Cohen:  Yes, I had.  PD:  You took money from that account to buy a house for your son, correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  To buy a house for your girlfriend?  Cohen:  Yes.  Kelly:  Okay.  So you -- it’s fair to say that you did take money from that account?  Cohen:  That’s correct, Sir.  PD:  You were aware enough about that account to know that you could take money from that account?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  Now, isn’t it true that – well, before I go there, do you blame – well, you actually had a financial consultant who invested the money in that account, correct?  Streeter:  Objection; relevance.  Court:  Let me see counsel at sidebar.  RT 285-288

Court:  Okay.  We’re outside the presence of the jury.  What is – Ms. Streeter last challenged the relevance.  What is the relevance?  PD:  Your Honor, it goes to two things; first, I think it’s relevant because it goes to bias.  It goes to his bias against my client.  He’s already testified about issues regarding that account and what he believes caused the accounts to go down.  That’s first.  Second of all, I do believe it goes to character for truthfulness.  I have a good faith believe that – and this is based on federal court documentation – that there was an attempted conspiracy to point blame to someone who wasn’t at fault.  Court:  I’m not going to get into a retrial of the civil issues between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen so I’m not going to let you go very far into the extent of the business dealings.  You made a motion very early on, which I in limine granted, to ask him to not get into the allegations of stealing, and I didn’t want to have this turn into a big trial about the relationships.  The issues in this trial are whether a protection order was violated and whether annoying and harassing phone calls were made.  Streeter:  If I could just expound a bit on the Court’s position.  The concern the People have that if you do get into the side issue, as the Court has mentioned, it becomes a mini trial and then the People are put in a situation where either we don’t ask appropriate questions based on that or we do.  And then that will lead to further – the People asking more questions of the person in particular that was responsible for getting the default judgment in the holding of the IRS, which was Mr. Kory.  And I think that’s part of the documents that Mr. Kelly is talking about; because the information the People have is the exact opposite.  So I’m concerned about getting too far afield that it will end up being a mini trial.  PD:  If I may be heard.  With respect to the motion in limine, the motion in limine was to the phrase “stole” or “misappropriated” couldn’t be used unless a foundation was established for it.  It wasn’t to going into any back history.  Court:  It doesn’t matter what the back history was.  PD:  That being said, I do think what does matter if there’s any character for truthfulness if it shows that Mr. Cohen attempted to lie, I have a good faith belief that this information – Court;  I’m not going to – that’s just much too complicated an issue to get into on credibility, so I’m just not going to allow it … I’ll take them on a question-by-question basis, but I’m not going to allow the pending question.  PD:  Okay.  RT 288-290

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM
Subject: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com

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.