Friday, September 18, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office, and Leonard Cohen's Lawyers Re. A Public Discussion

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Subject: Re:
To:, Michelle Rice <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>,, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

Mr. Fabian,

I addressed the lies, fraud, and perjury in Kory's declaration with LA Superior Court but, given the fact that it has now been submitted to you, I may prepare a declaration specifically related to Kory's declaration.

I also intend to ask the Court - re. the October 6th hearings - to accept oral testimony from the witnesses who provided declarations re. the failure to serve me.

I'm not discussing anything private and am more than happy to have a public discussion about the issues Gianelli has lied about.  I am tired of hearing hearsay testimony before LA Superior Court - particularly as it relates to Agent Tejeda and IRS - so Rice should hit reply all if she wants to have a public discussion.  

Have a nice day.


Even so, the court has discretion to receive oral testimony, as well as exclude it. There are situations in which the judge may, in the exercise of such discretion, decide to hear witnesses or to allow cross-examination of a declarant. See Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin’l Secur. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 394, 414.
At least 3 Court days before the hearing, the party requesting leave to introduce oral testimony must serve and file a statement as to the nature and extent of the proposed testimony, and a reasonable time estimate for the hearing.  When the statement is filed less than five court days before the hearing, the filing party must serve a copy on the other parties in a manner to assure delivery to the other parties no later than two days before the hearing. See California Rule of Court 3.1306(b).
Court must consider request for oral testimony. The judge may not adopt a policy of outright refusal to consider oral testimony on a motion hearing. Rather, if requested by either party, the judge must exercise his or her discretion as to whether oral testimony would be necessary or helpful to the decision of the matter. See Reifler v. Sup.Ct. (1974) 39 Cal.App. 3d 479, 485.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Michelle Rice,

Feel free to hit reply all.  I am open to a public discussion with Mr. Fabian.  We can address the documents in the "IRS Binder" the City Attorney was provided during my so-called trial.  Clearly, there are no privacy issues re. the fraudulent tax refunds or Kory's attempts to defend his client with Agent Tejeda.  However, there is hearsay re. Agent Tejeda.  Therefore, I think Mr. Fabian should be cc'd on these discussions and if he feels like commenting publicly, he should do so.  I still am unclear about LA Superior Court's authority to hear federal tax matters but intend to pursue that issue in federal court.  

On a separate note, re. the proxy stalker's comments, I am aware that no order that could be appealed was filed with the Court.  I addressed that with Hess directly.  

Regardless of your and Gianelli's deranged views on pro per litigants, I am not interested in the research he is sending me on behalf of your client, Leonard Cohen.  I researched these issues months ago.  I know if Doron Weinberg were available to represent me, and Cohen hadn't stolen from me and bankrupted me, he could speak to you directly and probably wouldn't have to deal with the Criminal Stalker and other insanity my family and I do.  I will be pursuing your and Gianelli's discussion about "incitement" with the federal court.  I see right through your gratuitous language and am aware that Gianelli is a bald-faced liar with motive so I don't care if he takes an oath, I believe he would still lie about the moronic "cover your ass" letters.  This conduct has been ongoing since Gianelli heard from you in May/June 2009 so your July 2015 email, that I found to be worthy of third grade girls, seems a bit late, no?

I will see you at the October 6, 2015 hearing and look forward to being served your Opposition precisely 9 days before that hearing.  In fact, I will file documents asking Hess to hear testimony from the witnesses who submitted the declarations that you lied about being forged and/or fabricated.  Since he does accept CourtCall, and some of my witnesses, are out of state, I'll also ask that he permit the unavailable witnesses to testify by CourtCall.  The others, who are present in Los Angeles, can testify personally.  

Even so, the court has discretion to receive oral testimony, as well as exclude it. There are situations in which the judge may, in the exercise of such discretion, decide to hear witnesses or to allow cross-examination of a declarant. See Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin’l Secur. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 394, 414.

Kelley Lynch

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mr. Fabian,

I would like to also note that Gianelli, party at interest and proxy, is also arguing Cohen's legal matters related to the motion to vacate the judgment renewal I filed in response to that issue.

I was quite sick when I visited IRS the other day and want to be certain you have the limited powers of attorney re. the declarations of John Rutger Penick, Clea Surkhang, Palden Ronge, and Daniel Meade.  Paulette Brandt signed her own declarations and Cohen/his lawyers merely lied about these issues.  I have also attached hereto copies of the motion and declarations filed re. the attempt to renew the judgment.  I view this as blatant extortion, ongoing theft with respect to intellectual property, and Cohen continues to argue that he is the "alter ego" of numerous corporate fictions.  

While these matters are not directly related to the Tax Court Petition, Gianelli wrote and lied to you about the declarations and repeated Cohen/his lawyers lies about fabricated/forged declarations.  I had power of attorney to conform the declarations for the unavailable witnesses and submitted the signed signature pages and limited powers of attorney to the court.  There is nothing Cohen and his representatives won't lie about.  I am entirely clear about that fact.

In any event, I want you to have these additional documents as they address many of the lies Gianelli addressed with you and that he perpetuates through his mass blind cc. emails.  I have provided you evidence that third parties continue to be harassed by this criminal.  

He now appears to be researching Cohen's opposition to my motion to vacate the renewal of the fraud judgment.  Cohen and LC Investments, LLC do not own the assets at issue.  Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. does and I have been entirely clear about that in the motion I submitted to Tax Court.  

Perhaps Cohen would like people to believe that I am interested in a whistle blower claim.  I am not and believe it was naive to go to IRS with the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud.  I have Kory's emails from the Spring of 2005 confirming that they understood I reported these allegations to numerous tax authorities so I cannot imagine why he lied to LA Superior Court or my jurors about these issues.  I also cannot imagine why Kory argued federal tax matters in his declaration in response to my motion to vacate.  I am attaching his declaration hereto.

These matters are all inter-related and the Complaint/judgment were used to defend Cohen with Agent Luis Tejeda.  That matter will be addressed in my federal RICO suit.  I intend to file that directly following the hearings with Hess on October 6, 2015 re. the renewal of judgment and Cohen's entirely vindictive, retaliatory, and outrageous sanctions moment.  After stealing from  and bankrupting me, Cohen would now like my "fee waiver."  I have nothing else to say to LA Superior Court after that hearing and have already advised the Court to enter the order re. the "fee waiver."  I tend to doubt Cohen really believes the matters are "frivolous" since he had two law firms going up against me and made the desperate move of hiring my son's father's deranged custody lawyer who is nothing other than a liar who believes he is entitled to remain in contempt of court for over five years - with my son's father.  My sons are weapons.  

I will now have additional declarations prepared for IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office and submit them to you next week.

For the record, Cohen and his lawyers have argued that fraud restraining orders prevent them with providing me with IRS required tax and corporate information and are now expanding upon their argument that it is LA Superior Court's judgment that subverted IRS reporting and filing requirements.  I've asked Mike Feuer, City Attorney, to feel free to hit reply all and explain what the "ruse" re. federal tax matters is.  He might also want to address his jurisdiction over federal tax matters.  I intend to argue in federal court, re. the fraud restraining orders (include fraud domestic violence and VAWA funding fraud) that the City Attorney and District Attorney are clearly the parties with the "expectation of affection" from Cohen and they should have assigned themselves - not me - the statutory required "dating relationship" with Cohen.  There are also sycophants involved in these matters.  


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate renewal of J; this case alters my formerly expressed view of your motion

See the attached case, Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne, FYI. Under its reasoning:

1. A motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is NOT CONSIDERED to be a motion to vacate the judgment and is therefore not governed by time limits for motions to vacate the judgment such as those provided by section 473.5. This is because the motion does not seek to affect the judgment itself but only the renewal period. For the same reasons one would have AN ARGUMENT that a motion to vacate the renewal of a judgment is not a motion to reconsider a previously denied motion to vacate the judgment itself, but the case does not address that issue.

2. The moving party need not demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.

3. There is no “due diligence” requirement in filing the motion “earlier” (e.g., after learning of the judgment) because the legislature has explicitly provided for a 30-day time window from the date mailing  of notice of renewal of the motion to file it, and the motion is either filled within that statutory time or it is not.

4. Unlike in the cited case (attached), the fact of valid service is DISPUTED – so the moving party still needs to overcome the presumption of valid service created by the proof of service filed by the registered process server. And Judge Hess could still defeat the motion by weighing the evidence and concluding that the moving declarations failed to overcome the presumption in favor of proper service.

5. Res judicata should not be a factor because NO ORDER SETTING FORTH JUDGE HESS’ JANUARY 17, 2014 RULING DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE was ever signed or filed – let alone served. (See the on-line docket “case summary”.) A proposed order was lodged, but NO SIGNED ORDER WAS EVER FILED AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO ORDER WAS EVER SIGNED. Since there was no ORDER DENYING THE MOTION entered, no final, appealable order was ever entered – and (arguably) therefore there was no prior finding of proper service.