Thursday, September 10, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email To Senate Judiciary & DOJ Re. Leonard Cohen's Fraudulent DMV Order, Motive, & VAWA Funding Fraud

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Fraud DMV Order; VAWA funding fraud
To: ASKDOJ <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "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 <>,

Hi Senate Judiciary,

The Boulder Combined Court confirmed, on April 10, 2014, that the Colorado order - issued without findings of any sort whatsoever - is not a domestic violence order.  They provided me with information that explained why THEY informed me and Paulette Brandt that the permanent expired on February 15, 2009 and the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008.  LA Superior Court wants me to believe that they can assign me a dating relationship on May 25, 2011 and - due to lies and perjury in a trial in 2012 (meant to sabotage IRS, discredit me, etc.) - a judge retroactively concluded that there was  a "dating" relationship based on Cohen's confirmation that he perjured himself when he changed his testimony about this issue.  That sounds like the type of logic I continue to deal with before this Court.  This is VAWA funding fraud.  I want to be clear that Feng Xie wrote me back, re. the statements about filing a motion to obtain IRS required tax and corporate information, to advise that he actually could not offer legal advice.  Do you see anything on the IRS website that requires me to go to a state court for a motion to request IRS required tax and corporate information?  What about the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes?  Cohen owed me this information six months before he filed his fraud narrative complaint that was used to defend himself with IRS.  It appears that he also presented Agent Tejeda with some form of the ledger that is nothing other than accounting and financial fraud.  

I'm curious to see the appellate division's "spin" on this matter.  I don't need a transcript of the Colorado hearing Cohen attended.  I'll obtain the CD of the hearing and will transcribe it myself and provide you, IRS, FBI, DOJ, etc. with a copy of the transcript.  If anyone needs an official transcript, it can be obtained as noted below.  I want a federal court to listen to the hearing and Cohen's testimony.  


From: "xiefeng" <>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:32:19 -0600
Subject: RE: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request
To: Kelley Lynch <>

Thank you,

You may refer to the attachment (ICON) and Motion for Civil Protection Order I have sent you to verify my answers. I will not charge you for this document.

1. The Order regarding the motion to dismiss PPO was denied on 1/12/09.

2. The temporary restraining order expired on that date (2/15/09) and the PPO was granted on 9/2/08.

3. This case is not a domestic violence case which can be verified on the top right of the first page of the ICON;  noted as "Type:
Protection Order". On the motion for civil protection order, the Petitioner only checked off Stalking and Physical Assault, Threat, or Other Situation but not Domestic Abuse.

4. I cannot verify when the PPO was received from any other agencies besides the Court. Again the court granted the PPO on 9/2/08.

5. The PPO hearing was held on 9/2/08 and will cost $35 for an audio recording. If you require a written transcript you will need to go through Tami with CTS West and her contact number is 720-922-3581.

6. If the PPO has restricted you from filing your taxes then you would need to motion the court to request specifically what you need or require to complete your taxes. The motion will then be determined by the Judge to either grant or dismiss the motion.

I will waive the request fee as this was completed in November of 2013. If you require anymore documents from this case I will need to charge you  a $5 research fee and $.25 per copy.

Thank you,

Feng Xie
Judicial Assistant - Research
20th Judicial District

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley Lynch []
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:20 PM
To: xiefeng; irs.commissioner; Washington Field; ASKDOJ; Kelly.Sopko; Doug.Davis; Dennis; wfrayeh; stan.garnett; MollyHale; nsapao; fsb; rbyucaipa; khuvane; blourd; Robert MacMillan; moseszzz; a; wennermedia; Hoffman, Rand; Mick Brown; woodwardb; glenn.greenwald; lrohter; harriet.ryan; hailey.branson
Cc: Paulette Brandt
Subject: Re: Boulder Combined Courts - Records Request

Hello Feng,

There are several pieces of information I need.  My friend, Paulette Brandt, and I have been told (on approximately six occasions) that Leonard Cohen's restraining order expired on February 15, 2009.  We were also advised that a Motion to Dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009.  I was not a resident of Boulder, Colorado when this restraining order was granted and left shortly after the hearing.  I may not have received certain documents.  I am requesting the following:

1.  Information regarding the Motion to Dismiss that was entered (and appears in the computer database) on January 12, 2009.

2.  Information regarding the expired restraining order (and appears in the computer database) on February 15, 2009.

3.  Any and all information that would establish that this order (originally granted based on a business relationship) was modified and re-issued as a domestic violence order.

4.  The date this order was entered into any federal, state, or local database.

5.  The amount it would cost to acquire a copy of the "secret" hearing Leonard Cohen attended that led to the judge issuing a temporary restraining order.

6.  Any information that would support Leonard Cohen's legal position and testimony that Judge Enichen had jurisdiction to prevent me from requesting information needed to file my federal and state tax returns.  That is how this order has been used and there is testimony to support this.  I am unclear how a local order can override IRS rules and requirements.

What I would like to know is how much it will cost to obtain this information and hearing CD.

Thank you,

Kelley Lynch

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Hello DOJ,

I received, from Kory & Rice, a copy of the Notice of Order re. the registration of the Colorado order that was issued without findings.  That was based on my comments that the situation was "insane" and Cohen/Kory attempted to destroy my life.  I'm not certain that's a valid basis for a protection order and this will be addressed in federal court.  The Minute Order of the hearing states that "The Court denies Respondent's request to set aside the May 25, 2011 order issued by the Boulder County Court on September 2, 2008."  The Notice, prepared by Kory & Rice, states:  "Order Denying Motion to Set Aside DV Order" and notes that it's attached.  It's attached to this copy.  The Colorado order is not a domestic violence order and this government is not assigning me a dating relationship.

On Monday, I will file a Notice of Appeal in this matter.  It will be interesting to see how the appellate division regurgitates this matter.  I will be paying particularly attention to their language and use of fraud narratives to draw their conclusions and inform their appeals.  This document is also evidence of further wire and mail fraud - per RICO.  

It's important to keep what other witnesses heard (per Greenberg's lawsuit) in mind as well as Kory's confirmation that Cohen and his representatives failed to report the 2001 income from the TH sale on the tax returns.  There is no $5 million delta.  That's just Kory's attempt to reduce taxes, penalties, and interest.  Cohen's loans/expenditures total approximately $6.7 million from TH alone.  BMT owns the assets.  This information was concealed from IRS and Tax Court in 2002 and it is my belief that, based upon the inadvertent $1 million and $7 million 1099s and IRS inquiry, that this situation was pre-meditated from that moment in time.  I did share my views with the IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office in my July 25, 2004 letter to them which the "informant" and Cohen evidently discovered.  


Greenberg Complaint:

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.

Kory Mediation Document (with Ira Reiner copied in):

Impact on all parties of Traditional Holdings failure to report sale to Sony, or manner in which sale treated (delta of $5 million basis and $8 million sale price may be consumed in fees paid to third parties).  

Kelley Lynch
419 N. Larchmont Blvd., Suite 91
Los Angeles, California 90004

                                                            July 25, 2004

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of Chief Trial Counsel
Small Business/Self Employed Division Counsel
3018 Federal Building
300 N. Los Angeles Street
Los Angeles, California  90012

Re:  Leonard Cohen vs. Commissioner (Docket No. 7024-02)

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing with respect to the above referenced Trial Court case and related matters.  I am Leonard Cohen’s personal manager and have an ownership interest in three entities with him.  Those entities are Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC.  These three entities either own or sold intellectual property. 

For the year 1999, Sony Music issued a 1099 to Leonard Cohen in the sum of $1 million.  On January 8, 2002, IRS issued Letter No. 3219 (SC/CG) to Leonard Cohen for the year ending December 31, 1999 showing a deficiency in connection with tax form 1040.  This situation was initially handled by Leonard Cohen’s personal tax and corporate attorney, Richard Westin, who then referred Cohen to Hochman Rettig. 

I became particularly concerned with respect to the conduct of Leonard Cohen and his representatives in January and February 2002.  The reason for this is due to hysteria that arose in connection with the “inadvertent” 1099s Sony issued to Leonard Cohen personally in the amounts of $1 million and $7 million respectively.  Leonard Cohen’s tax accountant wrote and advised him that he shuddered to think of the penalties and interest due.  Leonard Cohen called his tax accountant after receiving his letter to discuss the matter.  This matter was then discussed, both telephonically and in emails, with Leonard Cohen, Richard Westin, and Neal Greenberg (Cohen’s financial adviser and investor).  These 1099s related to a deal that Sony pursued which closed in 2001.

What concerns me specifically is the fact that the Sony deal was done with Traditional Holdings, LLC and not Leonard Cohen.  The $1 million non-refundable prepayment should have either been paid to Traditional Holdings, LLC or transferred to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  To complicate matters even further, the assets that were sold to Sony belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and were not assigned to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  The reason for this is due to the fact that, while Sony initially pursued this deal with Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. (and began their due diligence with that entity), Cohen’s accountant and tax lawyer raised issues related to collapsible corporations.  Richard Westin represents Leonard Cohen.  He does not represent me or the entities themselves.  I did provide Westin with a very limited power of attorney authorizing him to prepare and file the Traditional Holdings, LLC formation documents with the State of Kentucky.  I also agreed, after Cohen instructed him to do so, to permit Richard Westin to prepare my Indemnity Agreement with respect to my investment in Traditional Holdings, LLC via a promissory note.  I do not understand how an individual invests in a company via a promissory note and, at the same time, receives distributions with which to the payments.  I am enclosing Richard Westin’s March 6, 2002 letter summarizing this matter. I  specifically requested that he write this letter to avoid any future confusion between me and Leonard Cohen.  According to the corporate records, I receive $20,000 and $24,000 which pays the promissory note and taxes.  I also receive $240,000 year (from profits) to pay whatever taxes Westin advises are due with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Richard Westin handles the Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns and prepares the K-1s.  While I am to receive 100% of the profit (and this was the agreed upon amount Cohen and Westin arrived at), I am unable to obtain financial statements and/or profit and loss statements from Neal Greenberg.  And, while Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg are supposed to handle all loan documentation (Greenberg would have those details), most of Leonard Cohen’s loans (totaling millions) from Traditional Holdings, LLC remain undocumented.  I would also like to note that Neal Greenberg’s financial statements are incoherent and originally co-mingled Leonard Cohen’s personal accounts; his charitable remainder trusts; and the Traditional Holdings, LLC accounts on one statement prepared for Leonard Cohen personally.  Greenberg also provides a courtesy monthly email that includes the loans which he and Westin have repeatedly confirmed are assets of Traditional Holdings, LLC.  I am alarmed by the complete lack of attention to corporate governance.  I also enclose herewith Neal Greenberg’s January and June 2004 letters to Leonard Cohen raising “IRS warnings” and dangers.  I’ve reviewed these letters with Leonard Cohen and he advised me not to inform Neal Greenberg of any future income.  That would include the studio album that will be delivered; his plans to tour behind that album; and the third intellectual property deal we are pursuing.  That deal is also complicated because Leonard Cohen is once again demanding unattractive stock deals.  Leonard Cohen continually advises me that he does not want to pay ordinary income taxes.  I find these comments alarming in light of some of the other activity.

I have no expertise in IRS or tax matters and find a great deal of the discussions about tax matters thoroughly confusing if not downright deranged.  Some of the information I receive is incoherent.  I do not handle IRS, tax, accounting, financial, investing, legal or inadvertent 1099 matters.  I also do not handle financial statements, financial reports, loan documents, or promissory notes.  Leonard Cohen has a team of professional representatives handling those matters.  I am enclosing an email dated February 12, 2002 between me, Leonard Cohen, and Richard Westin that is self-explanatory and addresses some of my concerns.

On January 17, 2003, Hochman Rettig wrote David R. Jojola of the Los Angeles Office of the Chief Trial Counsel.  This matter was handled by Steve Blanq at Hochman Rettig.  I had concerns about Traditional Holdings, LLC and the private annuity agreement.  I am enclosing many of the corporate records for these entities; the Annuity Agreement; and my Indemnity Agreement.  I am also enclosing the stock certificates, non-revocable assignments, and other documentation related to my ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC which was formed in June 2004 in Delaware (by Richard Westin) and owns the intellectual property associated with Cohen’s forthcoming studio album.

After I addressed my concerns with Steve Blanq, I sent him some of the Traditional Holdings, LLC documents and the Annuity Agreement.  I then mentioned to Richard Westin that I spoke to Steve Blanq about these matters.  I received a phone call from Steve Blanq advising me that he spoke to Richard Westin who informed him that I do not have attorney/client privilege and therefore Steve Blanq may not discuss these matters with me.  Given the fact that I have an ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC, I find that statement alarming.  Leonard Cohen personally wrote Richard Westin and Neal Greenberg wrapping them in attorney/client privilege and excluding me. 

Hochman Rettig’s letter addressed the factual and legal analysis of the Cohen v. Commisioner matter (Docket No. 7024-02) as follows:  “Leonard Cohen, through his representatives, began negotiations in 1999 with Sony Music International ("SMI") for a buyout of his SMI master recordings catalog. In an effort to secure that SMI was serious about the buyout and to secure future performance, Mr. Cohen demanded a deposit of $1,000,000. Ultimately, SMI agreed to this request and on November 5, 1999, wired Mr. Cohen $1,000,000.  Accompanying the wire transfer was a Ietter dated November 5, 1999 which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The letter from Paul Gilbert of SMI provides:  ‘This amount is deemed a partial prepayment against the proposed $8 million buy-out of Leonard's future royalty interests in his master recordings and compositions under all of his agreements with Sony Music and Sony/ATV.’  The factual basis for treatment as a deposit is further supported by Mr. Gilbert's letter dated April 1, 2002 (attached hereto as Exhibit B) which provides: ‘. . . this letter is to confirm that the $ 1,000,000 paid to you by Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (“SMEI") in November of 1999 was a deposit towards a possible royalty buyout …’”

This is not my understanding with respect to the $1 million prepayment.  I would like to keep this letter confidential because I am convinced that I would lose my job if Leonard Cohen, or his representatives, were to find out that I contacted IRS.  There has been so much paranoia and hysteria on the part of Leonard Cohen and his representatives over this matter that I can conclude nothing other than some type of egregious tax fraud has occurred. 

The history of this deal, and specifically the $1 million non-refundable prepayment, actually began when Leonard Cohen actively began pursuing intellectual property deals.  He closed the first deal, with Stranger Music, Inc., in 1996.  He then actively began pursuing other intellectual property which included a possible bond securitization deal.  As of November 1999, Leonard Cohen planned to close a bond securitization deal with CAK.  In order to pursue that deal, Cohen formed LC Investments, LLC.  CAK demanded a bankruptcy proof entity.  However, SOCAN (the Canadian performing rights society) refused to pay writer share of royalties to a company not owned 100% by the writer, Leonard Cohen.  Therefore, it was decided and agreed (by Cohen and his representatives) that LC Investments, LLC would collect the SOCAN royalties.  These assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. which is true for all intellectual property excluding the forthcoming the intellectual property related to the forthcoming studio album that will be delivered to Sony in the near future.  I am enclosing Leonard Cohen’s declaration in the CAK litigation that ensued and IRS can review the CAK litigation documents that were filed in the Southern District of New York (Docket No. 1:00-cv-01068-CBM).

What concerns me about the letter Hochman Rettig wrote is this paragraph:  The legal authority is derived from the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U-S. 203, I 10 S. Ct. 589 (1990). The Court created a distinction between the taxation of advance payments and the taxation of refundable deposits, although the Court confirmed that advance payments are generally taxable and defined "advance payment" as a non-refundable payment.  The Court, however, held that deposits are not taxable. The Court defined "deposits" as refundable payments that are made to secure the payor's performance of its legal obligations under the contract. Please note that the Court also found that a deposit is not taxable even if the payor elects to apply the deposit against amounts owed to the payee. Thus, if the payor fulfills its obligations under the contract, the deposit is refunded. That is the exact scenario presented in this matter.  This analysis is also consistent with the United States Tax Court's longstanding treatment of real estate lease deposits where the Court has distinguished between a sum designated as a prepayment of rent (taxable upon receipt) and a sum deposited to secure the tenant's performance of a lease agreement. J & E Enterprises, Inc, v. Commissioner.”

The reason this paragraph concerns me is that Sony personally contacted me about pursuing the 2001 intellectual property deal with Leonard Cohen.  Stuart Bondell, Sony Music Business Affairs, explained to me that Sony did not want Leonard Cohen pursuing a bond securitization deal.  Evidently they had concerns about establishing artist precedent for these types of deal and were specifically concerned about not having the ability to pay artist record advances.  As Stuart Bondell explained, advances are the currency of the music industry and permit Sony (and others) to encourage artists to submit their contractually obligated albums.  I phoned Leonard Cohen and explained that Sony wanted to pursue the intellectual property deal with him.  Cohen was somewhat worried that Sony was making an offer and could later change their minds.  Therefore, he advised me that he would be willing to forfeit the CAK bond securitization deal if Sony paid him a substantial non-refundable prepayment against the $8 million deal price.  The contractual details had to be resolved and negotiated.  I phoned Stuart Bondell back and passed along Cohen’s message and Sony agreed to pay the $1 million non-refundable prepayment Cohen requested.  Therefore, from my perspective, Cohen received $1 million in income from Sony in 1999.  However, the assets were owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. at the time.  As of 2001, Richard Westin had formed Traditional Holdings, LLC who ultimately pursued the stock deal Leonard Cohen personally demanded. 

Your October 8, 2002 letter to Richard Westin requests all documents related to the $1 million payment including correspondence, contracts, agreements, royalty obligations, loan documents, emails, letters, and checks.  While I am enclosing a substantial amount of evidence, IRS would literally have to make arrangements to come into my management offices and go through the files.  They are voluminous and include the corporate files and corporate books and records.  While I am not involved with this IRS and/or Tax Court matter at all, I do believe that information is being concealed from the IRS and that makes me extremely uncomfortable. 

It was my understanding that Richard Westin and Ken Cleveland, Cohen’s accountant, decided to handle the $1 million as a loan on Cohen’s personal tax return.  I was not involved in that discussion but was on a conference call when they two of them confirmed this and asked me to call Leonard Cohen to see if he agreed.  I then phoned Leonard Cohen personally; he confirmed that he wanted the $1 million handled as a loan; and I called Westin and Cleveland back and confirmed this with them. 

This essentially sums up my concerns about the $1 million prepayment; $7 million inadvertent 1099s; and the fact that the assets are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  Initially, after the non-revocable assignments were executed by Cohen and me, Richard Westin advised us to begin depositing all royalty income to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  At a later date, he advised me (and some of this is in writing) that those deposits should be explained as inadvertent.  This situation also causes me concern because the income was deposited to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Westin determined that Leonard Cohen personally should issue the 1099s.  Richard Westin also advised me to rip up the SOCAN and writer share assignments with respect to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  I took copies home and enclose copies herewith. 

Another ongoing issue relates to where the offices for these entities are.  There are no offices.  I have continuously advised Richard Westin that my personal management offices are not the corporate entities’ offices.  These entities use my P.O. Box for their corporate office addresses.  Traditional Holdings, LLC’s corporate office is listed as Richard Westin’s home address in Kentucky.  Most of these entities are Delaware entities.  I do not know why Leonard Cohen and his representatives decided to form Traditional Holdings, LLC in Kentucky.  I am enclosing letters Richard Westin prepared for Leonard Cohen and me with respect to the initial proposals with respect to the use of an annuity.  Leonard Cohen rejected the first proposal and did not want his adult children involved in any entity he has an ownership interest in.

Please see evidence enclosed.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and, if I uncover additional information, I will submit that to Internal Revenue Service as well.

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        Kelley Lynch