Friday, September 18, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Emails to IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office & Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. The Party At Issue's Obsession With Tax Court's Jurisdiction

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals PROHIBITED
To:, Michelle Rice <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, 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 <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

Michelle Rice,

Since Gianelli hasn't entered a formal notice of appearance in the Tax Court matter, and Mr. Fabian understands I am pro per, I've let Mr. Fabian know that I wouldn't be a difficult pro se individual if your client hadn't bankrupted me, stole from me (via default), and retaliated over the fact that I reported the allegations re. his criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  

If you would like to weigh in on Tax Court's jurisdiction, feel free to do so.  I would, however, like to ask you to cc. Mr. Fabian since the proxy wanted to open a discussion with him.  The Criminal Stalker has sent out a mass email advising people that I received a determination from IRS re. a whistle blower award.  I never filed any such claim and would rather spend the rest of my life in a cave if necessary.  Mr. Fabian just filed a supplemental motion confirming that I never received any such determination.  

If you or your client have something to say about the Tax Court matter, hit reply all and advise me and opposing counsel, Paulmikell Fabian.  I too would prefer to have someone like Doron Weinberg dealing with the Tax Court matter and working with opposing counsel, Mr. Fabian, but your client stole from me and that's impossible right now.  

Kelley Lynch

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Kelley Lynch <> wrote:

Mr. Fabian,

I've copied Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, on this email.  She finds pro se litigants difficult so I've advised her that if her client hadn't stolen from me and bankrupted me, I could have hired men like Doron Weinberg.  I suppose they are more preferable to her and could confront her insanity re. laches, res judicata, etc. more competently.  I have provided you with a copy of the moronic classic "cover your ass letter" between Gianelli and Rice.

I thought perhaps you might be interested in Gianellil's legal opinion re. Tax Court jurisdiction.  I find it all rather harassing and am not clear why Rutger is being criminally harassed over the Tax Court matter now.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:27 AM
Subject: Jurisdiction is limited. Petitioner has burden of proving jurisdiction. Appeals where no STATUTORY NOTICE OR VALID DETERMINATION LETTER or untimely appeals PROHIBITED
To:  (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 caseGenerally 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 reviewthe 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.
[…]  (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.
à4. 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.