Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Leonard Cohen's Fascinating Legal Argument For Why He Is Permitted To Engage In Fraud, Perjury & Litigation Misconduct

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
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, Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who is an absolute moron, continues to harass me.  Kory and Rice are copied in.  

The judgment has nothing whatsoever to do with Cohen's fraud tax refunds; LCI's illegal K-1s; etc.  The federal tax matters that have been implicated are mind boggling.  That would include Cohen's including me on TH tax returns and then determining conveniently (with his personal corporate.tax lawyer) that my ownership interest in TH was a "mistake."  

In any event, the Cover Your Ass Operation is laughable.  Gianelli is arguing Cohen's legal positions and has been for over six straight years - while targeting my sons and many others.  Who would ever believe these liars?

Does Hazel-Atlas apply to California cases?  We shall find out.  I cannot imagine one taxpayer approving of the tampering with the administration of justice or the use of fraud and perjury to obtain verdicts, judgments, and orders.  It's a disgrace.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM (no subject line)
To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Cc: mrice@koryrice.comrkory@koryrice.com

Ms. Lynch,

You are wasting your efforts by complaining to Kory Rice about my email communications.

I have no affiliation with Kory, Rice or Leonard CohenThey do not control whom I email.  Nor am I “arguing” anything.

I am simply responding to your blog posted mass email stating:

“As the appellate division tends to rubber stamp LA Superior Court's decision, I will more than likely be pursuing these matters to the U.S. Supreme Court.  They might find your interpretations of Hazel-Atlas fascinating.” (Kelley Lynch email, dated Oct 12, 2015 at 12:30 PM.)

As I said in my email, it is not a question of “interpretations of Hazel-Atlas”; the issue is instead whether or not Hazel-Atlas applies at all to a California state-court judgment. That is a question of California law, not federal law and the California Supreme Court has declined to follow Hazel-Atlas. Instead, it has followed the “harsh rule” of United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 [25 L. Ed. 93] requiring a showing of EXTRINSIC FRAUD, a case followed in California by an unbroken line of decisions starting with Weir v. Vail, 65 Cal. 466, 470. (See particularly Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 133-135.) That the rule of United States v. Throckmorton, supra, as adopted by this state, is still our law is evident from the wealth of recent cases which have recognized its authority. (e.g. Coffelt v. Coffelt, 229 Cal. App. 2d 659, 664; Hopper v. Hopper, 224 Cal. App. 2d 446, 447-448; Otani v. Kisling, 219 Cal. App. 2d 438, 442.) All of this is spelled out in the opposition previously served on you.

Moreover, there is no question that perjury to the court is intrinsic fraud. (Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 32 Cal. 2d 13, 18; Preston v. Wyoming Pac. Oil Co., 197 Cal. App. 2d 517, 528-531.)

This is all hornbook law. It is not “argument” it is legal fact, written in stone.

Finally, review by the United States Supreme Court is DISCRETIONARY. That means it is up to the Court as to whether or not it even considers your case. And as I said, this term it has accepted only 18-cases for review out of many hundred petitions requesting it to do so.

The issues implicated by your belated attempts to set aside a California state-court default judgment EIGHT YEARS  after it was entered where the trial court exercised its discretion under well-established California procedural rules and twice denied your motions is not an issue for the United States Supreme Court.

It just is not going to happen. Nor can the US Supreme Court tell the California Supreme Court to follow Hazel-Atlas. That is a matter of state-court litigation procedure entirely within the province of the California Supreme Court.

Your claims to the contrary are simply ridiculous.

So is your stubborn insistence that I am a member of Cohen’s legal team, officially or otherwise. Not only is there zero evidence to suggest that, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Very truly yours,

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

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 9:37 AM
To: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>, Robert Kory <rkory@koryrice.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@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@lacity.org, "mayor.garcetti" <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>, 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.comPaulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov

Michelle Rice and Robert Kory,

The Criminal Proxy Stalker, who continues to argue Cohen's legal positions, has sent me yet another criminally harassing email.  I will reply to the two of you as you serve as Cohen's general counsel, personal manager, and business manager.

If you don't know the difference between RICO and Hazel-Atlas, I would strongly recommend that you research the differences.  Since federal courts do follow Hazel-Atlas, including Tax Court, when Cohen's legal team lies in federal court (or perjures himself, commits fraud, etc.), I will file a motion re. fraud upon the court.  That's a simple fact.  I am extremely clear that California condones the tampering with the administration of justice and seems to feel that perjury, fraud, and litigation misconduct results in a fair legal proceeding.  I completely disagree.  You have lied about serving me the summons and complaint in Case No. BC338322 and continue to do so.  Or, you have lied that I was served but the proof of service lists a third party Jane Doe who does not exist.

The state court judgment vis a vis federal tax matters will be at issue.  That will include, but is not limited to, the fraudulent tax refunds Cohen obtained six months prior to the entry of default.  

Everyone takes a chance going to the U.S. Supreme Court so I don't feel as though I'm in the minority here.  

I won't be starting with your alleged arguments since you don't have any.  You have fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured statements, and litigation misconduct and tactics.  

This conduct should cease and desist.

I still have not received a copy of the "declaration" filed in Case No. BQ033717.  Is there something you forgot to lie to the court about during the hearing?

Kelley Lynch