Sunday, November 29, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office In Response to the Criminal Stalker's Ongoing Attempts to Interfere With A Tax Court Matter & Federal Tax Controversy

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 1:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch's email dated Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

Hello Mr. Fabian,

The Criminal Stalker is certainly intent on interfering with this Tax Court matter.  I would like to remind you that he does not represent me; I do not know who this criminal is; and I have not provided Internal Revenue Service with a Power of Attorney to speak to this individual about private tax matters involving me.  Leonard Cohen is not a party to this matter and therefore Gianelli's ongoing communications with IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office, arguing Cohen's legal positions, are beyond outrageous.

I personally believe Stephen Gianelli does indeed represent Leonard Cohen.  As this man is a chronic liar nothing he says should be taken as anything even remotely resembling the truth.  Since approximately May 2009, Stephen Gianelli has communicated with Kory & Rice, Cohen's general counsel, personal and business managers.  These individuals have relentlessly lied about me and engaged in egregious misconduct with respect to me.  That would include, but is not limited to, perjured testimony and the transmittal of fraudulent accusations and documents to Internal Revenue Service.  Gianelli clearly read my Tax Court Petition and has repeatedly commented on the content of that Petition.  I have submitted his emails to you with respect to that issue.

I also personally believe that Stephen Gianelli did tamper with and altered the content of my Tax Petition Word Press blog.  I have explained my reasons for this belief in the draft declaration I submitted to you.  That declaration will now be submitted to Tax Court with a request that the Court refer the matter to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  Gianelli is the individual attempting to insert himself into this matter.  I have no idea who this man but understand that he functions as an agent provocateur and infiltrator who has relentlessly targeted me, my sons, family members, friends, and witnesses.  I have relentlessly advised this criminal to cease and desist.

I am aware that Tax Court is an Article I court with specific jurisdiction.  Tax Court clearly has jurisdiction to address any decisions based on fraud upon the court.  I haven't submitted a motion arguing the fraud upon the court or any other issue for that matter.  I provided Tax Court with specific facts, and evidence, and asked for leave to file the motion.  I think I've made the issues quite clear.  That would include, but is not limited to, the fact that Leonard Cohen stole the $1 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC and/or Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and the $1 million in no way represented a "loan" from either entity to Leonard Cohen.  He merely has an inconceivable sense of entitlement and views himself as the alter ego of numerous corporate entities and the assets themselves as his personal piggy bank.

I tend to doubt the entire financial system would collapse if someone were actually held accountable for their conduct and believe most taxpayers in this country would overwhelmingly agree.

Stephen Gianelli has no legal right to criminally harass or stalk me over my public opinions posted on my blog.  I can assure you that these matters are not "self-manufactured" dramas and that would include the steps on the TH tax returns and other issues related to what definitely appears to be civil and criminal tax fraud on the part of Leonard Cohen.  I will let you personally speak for yourself as I have no intention of following the orders of a common criminal.  I can assure you that these issues are not merely my personal grievances.

I would like to note that Stephen Gianelli views himself as absolutely immune with respect to his own actions.  That may be due to the fact that he appears to have been in bed with both the City Attorney and District Attorney of Los Angeles.  He is also obsessed with Phil Spector's case and Investigator Frayeh immediately concluded that this criminal may have found a sympathetic ear with Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson about me.  See my Show Trial for further details.  Let me end by quoting my public defender with respect to that trial:  the City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS; they want to discredit you; and the District Attorney does not want the Spector verdict overturned.  My appellate attorney, who was harassed by Gianelli for over a year, wrote that my trial was a tax fraud case related to Leonard Cohen that demands an IRS investigation.  I personally do not believe this individual, who seems more like an escapee from a criminal mental asylum than a "lawyer," will ever change those facts through his lies, slander, and ongoing criminal conduct.  As I have continuously stated to IRS, FBI, and DOJ:  Stephen Gianelli belongs in prison with many others.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Kelley Lynch's email dated Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM

Ms. Lynch,

Responding to your blog posted email (below):

1. I do not represent Leonard Cohen. Indeed, I have never met or spoken with Leonard Cohen. It goes without saying that I don’t even know what he thinks about your tax court petition, or if he has even read it. (I have not.)

2. I did not “tamper with” your blog, nor is your blog a matter of concern to the tax court. Your pattern is to initiate a procedurally defective legal proceeding in some court, and then try to leverage that proceeding to request that the court issue all kinds of orders concerning your perceived enemies that are irrelevant to the proceeding and involve people who are not even parties to the action. You have been doing this for years.

3. The tax court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It’s jurisdiction is defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Unless a statutory provision expressly invests the tax court with jurisdiction over a particular matter, the tax court has no power to entertain a petition. (Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870-71, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 2634 (1991).) The tax court may NOT invoke  general equitable principles you reference to  expand its jurisdiction. (See Estate of Branson v. Commissioner, 264 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2001) [“The Tax Court’s jurisdiction is defined and limited by Title 26 and it may not use general equitable powers to expand its jurisdictional grant beyond this limited Congressional authorization.”]; also see Grospe v. Internal Revenue, 451 f.3d 966, 967 (9th Cir. 2006) [ the tax court is an Article I "court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers].)

4. Title 26 requires that the IRS make a final determination and notify you of that determination as a prerequisite to the tax court taking jurisdiction over your petition. Your response (called an “objection” in tax court) to the pending motion to dismiss (posted on your blog), by omission, concedes that you received no notice of determination from the IRS in respect to the matters raised in your petition (e.g., according to the order filed 10/102015, taxable year 1999).  Nor do you point the court to a statutory basis for tax court jurisdiction.

5. Setting all of that aside, what you are trying to do flies in the face of common sense. Our tax and legal systems above all else rely on transparency, predictability and (above all else) finality. If a disgruntled former employee or partner who was never made a party to a tax proceeding could spontaneously come forward – out of the blue – and validly seek to set aside a stipulated decision in a tax court case reached 13-years ago concerning a tax event occurring in 2001 relating to taxable year 1999 (16-years ago), business and individuals could not plan their affairs, and lenders and investors could not assess risk. The entire financial system would collapse. In addition, the tax court would be overwhelmed, and the IRS would be required to spend its time litigating matters long ago resolved instead of performing its Congressional mandate – assessing and collecting federal tax revenue in matters that are within the statute of limitations.

6. You complain about me allegedly trying to “insert” myself into your tax court matter.  But it is you that is trying to litigate your tax court case (along with your other grievances) in the court of public opinion, and it is you that has made multiple filings in your tax court case concerning me, and not the reverse. The legal forums on which you try to impose your personal grievances and self-manufactured drama were not created for such purposes and are busy enough with legitimate court business. The same is true of the opposing counsel whom you flood with unnecessary correspondence daily. Why don’t you give them all a break?

Stephen Gianelli
Crete, Greece

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Subject: Fwd: Standing vs. Jurisdiction
To: Fabian Paulmikell A <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>,, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,
Mr. Fabian,

The Criminal Stalker continues to represent Leonard Cohen's legal position with respect to Tax Court.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who did not have standing before Tax Court.  By 2002, the Traditional Holdings, LLC transaction had closed and the $1 million was not Leonard Cohen's income.  Nor were there any loan documents between Cohen and TH.  Furthermore, the assets that TH sold to Sony were owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and as Cohen's retaliatory Complaint confirms, the assets remain in BMT.  

Stephen Gianelli wants to insert himself into this matter because he clearly represents Leonard Cohen's interests.  I personally think it's rather obvious that Tax Court has the authority to review and address issues related to "fraud upon the court."  And, I believe the appellate courts have been clear that a judgment obtained through fraud upon the court is not a judgment at all and never becomes final.  In fact, the Ninth Circuit in Toscano, citing Kenner, held that the Tax Court possessed the authority to review and vacate an otherwise final judgment on the grounds of fraud upon the court.  A judgment obtained by fraud upon the court is not a judgment at all and is never final.  This is an inconvenient truth for the Criminal Stalker.  In any event, I personally believe Cohen's unofficial legal representative has gotten ahead of himself re. my Tax Court Petition which he has harassed me over for months.  I have asked Tax Court to grant me relief to file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court.  I have provided Tax Court with very specific facts and evidence to support that request.  Of course, someone (most probably Stephen Gianelli) tampered with and altered the blog I created specifically to this matter.  That blog was used to submit evidence to Tax Court.  I have sent you the latest draft of my new declaration which will be submitted to Tax Court in the next few days.  I am absolutely asking Tax Court to refer this criminal conduct to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  I think it is overwhelmingly obvious that this is a very serious situation.  I also think it's obvious that the Criminal Stalker finds his conduct amusing and views himself as absolutely immune.  The man is a chronic liar with motive.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 5:42 AM
Subject: Standing vs. Jurisdiction
To: Kelley Lynch <>

There is a big difference between the issue of who has the right to file a case, e.g. "standing" as a tax partner to litigate on behalf of a partnership and the tax court's power to hear the case, i.e. "jurisdiction". 

One has nothing to do with the other.

No notice of determination + timely filing thereafter = no jurisdiction, i.e., petition DISMISSED.