Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Declaration of Kelley Lynch - Submitted to Tax Court December 23, 2015

DECLARATION OF KELLEY ANN LYNCH


I, KELLEY ANN LYNCH, declare:

1.        I am a citizen of the United States who currently resides in Los Angeles, California.  I am over the age of 18 years.  I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called upon to testify I could and would testify competently as to the truth of the facts stated herein

2.         This declaration supplements the document submitted to Tax Court on October 18, 2015 with respect to the ongoing harassment and situation with Stephen Gianelli.  This individual has been relentlessly advised to cease and desist.  He has been advised to cease and desist by me, both of my sons, my sister’s attorney, Eric Salter, and many others.  People have gone to law enforcement to file complaints about his conduct.  Gianelli most definitely appears to be representing Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and is obsessed with matters related to Phil Spector.  The two situations are intertwined and the reason for that appears to be Leonard Cohen’s alignment with former DA Steve Cooley and the City Attorney of Los Angeles.  During my 2012 trial, the City Attorney of Los Angeles lied extensively about federal tax and corporate matters.  They attempted to blame Leonard Cohen’s own conduct on my “intent” to annoy him.  Evidently, my reporting Cohen to IRS “annoyed” him.  A fraudulent restraining order has been used to discredit and prevent me from requesting IRS required tax and corporate information.  Cohen’s lawyer wrote that I should have used LA Superior Court’s “discovery” process to obtain that information.  Robert Kory wrote IRS that the transmittal of a corporate tax document was harassment.  Michelle Rice wrote and testified that providing me with the IRS required tax and corporate information would violate the fraudulent restraining orders.  The City Attorney informed my jurors that I was in receipt of this IRS required tax and corporate information.  I am not and neither is IRS or FTB.  The City Attorney also informed the Court that there was an “IRS holding” re. Cohen’s fraudulent default judgment.  There is no evidence to support that statement.  There is a fraudulent domestic violence order that LA Superior Court refuses to vacate.  LA Superior Court refuses to address the fraud and perjury in Case No. BC338322 and with respect to the blatant failure to serve me the summons & complaint.  My alleged trial appears to have been a showcase with which certain political actors, together with Leonard Cohen and his paid witness lawyers, attempted to sabotage IRS and discredit me.  The appearance of the District Attorney in that matter led my lawyer to conclude that the DA did not want the Spector verdict overturned.  These are the matters I have been relentlessly harassed and targeted over.  That seems to have been designed.  I have attached hereto many of the harassing emails I have received from Stephen Gianelli since filing my declaration in mid-October 2015.  The harassment continues and involves Stephen Gianelli sending many emails to IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, IRS, FBI, and DOJ.  He routinely lies to these entities.  Some of the emails involve the Tax Court Petition and Word Press blog, taxpetition.wordpress.com, used to submit evidence to this court.  My Petition included the login information for this evidence blog as I was unable to upload my document under seal.  On or about September 9, 2015, without giving thought to the login information, I uploaded my Petition to Scribd.  Stephen Gianelli obsessively follows my blog posts on riverdeepbook.blogpost.com and documents I’ve uploaded to Scribd.  In fact, Gianelli harasses me with emails advising me that certain documents related to Leonard Cohen should be uploaded to my Scribd account.  Gianelli uses his Scribd account to post documents related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  He is currently completely obsessed with the Spector case and writing to inform me that a “source” of his has now read Phil Spector a slanderous article Gianelli posted online and is now sending to third parties.  The man’s activity is relentless, psychotic, and obsessively frightening.  See Exhibit A:  Stephen Gianelli emails.

Kelley Lynch Tax Court Petition – Scribd:


Stephen Gianelli’s Scribd Account:


3.         Stephen Gianelli has previously targeted my email accounts and blogs.  In fact, he worked with Phil Spector’s former assistant, Michelle Blaine, in having my email accounts and blog taken down for fraudulent reasons.  Blaine, who stole approximately $1 million from Phil Spector, decided to retaliate against him by going on a slanderous rampage on the internet.  Michelle Blaine is the female Leonard Cohen.  He has now stolen from me; appears to have defrauded the U.S. government extensively; and believes his salacious, slanderous narratives are a defense.  Blaine and Gianelli, who frequently posted as Blogonaut (the name of his law blog), would post on one another’s blogs regarding Spector and Leonard Cohen.  Both individuals have horrendously slandered me although I know neither of them.  Michelle Blaine, whose blog was called mControl, publicly thanked Blogonaut (Stephen Gianelli) for “initiating the pull.”  The blog they had removed was called philspectorandkelleylynch.blogpost.com and was dedicated to Phil Spector, his legal filings, and his innocence.  Stephen Gianelli has also worked in tandem with Leonard Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh, who may be a jihadist sympathizer with connections to Bashy Quraishy.  Gianelli and Walsh, as I have previously informed this Court, relentlessly targeted my sons, sister, elderly parents, friends, witnesses, and others.  Gianelli is dead set on intimidating witnesses and isolating me.  He appears furious with Paulette Brandt who he has now criminally harassed for approximately three straight years. Susanne Walsh, who targeted me and members of my family for years, also targeted a Phil Spector is Innocence Facebook page and would frequently copy Leonard Cohen’s lawyers, Kory & Rice, on her harassing and slanderous emails.  Both Gianelli and Walsh routinely lie to IRS, FBI, and DOJ about me.  Both of these individuals have repeatedly emailed the City Attorney and District Attorney of Los Angeles lying about me.  They have repeated lies and slander to these agencies and copied my sons, sister, and friends on their harassing emails.  In November 2012, Stephen Gianelli began emailing my prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter, slandering me.  I refuted the slander and repeatedly advised both of these individuals that the conduct should immediately cease and desist.  I phoned the City Attorney’s office about this situation numerous times.  Instead of addressing the situation, or taking a formal complaint, the City Attorney used it as an opportunity to retaliate against me.  The prosecutor during my 2012 trial lied about everything.  She successfully blamed Leonard Cohen’s own conduct on me.  She was the individual who elicited testimony about Phil Spector.  Streeter is the individual who lied about federal tax matters.  She informed the jurors that the tax controversy was a ruse and lied when she stated repeatedly that I am in receipt of IRS required tax and corporate information from Leonard Cohen.  I am not and neither Cohen nor his related entities have transmitted a 1099 or K-1s to IRS or FTB for the years 2004 and 2005.  Leonard Cohen also refuses to rescind K-1s his wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS indicating that I am a partner on that corporation.  I am not.  Leonard Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide me with this information and has now taken the position that the May 2006 fraudulent default judgment, in a lawsuit I was not served, somehow subverts IRS reporting and filing requirements.  The judgment is not retroactive, Cohen was required to provide me with this information well before the default judgment was entered, and the situation remains unconscionable.  I have been advised by LAPD’s Threat Management Unit that the fraudulent restraining orders prevent me from requesting the tax information from Leonard Cohen and Cohen’s lawyers have taken the position that the fraudulent restraining orders prohibit them from transmitting this information to me.  IRS and FTB have repeatedly advised me to contact Leonard Cohen to request this information.  IRS and FTB have also advised me to contact Cohen and ask him to rescind the K-1s his wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005, and ask that they be rescinded. 

mControl Blogs [Michelle Blaine’s Blog]
http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/

Updates

Something kinda interesting... Henry Lee does NOT list the Spector case in his 'Famous Cases' listing.

Updated! Kelley Lynch Blog Is GONE! Blogger finally listened and has pulled the flagged blog. Thanks to all who flagged and especially to Blogonaut for initiating the pull.
Blog has been removed

Sorry, the blog at philspectorandkelleylynch.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

June 21, 2009 3:16 PMhttps://lh6.googleusercontent.com/EMECCaj_tD8lZwZWIHpudk0KLW-phu1gcsHr_syO7clYxd-M-iH2MpA9gsTMqdED5P0OCFEiCUCnHQl5ECqE2FQvWUrS6-xxPoiuZfEn6F4yL_qCFX5E5cDAOJF0io_vjg

Blogonaut said...

DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD

http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2009/06/ding-dong-witch-is-dead.htm

We have confirmed that the spam/hate blog of the person currently living in Boulder, Colorado, has been removed by Google.

We consider this the end of the matter, and unless and until there are actual additional criminal or civil court filings related to this matter, we will not be reporting further on this sadly demented person.

June 22, 2009 3:05 PM

mControl said...

Well I am pleased that this saga is finally put to bed. Now we can all get a bit of rest from her constant diatribes and rants.

Peace be with her...
June 22, 2009 5:29 PM

New comments have been disabled for this post by a blog administrator.


About mControl

Some days, I fall off the face of the planet and forget to brush my teeth and, more importantly, even forget to tell my kids to brush their teeth, because holy shit there are people inside my computer that are calling for me day and night, longing for me to write, thinking, sometimes mistakenly, that I am witty and funny! I can’t let them down! So here I am, neglecting my real life, one blog at a time.

Wanna get in touch?

Don't have a comment? Want to comment in private? Just want to reach out and say hello? If you want to email me, you can! Right Here!

I personally respond to all of my messages... So take a moment and drop a line to say hello!

From Where They Come



https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/02L0Iufg-HhRiUEehQEnZKwnDmXZB_rWHihD-0QXMZsjsBYoa_RqZ2K4gDuFUQlzNVjSQ55RDWfKZFzw4Hy32ymUuOZcJI7dY23ibacJscJDqpT9q9xnn9gBi2-sN8fWNQ*https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/OkSkFfpSPpgSE2A0Ca7WXo3NHJIZbP5TuglBeX4xbgcf2i2SEdZrC_EJ6Inl3AJq1jhtFHo6B5GXBY4clhitel3dJo4SNUcYum-mUkgXcQdw7iSs0u_O9CZ8QxspYIva5ALive Traffic Feed
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/GvCFCr1ERpEiAnPHkwRXO0dwtcU41ZI6n3GUHiF4DcM9UZrym_F6aepvtFKZGKlAsiaLMipoQnIWjYM0vmgKV2Orjk7S1j282HcNqEZvjakkiHSgz9BZA2gum3ovlvAVcg*  Boulder, Colorado arrived from google.com on "mControl Blogs"
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/m1K9oDHb7-NrI9yJq2ikVFwNWlvNeQoTrCFTh2lquweQ0xeOsovguSWyXcy9xx9aNQBEtn8F3TAoXmDSvfxEgzWambOyOjurHa_dh2Pgnl0uNr5Ffg_dcBJ3REeycykWPA*  Saint Louis, Missouri arrived on "mControl Blogs"
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/07lDnmBYOc1FDxO9mJgMIYCvHvjnZaXsp1MbWcLp3ULk4GSCf2BQXXJSpxTlgAJy2Me1msNpY0M4zoe2gL34WJ1OGqiceCjAnKneQkzfEz2n0Vv3OzXbm18eAhc1afQeNA*  Palm Desert, California left "mControl Blogs" via feedproxy.google.com
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/HEsoUnlaAz7TExvY6kZmtpipAsxyXs8_cm3l9TxXdBAZ9F26YW5gomzRioTutQNI28gDTAzHJxQPOWe4npGLSE1ZAy9Z-VamFynumgCKCddXG1TAVhxbnaaBH_Qcc1Pqlw*  Van Nuys, California left "mControl Blogs: Kelley Lynch - extraordinary." via blogger.com
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/iJeM59iGT1WhslfC1L230c4Ix8UkCTOru4Ios82USJ6EL9q37w0ESFz_XwnTWgzovnj1eu5B58NFFcN9qMjnI-kJ9zTD6nxRQXGbS0Tz0vLkDcpjGY_6IQuLzcb5WIehQg*  Palm Desert, California arrived on "mControl Blogs"
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/GT9_EDJgIgPhcwNKk39B7BQy3z71eSlBIbh1blwFDGs2WT0Ik-sgrmU0lh7jFCe53U-hMuqobwsTUFfhzxAvMZIdx9-D_ps5_n3gsRJ5exSdw4UgiK9ig4ZRQPTbqOmTxQ*  Wooster, Ohio arrived from sprocket-trials.b logspot.com on "mControl Blogs"
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/CZVSNdGN8wbLw8XLtwxIH3CeJXWzxheYHh7BufSAuAxKlbdnmt61_H2bv0jdZV5g2FkLHdHdG06DOrd-a99QoHD5en_uKSsw7SSGSNqY8w6ejPZL7rjDJ0Xrd4pRVzBvPw*  Van Nuys, California arrived from google.com on "mControl Blogs: Kelley Lynch - extraordinary."
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/BAEjTJ-B_qrq1lW8h9tw1A26o6uBf1YpgorzmSTVVEGGfirhwoiG7ym-jx5g1n0IrFBSoVhG7q2NiF6xdOt1e84jNAnkqrjBkl-cDz9G9wLwZ22HpKc2mlKYkKpDeyIXCQ*  Silver Spring, Maryland arrived on "mControl Blogs: But Why?"


Disclaimer
mControl Blog Disclaimer (ya know - the legal mumbo jumbo)
This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of any other people, unless otherwise noted. This is a blog. That fact means nothing. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, a final archive of my writing, a sponsored publication, or the product of gatekeeping and editing. That does mean something…it means that while the ideas and thoughts are often vital and the product of a long gestational period, the writing itself is not. It is essentially as it came from the keyboard: spontaneous, unproofed, unrevised, and corrected afterward only when necessary to address mistakes that grossly effect the intent.
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. Michelle Blaine and mControlblogs.blogspot.com makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.
Feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I’m completely nuts in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason whatsoever (abusive, profane, rude, or anonymous comments) - so keep it polite, please.
Just in case. If I say something stupid in the future, it’s better to be able to point out that the stupidity is mine, and mine alone. My stupidity! You can’t have it! :)
Thank you,
Michelle B. (blog master)



February 6, 2007 10:56

Phil Spector to receive $900,000 settlement

Legendary producer’s former assistant has to pay up

4.         I remain personally convinced that Stephen Gianelli is an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team.  He continuously argues Leonard Cohen’s legal positions and defenses.  Gianelli also appears to be affiliated with the Phil Spector prosecution and argues Spector prosecution theories online.  His latest emails are dedicated to eliciting information about Phil Spector while harassing me over my planned RICO suits against Cohen, City of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles and this Tax Court case.  Gianelli continues to advise me that Tax Court has no jurisdiction over my Petition and has confirmed that he is attempting to “dissuade” me.  The Ninth Circuit holds to the view that the application of the fraud on the court doctrine in the context of Tax Court cases is the same as applied in Article III courts. 

5.         On October 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that “Tax Court is not a forum for Kelley Lynch to express her wide-ranging grievances.”  I have not used Tax Court as a forum to express my alleged grievances.  Leonard Cohen intentionally concealed information from this Court (Docket No. 7024-02), fraudulently informed IRS and the Court itself that the $1 million was income to him, failed to information IRS and the Court itself that the $1 million belongs to Traditional Holdings, LLC, fraudulently alleged that the $1 million was a loan to him in 1999, and failed to address the fact that the assets belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  This was clearly not done out of any sort of negligence on the part of Leonard Cohen and his lawyers.  Leonard Cohen has a background in business, commerce, and law.  He is an extremely literate individual who has an utter disdain for “ordinary income taxes” and paying his representatives.  Cohen has simply come up with yet another one of his famous fabricated narratives.  He prefers to be unopposed and is extremely vindictive when challenged or exposed.  He is also a chronic liar and fabulist.  He and his lawyers have an explanation and excuse for everything.  However, their version of events is fraudulent and relatively incoherent.  They feel protected with respect to their fraud, perjury, and litigation misconduct.  These are not mere personal grievances on my part.  It is also my firm conviction that Leonard Cohen and his representatives planned this “defense” in 2002 when IRS inquired about the inadvertent 1099.  I personally believe my grievances address ongoing criminal conduct on the part of Leonard Cohen, Kory & Rice, Stephen Gianelli and others.  That conduct now extends to someone, most likely Gianelli, illegally accessing the Tax Petition evidence blog, altering the material on that blog, tampering with the evidence, removing and destroying the evidence, and attempting to change my password and delete the blog itself.  It also extends to someone, most likely Gianelli, creating a Gravatar.com account using my email address in order to upload an image to the Tax Petition blog.  The image is one Gianelli has sent me countless times.  Gianelli has now written that he uses TOR and, even if he was the “culprit,” I could never prove it.  He has previously informed me that he is immune from prosecution because, while a U.S. citizen, he resides in Greece. The evidence that appeared on my Word Press blog, and was submitted to this Court, has now been deleted and destroyed.  I view that as a very serious legal matter. 

6.         I am submitting many of the emails I have received from Stephen Gianelli since mid-October 2015.  I think it’s important for this Court to understand the extent of this harassment and the issues Gianelli continuously raises.  I would like to remind the Court that this man’s conduct made my younger son physically ill but that did not deter Gianelli.  This individual is most definitely an agent provocateur, infiltrator, and someone who attempts to elicit information while interfering with various matters.  On October 18, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to harass me over the fraudulent restraining orders Leonard Cohen has used to discredit and entrap me.  That would include the 2008 Boulder, Colorado order issued without findings and the May 2011 California fraudulent “domestic violence order.”  LA Superior Court, via the fraudulent registration of a sister state order, has merely assigned me a “dating” relationship with Leonard Cohen.  I was not served or notified of this newly created order.  Cohen and I were not in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship which is required by statute.  I was prosecuted by the City Attorney’s “domestic violence unit.”  They worked with a domestic violence quack who evidently reviewed five alleged emails I sent although I have not seen that evidence.  There appears to be extensive VAWA funding fraud involved.  LA Superior Court sentenced me for violating a fraudulent domestic violence order, demanded that I participate in domestic violence programs, and attempted to extort monies from me with respect to domestic violence fines and/or fees.  There was and remains no “domestic violence.”  It is outrageous that certain Los Angeles government actors would merely assign me a “dating relationship” with someone who engaged in egregious misconduct when I worked with him.  This situation led the prosecutor to conclude that I should be “drugged” and “committed” for letters I sent to Bruce Cutler which she deemed too “chatty” and concluded, although I do not know this woman, that I believe I know Bruce Cutler. I do not believe I know Bruce Cutler.  I know for a fact that I know Phil Spector.  I personally believe Phil Spector had a legal right to know that the District Attorney and City Attorney of Los Angeles were publicly aligned with Leonard Cohen and elicited testimony about Spector and a gun during my trial.  As my public defender astutely noted:  the City Attorney attempted to sabotage IRS; wanted to discredit me; and the District Attorney did not want the Spector verdict overturned.  The lies about federal tax matters before LA Superior Court, including during my trial, are extensive and unconscionable.  The prosecutor seemed obsessed with proving that I am Cohen’s ex-lover, who had no legitimate reason for contacting him, and was not in need of IRS required tax and corporate information.  The corporations themselves do not have injunctions.  The prosecutor repeatedly raised corporate K-1s as an issue throughout my trial.  I cannot even imagine where the City Attorney of Los Angeles obtained its jurisdiction to argue federal tax matters; elicit information about federal tax matters; falsely accuse me of matters related to federal tax issues; or where LA Superior Court itself obtained jurisdiction to hear a federal tax case.  My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, was harassed by Gianelli for over a year.  He wrote to advise me that he views my trial as a federal tax case related to Leonard Cohen that demands an IRS investigation.  I did not discover the details related to the fraudulent domestic violence order until April 2014 but Los Angeles Superior Court has now advised me that I had an opportunity to “litigate” this matter during my 2012 trial.  That trial occurred nearly a year following the fraudulent registration of the “domestic violence order” and the Court did not have jurisdiction over the “domestic violence order.”  The matter is now under appeal.  All matters heard by Judge Robert Hess with respect to my motion to vacate the fraudulent default judgment are now under appeal.  That would include his sealing corporate documents, documents I purchased on Pacer, documents available through the Southern District of New York, documents available on the State of Kentucky’s website, and my personal K-1s and other tax documents.  Los Angeles Superior Court authorized Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, based on a writ of possession that did not name these items or parties, to seize corporate property, tax information, and property belonging to me, Phil Spector, Machat & Machat, and others.  Los Angeles Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over me, the corporate entities, or anything else from what I can tell.  There are no remedies with respect to the egregious fraud and perjury before that Court.  It is almost impossible to believe that this is an actual justice system.

7.         On October 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that “tax court does not even know what to do with your filings, they are so contrary to tax court procedure.”  I personally believe that Tax Court does indeed know what to do with my filings and the attendant criminal conduct I am addressing.  Gianelli is engaged, as a proxy operative, in blatant criminal witness tampering and witness intimidation tactics.  I am asking this Court to refer the matter with respect to the Word Press blog to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly attempted to interfere with this Tax Court case and his emails to Mr. Fabian, slandering me, defending Leonard Cohen, raising issues related to Phil Spector, and lying about federal tax matters are outrageous.  Gianelli seems to enjoy his outlandish conduct.  He recently wrote to advise me to tell the FBI “Merry Christmas.”  This is precisely what former DA Steve Cooley’s investigator advised me to pass along to the Denver FBI.  I have never witnessed such unprofessional conduct in my entire life.  In September 2009, I attempted to address similar matters, including Gianelli’s ongoing harassment, with Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson.  This letter was hand delivered by Investigator William Frayeh to former DA Steve Cooley, DDA Alan Jackson, and DDA Truc Do.  In 2006, I filed a Complaint with the DA’s Major Fraud Unit about Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud and theft from me.  During my 2012 trial, the prosecutor publicly stated that the DA elected not to prosecute Leonard Cohen.  In Gianelli’s December 13, 2015 email, he advised me that he will be traveling for a number of months and therefore will not begin harassing me until approximately March 1, 2016 of next year.

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2013/03/kelley-lynchs-letter-to-phil-spector.html

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:20 AM
Subject:
To: kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com

Ms. Lynch,

I am going to be away from a computer and traveling until approximately March 1 of next year.

Upon my return to the land of the internet connected, we’ll see whether your excuse for not shutting up (alleged harassment by me in “conspiracy” with Leonard Cohen) holds up.

We will also see how your threatened “federal RICO suit” that I have explained in detail would be utterly and completely without merit, with case and statute citations, (if any) is faring.

Tell the FBI merry Christmas for me.  

Stephen Gianelli
Crete, Greece

8.          In an email I received from Gianelli on October 18, 2015, he informed me that Leonard Cohen’s fraudulent 2006 default judgment binds me and not the IRS.  Gianelli wants to be certain I quote him properly.  The default judgment Cohen obtained goes to motive.  The entire lawsuit is nothing other than Cohen’s defense to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  He also appeared to use the lawsuit to confront the allegations in Natural Wealth lawsuit.  It is nothing other than retaliation for my reporting the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS and other tax authorities.  Rather than addressing my attempts to advise him and his lawyers that I wasn’t served the summons and Complaint, Cohen filed his tax returns with IRS, amended others, and applied for/received fraudulent tax refunds based on the fabricated narrative in his Complaint.  Therefore, by December 2005, Cohen was convinced that the default judgment was a sure thing.  This activity took place approximately six months before the default judgment was entered.  Cohen’s narrative is not supported by the evidence he is now desperately attempting to conceal and suppress. 

9.         On October 19, 2015, Gianelli advised me that my declaration regarding his conduct will not “confer jurisdiction on the tax court where none exists.”  He then gratuitously inserted slanderous materials into his email.  The reason Gianelli inserts slanderous and extraneous materials into these harassing emails is because he (and others) seem to believe they will be used in a court of law and excuse their criminal conduct.  The information is being used as a ruse to obfuscate the facts and truth.  I have not sent any obscene or harassing emails.  I, on the other hand, have received obscene emails and that would include the horrifying “bloody stump” email.  Stephen Gianelli uses monikers and assumed names to engage in his criminal conduct.  I believe he has used the following assumed names online and as email account names:  Kelly Green, Joff Belark, Mongochili, Coin Guy, 14th Sheepdog, and 17th Sheepdog.  As early as 2007, “Kelly Green” was posting online about the Phil Spector case and apparently hates his former trial attorney, Bruce Cutler.

Kellygreen said


The evidence will show, the evidence will show Cutler is a fucking pig, a fucking pig!
The man really loves to repeat himself.

So much of Cutler’s OS makes me angry–but I find it truly disgusting that he never refers to Lana Clarkson by name, he always refers to her as the decedent–he is a fucking pig, a fucking pig.

https://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/ca-vs-spector-revisiting-opening-statements-bruce-cutler/

10.       I have continuously advised Gianelli and others to cease and desist.  This situation is beyond frustrating and at times overwhelming.  While Leonard Cohen, a celebrity, was able to summon LAPD’s Threat Management Unit to a meeting at his lawyers’ offices, I and many LA residents are unable to find anything that even remotely resembles an appropriate response from the government actors that are all over this situation.  I, and others, have repeatedly contacted the City Attorney, District Attorney, LAPD’s Threat Management Unit, and others with respect to this ongoing criminal conduct.  I have also brought this situation to the attention of LA Superior Court.  Pursuant to my appellate attorney’s advice, I forward all of the harassing emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.

11.       Another reason Cohen obtained the fraudulent default judgment, after failing to serve me,  is obviously due to the fact that he intends to use arguments related to res judicata with respect to any claims I may have “enjoyed’ against him arising out of our former business relationship and my ownership interest in numerous corporate entities.  A default judgment does not entitle Leonard Cohen to steal from me.  That would be an improper use of a default judgment.  That is true whether or not I was served which I was not.   Leonard Cohen has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent me from properly addressing these matters.  That would include by willfully bankrupting me, withholding commissions due me, stealing from me, and destroying my reputation.  He would now like to prevent me from filing legal pleadings.  My ownership interest in suspended corporations was transferred to Leonard Cohen via the default judgment in May 2006.  I was not served the lawsuit and did not read the handful of legal documents Gianelli posted them online in or around April 2010.  And, while Cohen has provided LA Superior Court with no evidence that a “Jane Doe” was served by substitute service, the Court remains persuaded that a “Jane Doe” was served.  Egregious lies, fraud, and perjury work well before LA Superior Court.  Cohen has falsely argued that I was the “Jane Doe.”  The Court did not permit any of my witnesses to testify.  Cohen recently renewed this judgment; has attempted to extort millions in additional fraudulent financial interest from me, and the corporations remain suspended.  His lawyer advised LA Superior Court that the reason the suspended corporations are irrelevant is due to Judge Lewis Babcock’s 2008 Colorado order in the Natural Wealth case.  Judge Lewis Babcock relied on the fraudulent default judgment and the fraud upon the district court in Denver, Colorado is egregious.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyers come up with one fabricated narrative after another; one lie follows another; and they appear to believe that fraud and perjury are protected conduct in California.  Michelle Rice, Cohen’s lawyer, informed LA Superior Court that “the assets were sort of out there.”  She is evidently referring to corporate assets although which corporation she was referring to is unclear.  Where the “assets” have gone is a mystery.  Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide me with any information.  Michelle Rice also confirmed for LA Superior Court that I wrote Judge Babcock, in the Natural Wealth case, to advise that I refused to participate in what I believed was tax fraud or an attempt to cover up tax fraud.  There were no issues related to service because my friend, Clea Surkhang, obtained a copy of the Complaint and sent it to me.  The corporations, including Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and Traditional Holdings, LLC, were not named as parties to the Colorado matter or the Los Angeles Superior Court case (BC338322).  The Courts failed to obtain jurisdiction over these entities which were suspended at the time and have not been revived.  Nevertheless, the District Court transferred corporate assets to Leonard Cohen personally. 
 Leonard Cohen and his representatives handled all corporate, tax, accounting, financial, and legal matters related to these entities.  Rice feels I have attempted to assert “some type of claim to Traditional Holdings” but fails to explain why Cohen and his representatives included me as a partner on federal tax returns, issued K-1s to me from this entity, provided me with an Indemnity Agreement, or why I paid taxes based on the K-1s transmitted with the federal tax returns to Internal Revenue Service.  Cohen refuses to provide me with any details regarding the “mistake” he and his personal tax/corporate lawyer, Richard Westin, “rectified” with respect to my ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC – in hindsight and secretly during what appear to have been fraudulent mediations.  Michelle Rice also failed to explain the corporate books and records, non-revocable assignments of intellectual property, and all agreements Leonard Cohen personally signed.  Cohen and his lawyers clearly have come to the mistaken conclusion that a fabricated narrative, meant to defend Cohen against allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud, should replace this evidence.  Cohen and his lawyers continue to argue that Leonard Cohen is the alter ego of the corporate entities; engaged in self-dealing; committed tax fraud (including by transmitting federal tax returns indicating that I am a partner on Traditional Holdings, LLC); and is entitled to engage in money laundering, embezzlement, and theft with respect to the corporations themselves.  Cohen and his representatives also appear to mistakenly believe that corporations can be used as mere shell entities in an attempt to evade personal income taxation.  As Cohen’s attorney of record, Michelle Rice fraudulently advised the Denver District Court to serve me c/o Phil Spector and provided the Court with an email account that was targeted by Gianelli, Blaine, and others.  The Denver District Court did not decide any issues with respect to the suspended corporations and relied on the fraudulent Los Angeles Superior Court default judgment.  Judge Babcock’s September 5, 2008 order can be viewed at this link:


The fact that the corporations were in “bad standing,” suspended, at the time the default judgment was entered and remained suspended as of July 2015 (when Cohen renewed the default judgment) is not irrelevant.  It is unlawful and this issue was not before Judge Lewis Babcock.  This is an excerpt of Michelle Rice’s statements to LA Superior Court on October 6, 2015. 

 MS. RICE:  So Ms. Lynch was a defendant also in that case, and she was also served in that case.· And she wrote to District Judge Babcock saying she refused to participate in tax fraud, but the judge there ruled that Mr. Cohen was the owner of the remainder of the funds in Traditional Holdings.  And so Ms. Lynch points that these entities had to be named as parties, or they had to be in good standing.  Traditional Holdings was also not a party to the District of Colorado litigation, and Ms. Lynch is well aware of that.  That judgment was entered in September of 2008.·It was not appealed by Ms. Lynch, and so she's now attempting to make -- assert some type of claim to the Traditional Holdings which, that matter, it seems to me, the judgment in Colorado District, the court would block or bar Ms. Lynch's claims to Traditional Holdings in this proceeding as well. I mean -- so it's sort of a collateral estoppel, res judicata idea where she sat on her rights in Colorado and didn't object to the interpleaded action.  And I was the attorney of record in that case for Mr. Cohen, and the judge ordered summary judgment to Mr. Cohen for Traditional Holdings. So again, I mean, to the extent Ms. Lynch is arguing Traditional Holdings is in bad standing, it's irrelevant to this proceeding because that's already been decided in the District of Colorado.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/292976824/Cohen-v-Lynch-Transcript-of-10-6-2015-hearing-on-motions-pdf

12.       Stephen Gianelli believes my “attempts to go back in time and unwind the 2003 stipulated disposition in Cohen’s 2001 tax court case through” my “2015 petition suffers from unrelated but equally fatal disabilities including a lack of jurisdiction for tax court to even consider it.”  He is clearly familiar with the issues my Petition addressed and has continuously harassed me over the content of my Petition.   The Tax Court matter, Docket No. 7024-02, pre-dates the entry of the default judgment and is immaterial to the default judgment.  The stipulated decision was obtained through fraud, concealment, and obfuscation.  Clearly, Tax Court has the authority to vacate a decision that was obtained through the use of fraud upon the court.  As of the winter of 2005, Cohen’s lawyers were afraid to even contact IRS for a copy of the Traditional Holdings, LLC tax returns in the event it alerted IRS to certain irregularities.  Evidently, after meeting with IRS Agent Luis Tejeda, and presenting arguments based on the fabricated Complaint narrative, Cohen and his lawyers felt more confident and became emboldened.  Leonard Cohen testified that rather than provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information, he brought the emails to the attention of LAPD. 

Excerpt from 2012 Trial:

Public Defender:  Okay.  I’m asking you if you were – and if you could just try to limit your answer to the question – there was information – there were requests in those emails for tax information, correct?  Leonard Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  PD:  What did you do since you got those emails to give those documents to Ms. Lynch?  I’m asking what you did.  Cohen:  I – I brought those emails to the attention of my lawyer and, eventually, to the police.  PD:  Okay.  Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes?  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.  And it was determined by two courts of this country and the IRS that – PD:  Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive.  Cohen:  No.  It was determined, Sir, that I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch. 

LAPD does not have the jurisdiction to investigate federal tax matters – let alone conclude, without any supporting evidence, that Cohen provided me with IRS required tax and corporation information.  LAPD has also taken the position that the fraudulent restraining orders prevent me from requesting the IRS required tax and corporation information from Leonard Cohen.  LAPD’s report confirmed that my alleged emails were generally requests for tax information but forwarded the matter to the City Attorney for prosecution.  I have been unable to determine if District Attorney Steve Cooley was involved in the situation with LAPD’s TMU but the City Attorney publicly stated that the DA’s office contacted them about me.  I have submitted FOIA requests to the DA’s office but as of this date have been unable to determine why and no evidence was presented to my lawyers during my trial.  As stated above, both IRS and FTB have repeatedly confirmed that Leonard Cohen is required to provide me with the 1099 and K-1s I have requested.  Both agencies have also advised me to contact Leonard Cohen to ask him to rescind the illegal K-1s his wholly owned entity, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005.  Those K-1s indicate that I am a partner on that entity.  I am not and Cohen’s declaration before LA Superior Court confirms that he owns this entity 100%.  The K-1s confirm that I received $0 income for the years 2004 and 2005 but the fraudulent expense ledger, used to support Cohen’s default judgment, indicates that there was income.  Cohen also testified as follows:  “But, more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of the default judgment and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation information.  The forensic report on which the default judgments were made were very specific and Ms. Lynch has read them.”  By December 2005, based on documents submitted to LA Superior Court, Leonard Cohen filed his 2005 returns, amended others, and applied for and received tax refunds from IRS and FTB.  The default judgment was not entered until May 2006 and there is no evidence whatsoever supporting Cohen’s position that IRS “accepted the results of the default judgment.” 

LAPD report confirming that my emails were generally requests for tax information can be viewed at this link:


Please note that the comments about the alleged voice mail messages, that were not date/time stamped, are highly inaccurate.  The transcripts the City Attorney submitted to the jurors were inaccurate and incoherent.  The so-called uncontrolled “rant” relates to a song lyric that someone in the background was discussing with me. 

Leonard Cohen’s declaration, submitted in support of the fraudulent default judgment, confirms that he is the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC.

Excerpt of Declaration of Leonard Cohen (in support of the default judgment):

Clause 5 of Cohen’s almost entirely perjured declaration states that he was to be provided with “annuity income” for the remainder of his life.  Cohen failed to state that he personally borrowed or caused to be expended approximately $6.7 million of the “income” that was to be used to make the annuity payments.  The annuity obligation was for the approximately amount of $4.7 million.  Beyond that, Leonard Cohen failed to address the fact that his personal tax and corporate lawyer, working solely on his behalf, extinguished the annuity obligation from the 2003 federal tax returns and moved that obligation to the partners’ capital accounts.  Leonard Cohen micro-managed his business affairs regardless of his preposterous statements about being “creative.”  I did not engage anyone on Cohen’s behalf.  He personally engaged all of his representatives and had retainer agreements with many of them.  Leonard Cohen’s declaration blatantly attempts to conceal my rightful ownership interest in numerous corporations and instead argues that I received overpayments with respect to my fees for services rendered as his personal manager.  I never worked as Cohen’s business manager but appear to have been assigned that relationship in hindsight as well.  There was no LC Family trust bank account that I was aware of.  Leonard Cohen simply decided to lie about the management agreement although he was in possession of Westin’s March 6, 2002 letter explaining the payment of $240,000 per year to me in addition to the $20,000.  These are just some of the perjured statements contained in Cohen’s declaration.  I never advised Cohen to sell any assets and his declaration in the CAK bond litigation matter confirms that he is the individual who pursued the intellectual property deals, made the decisions, and was fully aware of the negotiations and terms.  He was also aware that I was his personal manager.  Clause 4 of this document confirms that Cohen is well aware that he is the sole owner of LC Investments, LLC but nevertheless transmitted K-1s from that entity to IRS indicating that I am a partner for the years 2004 and 2005.  A K-1 was also transmitted to the State of Kentucky for the year 2003 indicating that I am a partner.  Leonard Cohen goes from one courtroom to another and changes his testimony.  He has now testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind – and we were in a purely business relationship. 


13.       This Tax Court matter predates Leonard Cohen’s retaliatory lawsuit and fraudulent default judgment.  The lawsuit and judgment are therefore wholly immaterial and irrelevant to this matter.  What is relevant and material is the fact that, since approximately 2002, Leonard Cohen has taken the position that income belonging to corporate entities is his personal property and has therefore decided to willfully disregard the entities themselves.  Evidently, Gianelli believes that my Tax Court Petition “seeks to undermine the factual underpinnings of the 2006 civil judgment.”  My Tax Court Petition addresses the facts that were fraudulently presented to Tax Court and IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office in connection with the 2003 stipulated decision in relation to Docket 7024-02.  I have asked Tax Court to grant me leave to file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court.  I have provided the court with information and evidence that should assist in determining whether or not I should be granted leave to file such a motion.  Hazel-Atlas related to a 10 year old judgment, fraud upon the court, and fraud upon another government agency.  The nearly identical set of circumstances exists in this case.  The 9th Circuit Court has continuously confirmed that Tax Court has jurisdiction to address fraud upon the court.  There are no factual underpinnings with respect to the Los Angeles Superior Court fraudulent default judgment and that judgment is not the judgment I have asked this Court to address although it most certainly informs this situation.  There is nothing other than fraud, perjury, theft, embezzlement, extortion, and fraudulent financial interest underpinning the default judgment.  The Complaint is Leonard Cohen’s defense to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and not supported by the evidence.  Stephen Gianelli, a lawyer who continues to represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and appears to have communicated extensively with Kory & Rice, understands that I am powerless to take “any effective legal action of any kind” and remain exposed to this ongoing criminal conduct.  Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me and I would assume this was one of his reasons for doing so.  I am also not a celebrity in Los Angeles and therefore am unable to summon LAPD’s Threat Management Unit and lie to them as Cohen has done.  The City Attorney is uninterested in the ongoing criminal harassment, stalking, and so forth with respect to many Los Angeles residents.  Gianelli believes that he “pretty much” owns me.  I completely disagree.

14.         In a separate October 19, 2015 email, Gianelli expressed his ongoing obsession with my son, John Rutger Penick.  My son speaks for himself and his declaration, signed by him personally, expressed precisely how he feels about this situation and what he has witnessed. Both of my sons have received countless emails horrendously slandering me and they have addressed the fact that this caused tremendous confusion for them.  That would include, but is not limited to, the harassing emails Gianelli sent to the City Attorney of Los Angeles.  This situation has made my younger son physically ill.  I don’t have substance abuse problems and never have.  These false accusations are simply meant to discredit me and have been used to distress my sons and others.



15.       On October 19, 2015, Gianelli continued to harass me over Michelle Rice’s incoherent arguments during the three motion hearings before Los Angeles Superior Court.  The three motions before the Court related to my motion to tax costs, the renewal of the fraudulent default judgment, and Cohen’s retaliatory Motion for Sanctions that sought to terminate my fee waiver and prevent me from filing further legal pleadings.  I addressed most of what I had to say in the pleadings I filed with the Court.  Gianelli inserted an entirely separate and unrelated matter before Boulder Combined Court into his email.  That was a thoroughly shameless situation that involved my witnessing a man who I believe had his penis out in front of a child.  Pedophilia is evidently a very serious problem in Boulder, Colorado.  I did indeed represent myself in that matter that involved outrageous conduct on the part of the Boulder Police Department.  The jurors did not believe Boulder Police Department and, with respect to the stacked “trespassing” charge (added eight months after the incident and two days prior to the first hearing), the Court refused to answer the jurors question about when that “trespassing” charge was brought which was eight months after the incident and two days before the trial.  The Boulder City Attorney informed me that I should have run out on the bill after I went outside to find Boulder PD and returned to pay my bill and finally demanded that the manager phone the police.  Stephen Gianelli simply inserts extraneous and slanderous materials into his emails to undermine my credibility and discredit me.

16.       On October 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that I “had a number of viable issues available to argue on 10/6 … but the corporate status of some of the Cohen related entities referenced in the Complaint and the default judgment in BC338322 wasn’t one of them.”  I beg to differ.  The property of a corporation cannot be transferred while the entity is suspended.  Leonard Cohen has now had 10 years to revive the corporations but has failed to do so and refuses to provide me with any of the corporate tax information I have continuously requested.  This situation does make one wonder why we have laws at all.  That would include with respect to perjury, fraud, theft, embezzlement, extortion, money laundering, criminal harassment, and suspended corporations.  It also makes one wonder why there are any laws with respect to corporations, federal or state tax matters, or why corporate governance is an important issue.  When Los Angeles Superior Court entered the judgment against me, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. was suspended and unable to do business in the State of California.  I discovered this fact in or around October 14, 2015 after contacting the California Secretary of State’s Office.  After receiving the following email, I phoned the Secretary of State who informed me of the dates Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. was suspended. 

From: Statementofinformation@sos.ca.gov <StatementOfInformation@sos.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Suspended Corporation
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

The Secretary of State is not a regulatory agency if you wish to file a corporation fraud complaint you can contact the Attorney General Department of Justice.  That office can be reached at 1 800 952-5225 or on their website oag.ca.gov.
Thank you,
Statement of Information-UCC
Business Programs Division
(916)657-5448
rrh

From: Kelley Lynch [mailto:kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:37 PM
To: 
Statementofinformation@sos.ca.gov
Subject: Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Suspended Corporation

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing with respect to suspended corporation Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  I am an owner of 15% of that entity.  It owns extremely valuable intellectual property.  If you would like, I will send my stock certificates and other information proving my ownership interest.

My question is two-fold.  First of all, this entity is suspended in California. It is a Delaware entity.  My former business partner, Leonard Cohen, controls the books and records and refuses to provide me with copies.  His lawyer and accountant prepared the corporate tax returns.  I handled none of the corporate or tax matters.  Cohen has attempted to transfer this corporation to himself via a default judgment.  I was not served the lawsuit and am challenging the service issues.  The judgment includes the suspended corporation.  It is my understanding that this corporation can not participate in legal proceedings until it is revived.  I have constantly requested the information I require (including all royalty statements re. income) to submit the appropriate tax returns.  My former partner refuses to provide this information to me.  My hands are tied.  I am about to file a lawsuit over this matter which I find beyond outrageous.  My question:  is there anything that can be done about my former partner and his lawyers attempting to transfer assets of a suspended corporation during a suspension?  Do you have a complaint process?  I believe my former business partner personally is now collecting the royalty income that is generated by the corporate assets.

My second question relates to the Court itself.  Why is the Court permitted to transfer corporate assets to an individual, who is arguing alter ego and self-dealing I might note, when the corporation is suspended?  Is there any complaint process with respect to that issue?

I personally take grave offense at all of this.  The FTB, who I have contacted as well, suspended corporations and the California Supreme Court has concluded that the reason for a corporation's inability to participate in legal proceedings is to encourage tax compliance.  What is going on promotes theft, alter ego, self-dealing, money laundering, and fraud.  

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

Kelley Lynch


Data is updated to the California Business Search on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Results reflect work processed through Tuesday, September 29, 2015. Please refer to Processing Times for the received dates of filings currently being processed. The data provided is not a complete or certified record of an entity.
Entity Name:
BLUE MIST TOURING COMPANY, INC.
Entity Number:
C1854203
Date Filed:
03/18/1993
Status:
SOS/FTB FORFEITED
Jurisdiction:
DELAWARE
Entity Address:
419 N LARCHMONT BLVD STE 91
Entity City, State, Zip:
LOS ANGELES CA 90004
Agent for Service of Process:
KELLEY LYNCH
Agent Address:
1044 S KENISTON AVE
Agent City, State, Zip:
LOS ANGELES CA 90019


Secretary of State
Email: 
Officers@ss.ca.gov

When the default judgment was originally entered against me, Traditional Holdings, LLC was administratively dissolved and never registered to do business in California.  These entities could not be inserted into the judgment and the corporate property, or my ownership interest in that property, was unlawfully transferred to Cohen personally during the periods of suspension.  Neither corporation has been revived.  Final tax returns do not appear to have been filed.  It is my personal belief that these entities have been used as mere shells to further Leonard Cohen’s goal of evading ordinary income taxes.  Leonard Cohen is adamant that he is the alter ego of these entities who engaged in self-dealing, money laundering, and co-mingled assets.  The default judgment is also evidence of embezzlement on Cohen’s part with respect to the royalty income he and LC Investments, LLC collect with respect to assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  Gianelli goes onto address Cohen’s legal theory, that a suspended corporation may not prosecute litigation (or transfer property), only applies to the named parties.  This explains the intentional failure to name Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc .and Traditional Holdings, LLC and Los Angeles Superior Court’s failure to obtain jurisdiction over these entities and other unnamed entities, including Old Ideas, LLC, vaguely included in the judgment language.  The corporate plaintiff, LC Investments, LLC, has nothing whatsoever to do with the other entities and has merely been used to embezzle royalty income related to the Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. assets.  There is no information with respect to how the “damages” and “interest” were divided between plaintiff, Leonard Cohen or LC Investments, LLC or what their relationship to the corporations in the default judgment actually is.  LC Investments, LLC also appears to be an alter ego of Leonard Cohen.  I did not default by failing to waive any objections to the default.  I was not served the lawsuit in this case and Los Angeles Superior Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me.  Los Angeles Superior Court has a very serious problem with service of process and jurisdiction in all matters related to me.  I have seen evidence that service issues before LA Superior Court are extensive in other cases as well.  I have asserted my objections.  I was not afforded the opportunity to confront my accuser, Leonard Cohen, or the so-called evidence (a fabricated narrative and fraudulent expense ledger) submitted to the Court.  I most certainly did not ignore service but rather immediately and diligently attempted to address Cohen’s failure to serve me with his legal representatives who refused to speak to or serve me.  Cohen used this situation as an opportunity to obtain his first fraudulent restraining order which appears, based on Greenberg’s June 2005 allegations, to have been pre-meditated in an attempt to discredit me as a witness.  Actually, every lawyer I’ve spoken with views the default judgment as illegal and evidence of theft.  They have also informed me that they personally believe this judgment could have been vacated based on Los Angeles Superior Court’s equitable powers.  I most certainly moved diligently in filing my motion to vacate the fraudulent default judgment.  I did not reside in Los Angeles from 2006 through June 2013 apart from a six month period in 2010 when I stayed with my son.  I did not discover the Complaint online until April 2010 just prior to relocating to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  I therefore filed my motion to vacate almost immediately after relocating to Los Angeles in June 2013. 

17.       On October 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote to explain that “instead of arguing valid procedural points – like the fact that Judge Hess did not address the merits of your lack-of-service claim … because your declaration was unsigned and because of your lack of diligence and that no final, binding or appealable order arising out of the January 14, 2014 hearing was ever signed or entered (thereby calling into question the basis for Hess’ ruling on June 23, 2015, which ruling also avoided the merits of the lack-of-service claim), as well as pointing out that the court held your 2013 motion to vacate to be untimely, whereas your motion to set aside the renewal of the judgment, as long as it was filed within 30 days of mailing of the notice of renewal, was timely and not subject to due diligence arguments that were available in opposition to your earlier motions to vacate – you simply repeated the claim “I was never served” over and over again, banging against that closed door.”  The May 2006 default judgment is void for lack of personal service.  I moved diligently.  Cohen’s representatives failed to file a signed order (January 14, 2014 hearing) and these matters were addressed ad nauseum.  I was not served and that fact will never change.  I wasn’t actually engaged in oral argument with Los Angeles Superior Court because it is impossible to speak to the Court without an aggressive response.  Nothing has been litigated and my declaration was signed.

18.       On October 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote that I am “capable of cogent thought at this point – unlike an earlier time and for whatever reason.”  I do not know this psychopath, an absolute stranger, and he has no idea who I am or what I am capable of.  His arrogance is astounding.  I have never been incapable of “cogent thought” and this individual wouldn’t know a “cogent thought” if he fell over one.  I do realize that these legal pleadings have gone nowhere.  I also now realize that Los Angeles Superior Court is uninterested in jurisdiction, actual facts, the truth, and condones fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, theft, extortion, prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, and litigation misconduct.  Given the fact that the 9th Circuit Court appears to be alarmed by some of these issues, I feel I am not alone in the disdain I feel for this system.  Stephen Gianelli also continues with his attempts to discredit Paulette Brandt.  The reasons for that are entirely obvious and no doubt relate to the Phil Spector case and the fact that Paulette Brandt is a witness and has submitted declarations with LA Superior Court related to my cases with Leonard Cohen.  Gianelli appears desperate with respect to Phil Spector’s case because the appeal is before the 9th Circuit Court and there is a very real possibility that Mr. Spector will prevail. If that were the outcome, there would be a third trial and it is entirely possible that Ms. Brandt would be called as a witness.  She has known Mr. Spector since she was a teenager; dated him for years; worked for him for years (the last time from approximately 1991 through 2002); and actually worked inside his Pasadena home where certain incidents allegedly occurred.  Paulette Brandt was also quite close with certain witnesses who testified during the Phil Spector trial.  She has never witnessed the alleged demonized Phil Spector certain witnesses conjured up during his trial. Paulette Brandt has never seen Phil Spector with a gun – in his home, the recording studio, or elsewhere.  She is firmly convinced of his innocence and has been public about that fact.  Paulette Brandt does not have an expectation of my winning big.  This is just an attempt to slander her.  Leonard Cohen stole from me and owes me a tremendous amount of money.  I turned down Cohen’s offer of 50% community property.  Cohen also offered to pay me the commissions he withheld and the value of my share of these entities and the intellectual property.  I refused to entertain any type of settlement negotiations due to the fact that I was convinced Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, were attempting to obtain false testimony from me.  Leonard Cohen now evidently feels that I would be “winning” the commissions due me or the value of my share of intellectual property and/or the corporate entities.  Leonard Cohen’s greed consumes him.  He also has a habit of not paying his representatives.  That would now include me, Machat & Machat, and Peter Lopez.  Leonard Cohen has not “won” anything.  His conduct with respect to me and my family is malicious and deviant.  He has used a fabricated narrative to destroy my life and reputation.  He has targeted my sons and elderly parents.  His conduct is utterly shameless.  However, the stakes are high, Cohen is a fabulist with motive, and his lawyers will do whatever it takes to further his sinister goals.  Leonard Cohen has obtained a fraudulent default judgment and three dime a dozen fraudulent restraining orders that have been used to gain a litigation advantage and discredit me.  I am completely unaware of the basis for the original 2005 restraining order and am unaware of many matters before LA Superior Court.  I have been obtaining this information for approximately 10 years piecemeal.  Anyone willing to lie on the stand or under the oath of perjury could conceivably prevail using these tactics – particularly if one fails to serve another party intentionally.  In that event, one’s success is a near given.  However, that is not the definition of an actual legal system where one is afforded certain constitutional rights which include the right to a fair adversarial proceeding and due process. 

19.       On October 25, 2015, Gianelli was concerned about Leonard Cohen’s documents which are corporate property and not Cohen’s personal property.  Leonard Cohen clearly sees no separation between himself and the corporate entities.  He views the entities as a mere extension of himself and the assets as his own piggy bank.  I have a rightful legal ownership interest in Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., Traditional Holdings, LLC, and Old Ideas, LLC.  I am therefore entitled to maintain copies of the corporate records.  I also wasn’t served the Complaint in the related case (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC341120).  Judge Ken Freeman’s court reporter informed me, in or around April 2010, that there was a related case.  Therefore, it would have been impossible for me to comply with a court order and that order does not extend to the corporate entities which were not named in the writ of possession.  It is hardly nonsense to address the fact that Leonard Cohen and his daughter, Lorca Cohen, had the audacity to go into my personal management offices and remove my business files and personal property.  Nor is it nonsense to address the fact that I stored boxes of old business documents for Cohen as a courtesy which he then abandoned until he understood I planned to ship the corporate evidence to Internal Revenue Service in Washington, DC.  Gianelli’s defense of Leonard Cohen and questions with respect to legal matters related to Cohen prove that he is indeed an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team.

20.       Gianelli has taken the legal position that I have no standing to “challenge” another taxpayer’s refund claims.  I most certainly have standing to “challenge” fraudulent tax refunds based on Cohen’s fraudulent and fabricated narrative about me and a non-existent “theft loss.”  I have challenged these refunds as fraudulent and contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee about the fact that these refunds, which were based on fraudulent information transmitted to IRS (in the form of the fraudulent Complaint Leonard Cohen filed with LA Superior Court), were issued to Leonard Cohen and I was not provided with notice or an opportunity to challenge or contest the refunds.  I also have standing to address the fraudulent complaint, perjured declarations, and ledger (which is evidence of financial fraud) used to obtain these refunds with Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board.  Leonard Cohen’s arguments now rely on three essential components:  res judicata, claim preclusion, and intentionally running statute of limitations.  This was his intended goal and it goes to motive.  Gianelli, who is evidently an experienced trial lawyer, continuously informs me that courts have nothing but disdain for self-represented litigants and hold them to a higher standard, in terms of reviewing their pleadings when they are submitted with fee waivers, than attorneys who routinely engage in litigation misconduct, lie and mislead triers of fact, and elicit perjured testimony.  That conduct apparently does not waste resources and is protected.

21.       On October 26, 2015 Gianelli wrote to discuss “issue preclusion” and “statute of limitations issues” with respect to “Cohen’s alleged acts and omissions … as well as Cohen’s tax treatments of those matters.”  Gianelli suggested that I would do well to “bone up on the relatively new burden on a federal court plaintiff to not only tick the element boxes when pleading her claim but also to plead specific facts that give rise to an inference of plausibility.”  According to my Stalker, there “appears to be a sliding scale of judicial skepticism for various types of claims” that includes pro se v. represented individuals.  Evidently this plausibility, as applied to a plaintiff who has a long litigation history with the defendant (Leonard Cohen) invites a district court judge to view all of this through the prism of “experience and common sense.”  It would seem more than obvious that a district court judge should understand that there has not been a history of litigation between me and Leonard Cohen.  That was and remains intentional on Cohen’s part.  Nothing whatsoever has been litigated and LA Superior Court has failed to obtain jurisdiction, has no remedies available and/or elected not to exercise its inherent authority.  Stephen Gianelli goes onto to recommend that I read and digest “Justice Posner’s decision in Cooney v. Rossiter” and, in particular, his references to “paranoid pro se litigation” which Gianelli believes “neatly encapsulates” my “theories against Leonard Cohen.”  Judge Posner is a Circuit Judge in the 7th Circuit.  The case Gianelli advised me to read and digest relates to one Deborah Cooney who lost custody of her two sons after an Illinois state court found that she suffered from ‘Munchausen syndrome’ by proxy.”  The mother sued the state court judge (Judge Norquist) and others charging constitutional violations.  The district court dismissed the suit.  Judge Norquist was, of course, absolutely immune from suit since he was acting in his judicial capacity in ruling that Cooney was not entitled to custody.  Apparently, Cooney’s complaint alleged that a court order was “orchestrated” appointing an individual as the child’s psychiatrist which began a “witch hunt” against Cooney.  Evidently the psychiatrist compiled a report concluding that Cooney was indeed exhibiting “Munchausen syndrome by proxy.”  Cooney apparently attempted to have doctors diagnose her older son with various illness or injuries.  Judge Nordquist granted a petition for an emergency order of protection stating that Cooney was “armed and suicidal.”  He transferred custody of the children to her ex-husband, their father.  Allegations that the children’s therapist made “false statements” to the Department of Children and Family Services led to a finding of child abuse by Cooney.  According to Judge Posner, guardians ad litem and court appointed experts, including psychiatrists, are entitled to absolute immunity and are absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court’s direction.  They are “arms of the court” who will serve the best issues of a child in a custody proceeding and need absolute immunity in order to fulfill their obligations.  Cooney, on the other hand, felt that these arms of the court were “part of an illegal conspiracy to deprive her of custody of the children” and the conclusions in the report were “false.”  The Court felt that the appeal presented a second issue:  the lawyer and therapist, being private persons, could be brought within the reach of Section 1983 only by charging that they had agreed with a state officer to deprive her of constitutional rights.  The judge relied on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in concluding that “a bare allegation of conspiracy was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”  Evidently, pro se litigants, being held to a higher standard than attorneys in federal court, must argue their cases through to verdict in the complaint.  Gianelli highlighted the following:  “In other words, the height of the pleading requirement is relative to circumstances … This case is not a complex litigation … But it may be paranoid pro se litigation, arising out of a bitter custody fight and alleging, as it does, a vast encompassing conspiracy.”  I personally do not see a vast conspiracy in this opinion.  It appears to be a relatively routine and vicious custody battle with extreme allegations on both sides.  I have no idea what a disease “by proxy” means.  I find it rather mind-boggling that a judge wouldn’t understand that custody battles are filled with false accusations, perjury and fraud.  My friend was Director of Child Services and personally informed me that they are the “Gestapo” who could make a case against anyone in the telephone book.  I am aware that the opinion confirms that this particular judge appears to exhibit disdain for the pro se litigant and, although she is a mother who has lost custody of her children, concluded that she is paranoid.  I remain unconvinced that the majority of U.S. citizens would agree that pro se litigants are “paranoid.”  In fact, many citizens have concluded that the justice system is corrupt.  In any event, the case has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal issues between me and Leonard Cohen.  We were not in a dating or engagement relationship; most certainly never had children; and were not a married couple.  I have no conspiracy theories and that would include with respect to the SWAT/King Drew situation.  Cohen, not I, has the long history of psychiatric problems, drugs abuse, and alcoholism.  He also has a habit of falsely accusing his representatives of ripping him off to breach contracts and has engaged in blatant acts of theft on more than one occasion.  I am aware that there are heightened pleading standards in federal court but have read many opinions that also prove judges themselves are confused about issues such as RICO so I am not convinced that arrogance is the appropriate response or reaction.  As for my own custody matter, Los Angeles Superior Court destroyed my sons’ lives based on a fraudulent “default judgment” and without a fair adversarial proceeding.  As for Judge Posner, I do not believe his utter lack of compassion towards the mother, even were the allegations regarding the proxy illness in fact true, is appropriate.

22.       On October 27, 2015, my Stalker wrote to inform me that the Michelle Rice emails he quotes from were “not sent in aid of attempting to argue that the [Rice, Kory and Gianelli] have not engaged in any type of potentially unlawful conduct with respect to Kelley Lynch …”  Based on this position, I therefore will assume that the emails were sent to argue that these individuals have engaged in unlawful conduct towards me.  Gianelli, an individual I do not know, believes he is in some sort of dialogue with me and further argues that he has not broken the law or acted in concert with Kory, Rice – let alone in respect to a “racketeer influenced crime corrupted enterprise.”  This accusation, from the Stalker’s point of view, is implausible, preposterous and untrue as to be laughable although it is in fact true and overwhelmingly blatant.  Gianelli is attempting to elicit information with respect to my RICO suits and other matters.  His defense to this blatant and ongoing legal conspiracy is that he has forwarded me emails “because they reveal much about Ms. Rice and (to say the least) the emails do not paint her in the best light.”  As I have repeatedly stated, this is one of the more moronic cover your ass operations known to mankind.  Rice and Gianelli have decided to accuse one another of being greedy sycophants and “star fuckers” in an attempt to prove that they are not engaged in a coordinated attempt to discredit and isolate me while using my sons and others as weapons who they believe can be intimidated and threatened.  Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly emailed me a photograph of an individual wearing a “tin foil” hat to advance his absurd and devious arguments.  This is the identical photograph that was uploaded to the Tax Petition evidence blog.  In order to upload that image, the person who illegally accessed and altered the blog illegally opened a Gravatar.com account using my email address.  Stephen Gianelli also falsely accuses me of being a “5150” case and the Gravatar account was opened using that term:

https://en.gravatar.com/kelleylynch5150

23.       In another email my Stalker sent on October 27, 2015, he admonishes me that he has not been contacting (let alone “harassing”) my sons.  This particular statement proves unequivocally that Stephen Gianelli is an absolute psychopath and chronic liar.  According to Gianelli, his targeting of my sons for nearly 7 straight years is merely my “manufactured drama that will be used to convince a new judicial forum not yet familiar with my history to allow me to ‘relitigate’ my entire life since Cohen allegedly fired me in 2004.”  My sons have submitted declarations to numerous courts confirming that they have been harassed by Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others. Gianelli is quite clear that I have been “shut down” by Los Angeles Superior Court with respect to the Colorado order issued without findings, fraudulent registration of that order as a “domestic violence order” in California, and the absolute lack of due process and severe constitutional rights violations that are at the heart of all Los Angeles Superior Court proceedings that involve me, so to speak.  Gianelli concludes by arguing that my federal RICO actions are preposterous for multiple reasons.  The reason he gives is Rutger’s inquiry into his email advising him that the City of Attorney planned to falsely arrest me for a second time.  That email merely proves that the City of Los Angeles conspired with Stephen Gianelli to retaliate against me. 

24.       On October 27, 2015, Gianelli again wrote about my RICO suit.  Gianelli, who clearly believes these emails will be presented to a court of law, is actually addressing the court itself and encouraging the court to prejudicially view me as a “paranoid pro se” litigant.  As many individuals in this country believe there is a two-tiered justice system (one for the wealthy and another for less fortunate individuals), I do not particularly understand why a court would view a self-represented litigant as necessarily paranoid.  Gianelli again quotes Judge Posner in Cooney v. Rossiter.  As part of Gianelli’s argument he uses the SWAT/Killer King situation as an example.  I personally do not believe when a woman is in her home alone, and her son appears to be in serious jeopardy (surrounded by armed men), that she is paranoid when she concludes that the incident was dangerous, reckless, and unconscionable.  A custody matter was indeed coordinated using the SWAT incident where LAPD concluded that my dog was the hostage.  At the heart of the custody matter was the “King Drew” incident.  The entire King Drew report is fraudulent and does not relate to me.  Gianelli goes onto describe the tactics that have been used against me:  a coordinated SWAT incident, coordinated custody matter, several fraudulent restraining orders meant to discredit and undermine me as a witness, a fraudulent default judgment in a case where I wasn’t served, and unconscionable and corrupt government actors targeting me for a celebrity who may have been engaged in some type of quid pro quo scenario with former District Attorney Steve Cooley related to Phil Spector and a gun story.  These government actors also lied extensively about federal and state tax matters.  This situation should not lead one to question the pro se litigant.  On the contrary, it should cause one to question what type of corruption is taking place in Los Angeles and why the stakes are so high.  Gianelli’s job, as he clearly understands, is to provide a plausible explanation for his emails and characterize my statements as lies, misrepresentations, and fallacious legal theories.  Gianelli has been quite clear that his emails are also an attempt to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies.  This is very similar to his use of reasonable doubt arguments online with respect to Phil Spector.  Gianelli sets up the argument and Spector haters descend and rip them apart, slander Mr. Spector further, and attack anyone who has the audacity to defend him.  The situation is highly coordinated.  Gianelli’s argument for sending these endless harassing emails, targeting my sons, threatening and intimidating witnesses, and sowing the seeds of slander about me into the public domain is merely excused away by his implausible explanation that he is responding to my “false, defamatory, and accusatory lies and false legal theories.”  Unfortunately for this criminal, I am telling the truth and he and many others are engaged in egregious criminal conduct.

25.       On October 31, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that I really don’t want to go “stumbling blindly into federal court without a solid, fresh, viable cause of action well supported by case law and fact and not barred by easily asserted defenses all known to any federal judge.”  I suppose I could do what Leonard Cohen has:  fabricate a narrative; falsify and conceal evidence; lie relentlessly to the court; and engage in misconduct.  This seems to ensure that one will prevail before the judicial system.  The judicial system, according to Gianelli, is especially rough and intolerant with pro se litigants.  The federal court is not laid back or tolerant when it comes to pro se plaintiffs.  California’s absolute judicial immunity applies to federal statutory causes of action filed in the 9th Circuit.  It is rather disturbing to understand that this system is not only utterly bankrupt but refuses to hold anyone accountable for their own actions.  Apparently, according to the logic of the courts themselves, if you fail to hold someone accountable they will be more inclined to act ethically and less likely to lie.  

26.       On October 28, 2015, Stephen Gianelli, who spends 24/7 targeting people for Leonard Cohen and with respect to Phil Spector, advised me that I have copied him with abusive and accusatory emails for six years.  Gianelli is a professional liar and criminal.  He is the individual who publicly stated that Spector prosecutor, Pat Dixon, fears for his life over Eminem’s song “Puke” and actually believes Eminem’s lyric about “dry humping” was dedicated to Dixon.  The default judgment and renewal are both blatantly illegal and evidence of theft and extortion.  The court has not set them aside so this is clearly irrelevant to the court.  I am not an “adjudicated harasser.”  Leonard Cohen has potentially spent hundreds of thousands of dollars obtaining dime a dozen restraining orders and a default judgment.  The key to successful criminal conduct, within the legal system, is failing to serve an individual.  This permits the victor to successfully move directly to default judgment.  It remains unclear to me how a default judgment actually relates to embezzlement apart from the fact that Leonard Cohen has engaged in theft and embezzlement via default judgment.  A default judgment merely means that the individual has not participated in the adversarial system.  In any event, this was Gianelli’s defense to my position that he is engaged in criminal witness tampering.  Gianelli has also blatantly lied about my sons signatures on their declarations.  They were both personally signed by my sons.  This thread of emails, and Gianelli’s aggressive accusations, arose due to the fact that Rutger wrote to advise Gianelli to stop emailing him.  Gianelli, who (according to his own public statements) worked with the City Attorney to have me falsely arrested on two occasions, decided to copy Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan on his email.  He feels quite comfortable with Ms. Swanigan whose declaration in the probation retaliation matter is nothing other than an entirely perjured document.  The extent of the lies and deception related to this situation is inconceivably vulgar.  Stephen Gianelli, and others, have used my sons as weapons to provoke, harass, alarm, and distress me.  On October 27, 2015, Rutger once again advised Gianelli to stop emailing him and confirmed that based on Gianelli’s extraordinary obsession one must conclude that this ongoing harassment is his “job and not a hobby.” 


From: Rutger Penick <mr.synt4xerror@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)
To: "Stephen R. Gianelli" <
stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <
kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Stop CC'ing my email Mr. Gianelli. One would think with all of this effort you're putting into this, it's a job and not a hobby.

Sincerely, 

Rutger Penick

[Email bcc’d to Rutger Penick from Stephen Gianelli]:  On Sep 22, 2015, at 8:51 PM, Stephen R. Gianelli <
stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:

Clearly, Ms. Lynch, your obsessive desire to “prove” a “conspiracy” to “harass” you is more important to you than defeating the 10-year renewal of the 2006 judgment on October 6.

Nor do you have anything to say about THESE FACTS, emailed to you hours ago:

You did not “raise the FACT that the order was not filed.” And the point isn’t even entirely that an order was never filed. The point is that an order denying the 2013 motion to vacate was NEITHER signed NOR filed, AND THAT THE MINUTE ORDER DIRECTS THAT A WRITTEN ORDER BE PREPARED. Those things TAKEN TOGETHER have the legal significance of meaning that NO FINAL, APPEALABLE ORDER WAS ENTERED AND – THEREFORE, RES JUDICATA (SOMETIMES CALLED “ISSUE PRECLUSION) DOES NOT APPLY.

Here is what you said at the hearing per the transcript:

“I still don’t know if your order was entered. […] He said he would serve me; I never received anything. I don’t even know if an order was filed. It’s not on L.A. Superior Court’s website. And he refused to serve me anything, which is pretty fascinating.” (TR 6/23/2015, p. 8, lines 2-11, emphasis added.)

I have now solved the mystery  for you. There is no “If” or “maybe”. Korn (or more probably Rice, since she was doing all the work and Korn was attorney of record in name only) attached the proposed order to a “Notice of Lodging” (the proposed order) and then filed that with the court, instead of transmitting a proposed order directly to Judge Hess or his clerk and then following up every week or so to make sure that the order was signed AND filed. As a consequence of this professional negligence, NO ORDER SETTING FORTH THE COURT’S RULING ON JANUARY 17, 2014 WAS EVER FILED. And it has the legal significance that I stated in my emails.

If you knew all of that you would have said “No, Judge Hess, no order was ever signed or filed, and under In re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1410, there is no final, appealable order – so no, Judge I did not have the choice of appealing the order or letting it go as you say and in addition judge, the lack of a final, appealable order also means that there never was a final, binding determination that I was served in a manner authorized by statute. Nor did your January 17, 2014 ruling rest on the fact of service judge, because my declaration  was unsigned and you relied on procedural grounds and the lack of due diligence in denying the motion. You never made a factual finding that I was served with process in August of 2005.”

But you said NONE of that at the June 23, 2015 hearing.

So I assume that you DID NOT know those things.

And, you’re welcome BTW.


And you honestly believe that MICHELLE RICE would be a part of bringing these (and other) facts and authorities to your attention on the eve of a hearing to decide whether or not her celebrity client Leonard Cohen’s $14M judgment goes poof  and disappears) per your pending motion? And that she would risk that to rebut a “conspiracy” that you cannot prove and that isn’t even before the court?

Why Rutger thinks you are “smart” is a mystery. Because for a “smart” person you are the most obtuse person I have ever encountered. You don’t even see a point when you trip over it.

Very truly yours,

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

27.       On October 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that an individual “may not sue witness, party or attorney in 9th Circuit under federal statute for testimony or litigation conduct.”  California’s “absolute judicial immunity applies to federal statute cause of action filed in the 9th Circuit.  Franklin v. Terr.”  Gianelli has decided, without any basis in reality, that my RICO suit will present predicate acts related to litigation misconduct before Los Angeles Superior Court.  All matters before LA Superior Court are now under appeal.  That would include, but is not limited to, the decisions with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order; Cohen’s renewal of the fraudulent default judgment (and attempt to extort additional fraudulent financial interest from me); the documents that were wrongfully sealed; and, my motion re. fraud upon the court which has been incorrectly mischaracterized as a motion to reconsider.

28.       On November 3, 2015, Stephen Gianelli (who does not know Phil Spector or Dennis Riordan) wrote to inform me that “Dennis Riordan is being paid to appeal the order [Spector’s] issued by the Central District of California denying Phil Spector’s habeas petition to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals.”  Gianelli wanted me to understand that Mr. Riordan has “not been retained to track which Spector fan websites like or don’t like Mrs. Spector (or for that matter Mr. Spector). “ Stephen Gianelli would actually like to know if I am communicating with Phil Spector, Rachelle Spector, or Dennis Riordan.  When he says “Your emails to Riordan are never read nor are they forwarded to anyone” this is merely meant to provoke a response and elicit information.  Gianelli is evidently angry that I, an absolute stranger to him, would write Dennis Riordan, another absolute stranger to him.  He ends by asking “Why do you think you don’t have Rachelle Spector’s contact information?  She has avoided you like the plague.”  Stephen Gianelli does not know me or Rachelle Spector.  He has some form of relationship with Spector’s stepsons, Gary and Louis Spector, and has no idea if anyone is avoiding me like the plague.  Gianelli is using this email, and these tactics, in an ongoing attempt to infiltrate Phil Spector’s legal team.  He has used the identical tactics with IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, State of Kentucky, and others.

29.       On November 4, 2015, Gianelli continued with his tirade about Denis Riordan and wrote to advise me that “Dennis Riordan is not reading your emails” and to inform me that he does not want “details.”  I, who happen to be a close friend of Phil Spector, am “the last person on Earth who could supply those details.”  I also happen to live with Phillip’s former girlfriend and personal assistant who is convinced of his innocence.  Gianelli goes onto to argue that “everything knowable about Phil Spector’s pending 9th Circuit appeal is available online.”  What is unknown to Gianelli, and Spector’s prosecutors, is who would handle a third trial (should the case be remanded); what the legal arguments would be; what evidence has been uncovered post-trial; and what witnesses would be called to the stand.  Gianelli tends to end his deranged emails with gratuitous insults – such as “moron” – when he is desperately attempting to obtain information and believes that will provoke the individual to respond.  Stephen Gianelli has used this tactic on witnesses who have provided me with declarations.  My friend, Dan Meade, wrote the following response to one of Gianelli’s more deranged attempts to insult and intimidate Mr. Meade.  Gianelli has written and attempted to intimidate other witnesses such as Palden Ronge.  The following emails are merely a few examples of the types of emails Gianelli uses to harass, insult, slander, intimidate, and dissuade witnesses.  Dan Meade and Palden Ronge provided declarations to LA Superior Court.  They, and other declarations, can be found at this link:

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/05/kelley-lynchs-motion-for-terminating.html

From: Daniel Meade <trimesamten1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Trolling my Facebook page
To: "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <
stephengianelli@gmail.com>

Mr. Gianelli,

I have never trolled you on my own or at Kelley's request.
Was the word idiot your way of signing your letter to me or just calling me a name like a high school girl?
I have no wish to communicate with you ever! 
In my opinion you need some kind of psychological help or a kind friend or at least some one to coach you in basic human manners.
I hope you feel better some day.

Dan Meade

On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM, STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com> wrote:
Daniel Meade,

You asked me not to email you, now you are trolling my Facebook page at Kelley Lynch’s request (because I blocked her as well)? 

You really are a piece of work.

Idiot.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:15 AM
Subject: Re:
To: Daniel Meade <
trimesamten1@gmail.com>

All you had to do was ask, Mr. Meade.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Daniel Meade <trimesamten1@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Gianelli,

Would you please stop sending me emails? OK?
It’s getting a bit boring and you are becoming a nuisance to me.
I see no reason why you want or should provide me with your info.
You have your info and she has hers. 
It is none of my business at any level.
Period.
Understand?
Thanks for your cooperation on this matter

Dan Meade

From: STEPHEN R. GIANELLI <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:06 PM
Subject:
To: Palden Ronge
mediamessenger@gmail.com

Mr. Ronge,

Kelley Lynch at all times WANTED to be served with a copy of Lenard Cohen’s lawsuit so she could study the allegations?

Interesting testimony under oath I must say in view of the attached email she sent to plaintiff’s counsel THREATENING TO SUE if he tried to serve her “one more time” (apparently Ms. Lynch believed, incorrectly, that if she refused to give her name to the server service was ineffective).

From your declaration:

“I am aware of the fact that Kelley was home throughout the summer and fall of 2005.  I frequently visited, understood she had no transportation or money, and when I rang the bell, she would simply open the door.  It didn’t appear that she was attempting to evade anyone.  She informed me repeatedly that she wanted to be served Cohen’s lawsuit and review the specific allegations in the Complaint.

30.       On November 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that if Mr. Riordan “waived” at him once, which Gianelli publicly stated some time ago, that would be “one more time than he waived” to me.  This is merely an ongoing desperate attempt to elicit information.

31.       Phil Spector was most certainly on Stephen Gianelli’s mind on November 4, 2015.  He wrote to advise that all he needs to know about Phil Spector is that he is “quite ill, that he can no longer speak and is unresponsive and, in the meantime, his motion to the 9th Circuit filed August 27 for a certificate of appealability (without which the appeal cannot further proceed) is still pending.” According to Gianelli, “that is all anyone knows or can know about the 9th Circuit proceeds as of today, even Dennis Riordan.”  Gianelli, who does not know Mr. or Mrs. Spector, decided to inform me that all he knows “about Mrs. Spector is that she will have nothing to do with you.”  Stephen Gianelli is attempting to determine what my (or Paulette’s) relationship with Phil and Rachelle Spector is at this moment in time.  Gianelli also appears rather obsessed with Bruce Cutler which has been an ongoing issue since approximately 2009 when Gianelli phoned Bruce Cutler, used me as a pretext to do so, and proceeded to ask if Bruce Cutler still represented Phil Spector.  What Gianelli actually wants to know is whether or not I have spoken with Bruce Cutler and what is really on his mind.  Stephen Gianelli is waiting for an opportunity to use me to phone Cutler.  I’ve suggested he call and ask him to marry him since Gianelli’s obsession with Cutler is inconceivably bizarre.

32.       On November 6, 2015, Gianelli’s obsession with obtaining information about Bruce Cutler continued.  He wrote with respect to my “silly emails implying Cutler will represent” me.  No such email exists.  Gianelli is attempting to determine if Bruce Cutler might play should there be a third Phil Spector trial.  Bruce Cutler will be part of my RICO suit against the City and County of Los Angeles with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order and “dating relationship” the local government has simply decided to assign me.  Cutler, who did not request a fraudulent domestic violence related order, was granted one at the request of prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter.  She evidently believed my three letters to Bruce Cutler were harassing and concluded that my style of writing was simply too chatty for her personal taste and therefore I, based on her lies and deception, should be drugged and committed.  The prosecutor lied in this Sentencing Memorandum when she informed the Court that Cohen and I were in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  We were not.  Leonard Cohen sexually harassed me for years.  He exposed his penis to me.  He looked at people defecating on one another online in front of me.  He demanded sex and would threaten my job with that demand.  The situation became intolerable and I informed many parties that I did not want to be in Cohen’s presence alone.  Apparently the City Attorney believes that Leonard Cohen’s own conduct is my intent to annoy him.  The actual sentencing hearing was astounding for a number of reasons.  That would include Leonard Cohen’s lies about Internal Revenue Service and me during his so-called Victim Impact Statement.  Judge Robert Vanderet literally sabotaged my defense by refusing to permit IRS Agent Luis Tejeda or my son, John Rutger Penick, to take the stand.  Judge Vanderet’s comment that a person shouldn’t be “targeted” is positively farcical in light of what has unfolded.  All information in my alleged emails, which were not authenticated, was and remains legitimate.  That would include the extraneous information operatives such as Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh inserted into the matters I am addressing.  There is nothing ‘far fetched” about any matter related to Phil Spector including the fact that the forensic science does not support the fabricated narrative.  What is farfetched, however, is that Judge Vanderet permitted the City Attorney to elicit information about Phil Spector and a gun using an email that Leonard Cohen was not copied on although he testified that he was.  Another farfetched issue has to do with Judge Vanderet hearing federal tax matters.  It was also rather farfetched of Judge Vanderet and the City Attorney to permit Leonard Cohen to perjure himself on the witness stand, confess to perjury, and permit him to go unprosecuted. 



Bruce Cutler advised Los Angeles Superior Court that he destroyed the alleged voice mail messages and his letter is nothing other than hearsay.  The Court had no jurisdiction over Cutler, this matter, and nothing was submitted under the oath of perjury.  The evidence that was submitted to the Court, in the form of the three letters written about the outrageous situation between Leonard Cohen and former DA Steve Cooley (with respect to my “restraining order” matter and testimony about Phil Spector and a gun incident), will most definitely be addressed in my RICO.  I will also attempt to subpoena all evidence with respect to any and all communications Bruce Cutler has had with Spector prosecutor Pat Dixon about me.  Stephen Gianelli previously wrote that Pat Dixon was behind an astounding situation that involved Boulder Police Department, me, and Deneuve Construction.  The Denver FBI advised me to ask the Boulder DA to investigate this matter.  At one point the Denver FBI advised me to contact the Attorney General of Colorado about this incident.  I have done so and have been greeted by a wall of silence.  Stephen Gianelli is merely lying in his letter that I believe Cutler will represent me.  Bruce Cutler does not represent me.  This is merely Gianelli’s attempt to infiltrate the Spector case precisely as he has done with Internal Revenue Service matters related to Leonard Cohen.

33.       On November 7, 2015,  Gianelli wrote to inform me that “Hootnick is in correspondence with Mrs. Spector.  Therefore, you only confirm the impression that the Spectors’ already have of you as being totally crazy.”  Alan Hootnick is an individual who believes that Phil Spector is innocent.  Gianelli has begun communicating with Alan Hootnick.  He transmits slanderous statements about me and now copies Alan Hootnick on emails harassing me.  Stephen Gianelli does not know me or the Mr. and Mrs. Spector.  I am not certain how the fact that Alan Hootnick may correspond with Rachelle Spector would lead Gianelli to conclude that Phil Spector and his wife view me as being “totally crazy.”  Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Spector would find it “totally crazy” that Gianelli targeted my email accounts and blogs with Michelle Blaine; relentlessly defends Leonard Cohen who now has three versions of his bullshit gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court; and is relentlessly targeting and slandering me and Paulette Brandt while terrorizing my family.  This email is another attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector, Rachelle Spector, and – of course – Bruce Cutler.  It is quite clear that certain parties are under the impression that Phil Spector may prevail before the 9th Circuit and his case could be remanded.  It is also clear that Phil Spector will pursue this matter to the United States Supreme Court.  Therefore, it is my personal opinion that Stephen Gianelli, and others, are desperately attempting to discover any and all information that may exist with respect to a potential third trial.  I have not “under these circumstances” suggested that “Cutler might represent” me in “civil RICO litigation.”  Dennis Riordan is also mentioned in this particular email.  Gianelli, using slanderous statements and false accusations, is attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector’s appellate attorney and appeal itself. 

34.       On November 7, 2015, Gianelli continued with his attempts to elicit information about Bruce Cutler.  Gianelli continues to obsess over my blog posts and believes he has a legal right to relentlessly harass me over them.  He therefore decided to harass me over my email post dated November 7, 2015 at 11.06 AM.  Gianelli is actually responding to my emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ about this ongoing situation.  He is using my emails as a means to infiltrate Phil Spector’s legal team and elicit information about many other matters.  That includes, but is not limited to, this Tax Court case.  I did write that “Bruce Cutler’s letter to the court was utter rubbish and hearsay” because that is precisely what it was.  However, Gianelli wants to know if I actually left voice mails for Bruce Cutler or personally spoke to him.  He wants to know what type of evidence I faxed Cutler.  Gianelli would like to know if I am actually waiting for Bruce Cutler to represent me.  The answer is unequivocally “no.”  I most certainly believe that Phil Spector and his legal team should take this entire situation extremely seriously and investigate the extent of Gianelli’s relationship with his prosecutors, Michelle Blaine, Leonard Cohen, Spector’s sons, and so forth.  Gianelli wants to know why “a busy NYC lawyer who does not know” me would “take the time to send a letter to” my sentencing judge.  He should ask Cutler that question directly.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

 

The Criminal Stalker Writes, Lies About My Emails & Bruce Cutler, And Attempts to Gather Information About Phil Spector

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: your silly emails implying Cutler will represent you
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

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

I haven't sent any emails implying that Bruce Cutler will represent me.  The only issue outstanding re. Cutler involves a fraudulent "domestic violence related order" that will be at issue in my RICO suit against the City and County of Los Angeles.  VAWA funding fraud and extortion (re. fraudulent domestic violence fines), wire fraud (re. the registration of the Colorado order issued without findings), mail fraud (re. the fraudulent domestic violence related orders), etc. will also be at issue.  

The only thing that matters re. RICO at this time is what a federal court thinks but that's not why Gianelli, a criminal stalker, is writing.  This is an attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector and other matters.

Bruce Cutler's letter to the court was utter rubbish and hearsay.  He wrote that he destroyed "evidence" so the three letters I sent with respect to the fact that the DA publicly aligned himself with Cohen (who then testified about Spector and a gun leading to his mind-bogglingly deranged three versions of Cohen's good rock 'n roll stories about Spector before LA Superior Court) [will be a matter before a federal court].  I will subpoena the Grand Jury transcripts/testimony and do believe Mick Brown reviewed the Grand Jury transcript and so shall I.  Cutler's law partner spoke to my public defender.  That's what I know about Cutler's law partner.  My lawyer phoned Cutler and concluded:  the City Attorney is attempting to sabotage IRS, discredit you, the DA doesn't want the Spector verdict overturned, and there may be a jury plant.  In any event, this is old news but Gianelli probably wants to call Cutler and infiltrate possible issues related to any good news with the 9th Circuit [re. Phil Spector].  

I will subpoena information related to "Pat Dixon" particularly as Gianelli publicly stated that Dixon (who fears Eminem's lyric to "Puke") was behind the deranged Boulder PD roll by at Deneuve Construction.  

In any event, the proxy/agent provocateur/infiltrator is obsessed with Cutler and should call him and ask him to marry him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfrLFirGWc

Kelley

35.       On November 8, 2015, Gianelli decided to harass me over the email to the FBI and Department of Justice posted on my blog.  Gianelli defends his criminal conduct using false accusations, lies, slander, and a fabricated narrative.  I have personally advised this individual countless times to cease and desist.  That would include with respect to the ongoing targeting of my sons and friends.  Paulette Brandt continues to be harassed by this individual as well.  Gianelli has taken the position that if I copy people on my emails that gives him the legal right to relentlessly harass, stalk, intimidate, and threaten them.  He specifically names my sister, sons, ex-husband Douglas Penick, and ex-brother-in-law.  Gianelli, who writes constantly about Spector’s prosecutors (Cooley, Dixon, Jackson) informed me that “There is no Phil Spector prosecution team” for him to work with because they have all left government service.  Stephen Gianelli’s obsession with Phil Spector seriously betrays his insane emails about Mr. Spector, his legal issues, and legal team.

36.       Stephen Gianelli has decided to copy Alan Hootnick, an individual who resides in Chile and believes Phil Spector is innocent, on his harassing emails to me.  He seems to believe it is completely acceptable to slander, libel, and defame me to third parties who he believes may be “foolish” enough to believe my version of events.  Gianelli therefore, although he has never met me and does not know me, falsely informs people that I am mentally unstable, have substance abuse issues, abused my sons, and stole from Leonard Cohen.  On November 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote to “discuss” Ron Burkle.  I have no idea who Gianelli is but he writes with a familiarity about my sons that is chilling.  On this particular date, Gianelli expressed an interest in Ron Burkle, an individual he does not know but has slandered me to.  I personally know Ron Burkle.  However, Gianelli’s email is more complex than one might think.  He is actually writing about my “parody email” with respect to former DA Steve Cooley.  Gianelli would like to know what Ron Burkle thinks of that email and the situation with respect to me, Phil Spector, and Leonard Cohen.  He therefore uses intentional insults in an attempt to provoke me and elicit information when he accuses me of “throwing” myself “at a wealthy divorcing parent of a child at your child’s school that you barely knew, by sharing intimidate knowledge of gossip about his divorce while concurrently trying to blackmail Cohen with a threat to go to the tax authorities.”  Of course, I have never thrown myself at Ron Burkle; the details of his divorce were public knowledge; I do know Ron Burkle; and I never attempted to “blackmail” Leonard Cohen with a  “threat to go to the tax authorities” about his lawsuit.  I reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud on April 15, 2005.  Cohen retaliated with a lawsuit used to defend himself in August 2005.  This lawsuit was brought after Cohen and his legal representatives spent months attempting to force me into an illegal deal that I personally believe involved falsely accusing Cohen’s representatives of, among other things, defrauding him.  Gianelli’s email also mentions Bruce Cutler once again.  For some reason, Gianelli and local government actors in Los Angeles believe that by inserting extraneous information into my situation, the issues will become confused and obscured.  This is precisely what was done throughout my 2012 trial when the City Attorney of Los Angeles attempted to cover up Leonard Cohen’s criminal and illicit conduct by falsely accusing me of intending to “annoy” him for no legitimate reason and lying about nearly every issue raised including federal and state tax matters.  Actually, I did not read Cohen’s lawsuit until approximately April 2010 but I know what the issues being discussed with my lawyers were and I understand that the assets Cohen and LCI wrongfully converted via default judgment belong to Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  I also know that I have a legitimate 15% ownership interest in that entity and the intellectual property it owns.  The default judgment is evidence of nothing other than theft, embezzlement, and extortion.  Gianelli concludes by confirming that Cohen’s lawsuit had “an alleged tax avoidance purpose.”   The lawsuit is nothing other than an attempt to obstruct justice; cover up criminal tax fraud; and blame Cohen’s wrongdoing on others.  Leonard Cohen’s operative is also attempting to spin this situation by arguing that I attempted to “blackmail” Leonard Cohen by going to the authorities.  Natural Wealth’s June 2005 lawsuit details what essentially unfolded between me and Cohen, as well as Cohen and Kory’s tactics, and the suit raised very serious allegations related to extortion, bribery, blackmail, witness tampering, and witness intimidation tactics on the part of Cohen and Kory.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who retaliated against me for going to IRS and other tax authorities.  By the spring of 2005, he and his lawyer were well aware that I had reported the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS Agent Bill Betzer.  I do believe Leonard Cohen would have a difficult time on the witness stand explaining his offer of 50% community property.  I have that offer, as discussed with my lawyers and accountant, in writing.  My accountant, Dale Burgess, asked me to contact IRS and U.S. Treasury, after I met with the Treasury agents, to advise them that he was present for this offer.  Dale Burgess also informed me personally that he believes CID should be involved in this situation and I should be in the witness protection program due to the tactics used against me.  Cohen’s former lawyer, Ed Dean, advised me that he felt IRS Commissioner would or should come in after Cohen and his representatives.  He noted that this would depend on whether or not IRS Commissioner believed there was fraud and not negligence involved.  I think a willful failure to declare $8 million in income to IRS is clearly not mere negligence.  Extinguishing the promissory note and annuity obligation was clearly not mere negligence.  Applying for and receiving fraudulent tax refunds was not mere negligence on Leonard Cohen’s part.  He simply uses one fabricated narrative and lie after another to explain away his wrongdoing. 

37.       On November 10, 2015, Gianelli decided to focus on Leonard Cohen’s three versions of the Spector good rock ‘n roll story before Los Angeles Superior Court.  Those stories now involve various contradictory components.  Depending on what version one believes, Phil Spector evidently held an automatic, semi-automatic, or crossbow to Cohen’s head, neck, or chest.  There may or may not have been a bottle of wine involved.  Like most of Cohen’s fabricated narratives, this one continues to evolve.  For instance, Cohen has now personally testified before LA Superior Court that I never stole from him – just his “peace of mind” – and we were in a purely business relationship although he has argued “misappropriation” and obtained a fraudulent domestic violence order.  It’s hard to keep up with Leonard Cohen’s fabricated narratives.  That would include, but is not limited to, his stories about his role in CIA’s MKULTRA, his role as reconnaissance during Bay of Pigs (where Cohen was evidently arrested and interrogated by Castro’s forces who thought he was a member of the first CIA landing party), and his plan to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War without any military experience whatsoever.  Stephen Gianelli gratuitously noted that “everyone who recorded with him has one, apparently.”  Everyone who recorded with Phil Spector does not have a gun story and this is a blatant lie that again betrays Gianelli’s attempts to obfuscate his true role.  Hal Blaine, who worked with Spector in the studio for 37 years, informed the detectives he spoke with that he never once saw Phil Spector in the studio with a gun.  I have been in the studio with Phil Spector (including on the Celine Dion project) and never saw him with a gun.  Paulette Brandt is the individual who invited Phil Spector to record at the Record Plant which resulted in John Lennon and Beatles recordings.  She has never, in over 30 years, seen Phil Spector with a gun – in the studio or elsewhere.  And, while Cohen has told the news media that Phil Spector took the master tapes home under gunpoint, Paulette has never seen any master tapes – including John Lennon’s – handled by Spector in this manner.  Gianelli wants to know “who cares” about Leonard Cohen’s gun stories about Phil Spector.  I can unequivocally state that Phil Spector cares.  He has tolerated these malicious, self-serving fabricated stories ever since he decided he could no longer tolerate working with Leonard Cohen.  The first major interview Cohen gave to Rolling Stones following his project with Spector fails to mention the now infamous and ever-fluctuating good rock ‘n roll gun story.  One party who cared about Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story about Spector was the District Attorney.  On February 17, 2005, the prosecution filed a Motion in Limine asking the court to admit evidence of other crimes.  One version of Leonard Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story about Spector was raised in that motion.  In that version, Spector held a semi-automatic to Cohen’s chest.  During my trial, Leonard Cohen personally testified that it was an automatic to his head.  In an email Cohen wrote to my alleged prosecutor, Cohen informed the City Attorney that Spector held a gun to his neck.  Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, wrote and confirmed that he reviewed the Spector Grand Jury transcripts and Cohen’s testimony or statements were presented to the Grand Jury.  Clearly, this issue was of importance to the Spector prosecutors.  That’s who cares.  Cohen’s email to the prosecutor was further embellished with his comments that “except for the real possibility of an accident, I never at any moment thought that Phil meant to do me harm.”  I believe the DA may not have elected to prosecute Leonard Cohen, following my complaint to their Major Fraud Unit, due to a possible quid pro quo that led to this testimony during my 2012 trial.  I intend to pursue that matter.  The City Attorney elicited perjured testimony from Cohen when the prosecutor asked Cohen, during my trial, to review the email she intended to question him over and confirm that he was a recipient.  Cohen testified that he was.  The prosecutor then used that email to elicit testimony about Phil Spector and a gun.  Cohen was not a recipient on that email which I sent to Dennis Riordan informing him that Cohen advised me for 20 years that Spector never held a gun on him and these were good rock ‘n roll stories.  The prosecutor, using the excuse that she “misspoke,” then proceeded to conceal the portions of that email thread to IRS Commissioner’s Staff and about legitimate federal tax matters.  That’s one reason that the requests for tax information were “hidden” and it appeared to be intentional, knowing, and willful.  I do believe the prosecutor, who said the DA contacted them about me, could have asked the District Attorney if they presented Cohen’s statements to the Grand Jury or if he personally testified.  The Grand Jury transcripts were unsealed and this would have been Brady material. 


02/17/2005 04:18 pm




PD:  Now, I want to talk to you about what you mean by threatened.  You actually -- you were telling us about Phil Spector.  You were testifying about talking to the LAPD.  Cohen:  Yes, Sir.
PD:  And you talked to the LAPD with your attorney, correct?  Cohen:  With an attorney present, yes, Sir.  PD:  And that’s when you asked that – or your attorney – someone asked that Ms. Lynch leave?  Cohen:  The attorney asked that Ms. Lynch leave.  PD:  So when Ms. Lynch left, you started talking about an interview or story about Phil Spector, correct?  Cohen:  Correct.  PD:  And how he would oftentimes have guns when you were producing an album, correct?  He would have guns in the studio when he was producing an album with you?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  And, in fact, one time you told the detective that, quote – Well, before I go there, was Mr. Spector -- was he drunk at the time when he had these guns?  Cohen:  I don’t remember, Sir.  PD:  Was he hostile at the time?  Cohen:  Not to me.  PD:  Okay.  But he actually put a gun to your head?  Is that correct?  Cohen:  That’s correct.  PD:  It was a revolver?  Cohen:   No, it wasn’t a revolver.  It was an automatic.  PD:  But you weren’t actually -- you didn’t feel threatened when he put a gun to your head?  Cohen:  No, Sir.  RT 308-309

Excerpt of Prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter Email to Leonard Cohen
April 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM

7.  Did you know Phil Spector?  If so, how?  Did you testify in front of the grand jury?

Phil Spector produced a record of songs we wrote together in 1977.  I have not seen or spoken to him since.  I did not testify before a grand jury.

Leonard Cohen Email to Sandra Jo Streeter
April 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Dear Ms. Streeter,

This is a short note I prepared for a biographer last year.  I know you’ve been burdened with an enormous heap of material, but this rounds off the question you asked about Phil Spector.

Sincerely
L

PHIL SPECTOR

Shortly after t death of Lana Clarkson, I was visited in my home by two detectives from the Homicide Bureau of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Detective Paul Fornier, and Detective Richard Tomlin.

Kelley Lynch thought it would be a good idea to have a lawyer present, so she arranged for attorney Steven M. Cron to be there for the interview.  Mr. Cron asked Kelley Lynch to excuse herself, and she left the room.

Apparently the detectives had come across some old interviews I did in 1978 or 1979 in which I spoke of the difficulties of recording Death Of A Lady’s Man with Phil Spector:  the brandishing of guns, armed bodyguards, drunkenness, and Phil’s famous megalomania.  Even though Phil put his arm around my shoulder and pressed an automatic into my neck, except for the real possibility of an accident, I never at any moment thought that Phil meant to do me harm.  In ever felt seriously threatened.  I conveyed this to the detectives.  I said the incident was repeated in the press over the years, with exaggerations, but it was basically just a good rock ‘n roll story.

Then they asked me when I had last seen Phil Spector.  I said it’s been over 20 years.  They were very surprised.  They said they were under the impression we were close friends.  I said no.  Hearing this they thanked me for my time, finished their coffees, and left.  It was clear that I was not to be considered a valuable witness.

I was never approached again by anyone concerned with the case.  Needless to say, I did not testify before a Grand Jury.  


From: Mick Brown <mick.brown@telegraph.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch Trial - Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Kelley,

I have looked for the documents I was sent in connection with the Grand Jury and been unable to find them. They were sent to me by my friend the journalist and author Carlton Smith, who unfortunately has since passed away. However, I'm sure you would be able to access them from the same source as Carlton did. My understanding is they were/are on the public record.

I do not recall ever saying to you that Cohen himself had testified. If I did, it was my mistake. My recollection is that the statement from Leonard Cohen was the same statement that had already appeared in media interviews, pertaining to the incident in the studio during the recording of 'Death Of A Ladies Man'. My recollection is that it was on a single sheet of paper. I have no idea whether Leonard Cohen personally made this statement to the DA, or whether - and I suspect this is the case - that quote had simply been taken from previously published interviews

There was no mention of any statement attributed to Cohen in either of the two subsequent trials.

Mick

38.       Stephen Gianelli falsely accuses me of attempting to “lay Phil Spector’s indictment on murder charges and subsequent conviction … at Cohen’s feet” although “Cohen had absolutely nothing to do with either the indictment or the conviction for second degree murder.”  This is blatantly false.  If Cohen’s statements were presented to the Grand Jury, or he personally testified, then Cohen would have been part of the indictment.  Furthermore, Leonard Cohen’s good rock n’ roll gun stories about Phil Spector have appeared in nearly every article ever published about Phil Spector and Cohen himself.  He has used these stories to advance his career, address what Cohen felt was a grotesque recording, explain away the fact that Spector refused to mix the album, and tantalize journalists who relentlessly inquired about “what it was like to work with Phil Spector” – infuriating Cohen who cannot tolerate being in the shadow of anyone.  I personally believe Leonard Cohen’s stories have gone a long way to destroying Phil Spector’s reputation.  As I have not seen the Grand Jury transcripts, I am not in a position to address whether or not Cohen’s statements or testimony were in fact presented.  Gianelli, however, has more to say on this topic.  He explains that the “prosecution theory was that Spector has a habit and history of pulling guns on women who refuse his advances.  Alleged instances wherein Spector pulled a gun on males tend to rebut the prosecution’s theory of the case, not enhance it.”  These statements do not explain why the Spector prosecutors would therefore include Leonard Cohen’s gun story in a motion in limine as a prior bad act but this is clearly a blatant attempt to explain away Leonard Cohen’s gun stories and diminish their materiality.  Evidently, and the DA’s investigator was present throughout my 2012 trial, the Phil Spector matter was exceedingly important to Leonard Cohen, City Attorney, and District Attorney of Los Angeles.  That is why it was featured in my trial.  Gianelli apparently does believe that Cohen’s “gun story” about Phil Spector is a “central, pivotal fact” and there may very well have been a “quid pro quo” which included my prosecution for violating a fraudulent domestic violence order and intending to annoy Leonard Cohen over his own conduct (although not for “embezzlement” as the evidence does not support that charge but proves that Leonard Cohen has embezzled and stolen corporate assets, stole from me personally, withheld commissions due me, and committed tax fraud).  Apparently Leonard Cohen sought a prosecution for embezzlement although I have no further details about that issue.  A quid pro quo for what? asks my stalker. It is my personal belief that Cohen was on the stand testifying about Phil Spector and a gun while Deputy DA Alan Jackson and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich ran for the office of District Attorney.  This testimony also followed David Mamet’s extremely public statements that he personally believed, having looked at the actual forensic evidence rather than the salacious narrative, that Phil Spector was railroaded and planned to release a film starring Al Pacino and Helen Mirren.  The forensic evidence in the Phil Spector case actually proves that he is innocent but was convicted based on a fabricated narrative.  It actually calls into question why charges were ever brought against Mr. Spector.  Phil Spector actually appeared on the Los Angeles voter ballot as a credential for Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson who was also repeatedly raised, with former DA Steve Cooley, as an issue through my trial. 

39.       On November 10, 2015, Gianelli decided to harass me over a blog posted email to Alan Hootnick dated November 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM.  Gianelli has concluded that he is entitled to criminally harass me because the City Attorney falsely arrested and imprisoned me on two occasions.  He then inserts extraneous and slanderous material into his email.  I did not violate probation through email harassment of my so-called prosecutor, Sandra Jo Streeter.  In November 2012, Gianelli began emailing this woman and falsely accused me of many things.  He would copy in my sons, sister, and friends.  I therefore elected to confront and defend myself while registering grievances with the City Attorney.  Sandra Jo Streeter evidently found these emails helpful and ultimately used them to retaliate against me.  However, this email is really another opportunity for Gianelli to write about Phil Spector.  Gianelli is defending the City Attorney’s decision to elicit testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during my trial.  This was done by eliciting perjured testimony.  The prosecutor asked Leonard Cohen to review my April 18, 2011 email and confirm that he was a recipient.  He confirmed that he was.  She then proceeded to question Cohen about Phil Spector and guns.  Of course, as it turned out, Leonard Cohen was not a recipient on this email and the prosecutor concealed the portion of that email thread addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff and with respect to extremely legitimate tax matters.  According to Gianelli, the only reason the City Attorney elicited this testimony was due to the fact that in my emails (including the April 18, 2011 email evidently) I “accused Leonard Cohen of being responsible for Spector’s indictment and subsequent conviction for murder charges” and were not “introduced for the truth of the matter.”  I have never written that Leonard Cohen was responsible for Spector’s indictment and subsequent conviction for murder charges so this is clearly not the reason that Cohen’s gun stories were introduced into my trial.  The gun incident was most definitely an issue in my criminal trial.  Gianelli then explains that “the only issues were did you send emails to Cohen in violation of restraining order that were on a subject other than ‘tax information.’”  I find it beyond bizarre that California’s definition of “legitimate” communications is limited to federal tax matters.  What appears to be legitimate in California is the prosecutor, Cohen, and his paid lawyer witnesses lying about federal tax matters during my trial.  Cohen’s own conduct was being concealed and obfuscated, explained away, during my trial.  That might explain Streeter’s question to me about whether or not Cohen exposing himself to me was meant to annoy him.  I didn’t accuse Cohen of lying about the Spector gun incident.  Leonard Cohen personally advised me for approximately 20 years that his gun stories about Phil Spector were nothing other than good rock ‘n roll gun stories.  However, it is very clear to me that I was prosecuted for conveying this information to Dennis Riordan, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others.  The jury advised my lawyer during debriefing that they wanted to hear from IRS so clearly the defining issue for the jurors related to the federal and state tax matters the City Attorney lied about.  One juror relied on the prosecutor’s lies about assets belonging to a corporate entity – not Leonard Cohen.  Gianelli’s email goes onto argue that “the truth of Leonard Cohen’s Phil Spector gun story is completely irrelevant to” my guilt or innocence at the 2012 trial.  I personally believe that Leonard Cohen’s perjured testimony on a number of topics, including misappropriation and the “dating” relationship is highly material and relevant.  On March 23, 2012 Cohen personally testified that I never stole from him and we were in a purely business relationship.  Apparently LA Superior Court feels it is appropriate for an individual to change his testimony, contradict himself, from one courtroom to the next.   I violated no restraining order.  The Boulder Combined Court informed me, and others, since approximately January 2010 that the permanent order, issued without findings, expired on February 15, 2009.  I was unaware of the fraudulently registered domestic violence order registered with Los Angeles Superior Court on May 25, 2011.  Gianelli believes it is too late to claim that I never embezzled from Cohen and that the August 2005 Complaint is based on a false narrative.  I disagree and will address Cohen’s use of the Complaint to file his tax returns, obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and defend himself with IRS against the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud in my RICO suits.  I was not served this lawsuit and Los Angeles Superior Court’s guesswork on the topic will never change that fact.  I have waived no argument or defense.  Like it or not, Gianelli has informed me that as long as I choose to speak publicly about these issues he will continue with his criminal conduct towards me and others.  His job evidently includes setting the record straight for Leonard Cohen and local government actors in Los Angeles.

34.       On November 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote about my “penchant” for sending emails using the epithet “faggot.”  I do not have a “penchant” for sending emails using any epithet including the word “faggot.”  I have recently publicly addressed a declaration I am preparing for the California Franchise Tax Board’s Fraud Unit.  I have informed FTB’s fraud unit that Leonard Cohen obtained fraudulent tax refunds using the fabricated narrative in his Complaint.  At this time, FTB continues to request that I file my 2004 and 2005 tax returns.  However, Leonard Cohen steadfastly refuses to provide me with IRS required tax and corporation information for the years 2004 and 2005.  I have no other information available that would permit me to file these returns.  ETC – LEDGER.  Therefore, I have decided to provide FTB’s Fraud Unit with a declaration explaining that I do not owe taxes for these periods and they should have the burden of proving otherwise.  FTB has now wrongfully seized property (cash) the State of California was refunding me based on interest payments I made in 2004 and 2005.  Interest payments, as FTB itself has confirmed, are not evidence of income.  Stephen Gianelli has repeatedly attempted to discuss my personal tax information, and other matters, with representatives of IRS, FTB, and State of Kentucky.  This is illegal conduct and I have not authorized IRS, FTB, or representatives of the State of Kentucky to speak to a third party stranger (engaged in criminal conduct) about any tax or business matter that involves me in any way whatsoever.  Gianelli is interested in the fact that Doug Davis, Franchise Tax Board, has been copied on my emails.  However, what I personally have to say to Doug Davis and/or FTB is not Gianelli’s business.  Gianelli has previously requested that an individual by the name of Ray Lawrence falsely advise Doug Davis that I failed to pay taxes.  This is blatantly false and illegal conduct.  I have referred to individuals, including former DA Steve Cooley, as “faggots.”  I have also publicly stated that this was inappropriate, as I did not mean to insult the LGBT community, and it would have been more accurate if I referred to them as “dangerous clowns” because that is precisely what I believe they are.

41.       By November 14, 2015, Gianelli has moved onto my Tax Court Petition.  His email cc’d his blind distribution list which is used to slander, defame, libel, and falsely accuse me of many things.  He is setting the record straight for certain local Los Angeles government actors and Leonard Cohen.  Gianelli informed me that “Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only as expressly provided by statute.”  Gianelli clearly wants me to understand that the “Tax Court’s jurisdiction is defined and limited by Title 26 and it may not use general equitable powers to expand it jurisdictional grant beyond this limited Congressional authorization.”  Gianelli informed me that Tax Court is a “court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers.”  One role Gianelli plays is to mislead me with his legal arguments.  Tax Court has the authority to address fraud upon the court.  QUOTE.  Gianelli’s email explains that the burden is on me to show that Tax Court has jurisdiction over my July 2015 petition by citing the title and section number of a statute enacted by the United States Congress providing for jurisdiction in cases like yours.  My Petition provided this Court with enough facts, and evidence, to permit me to request Tax Court to grant me leave to file a motion for fraud upon the court specifically related to the matters raised in the Petition.  I am aware that Tax Court’s jurisdiction is predicated upon the issuance of a deficiency or notice of determination which has been referred to as the taxpayer’s “ticket to the Tax Court.”  I am also aware of the fact that Leonard Cohen and his representatives failed to inform IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office and Tax Court that the $1 million prepayment against the 2001 Traditional Holdings/Sony deal was not income to Leonard Cohen.  I am also aware of the fact that Leonard Cohen and his representatives concealed the fact that Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. owned the assets which Traditional Holdings, LLC sold to Sony in 2001.  It is my personal opinion that as of 2002, when Sony issued the inadvertent 1099 to Cohen and IRS inquired about the matter, that the cover up which is currently playing out began.  The IRS did move to dismiss my Petition.  The Court then inquired about any potential whistle blower claim I may have filed with IRS.  IRS and I have both confirmed that no whistle blower claim with respect to me and these issues has ever been filed.  Gianelli is very clear in this email that my Petition does not “even try to meet” my “burden to provide the tax court with a statutory basis for jurisdiction, by citing the title and section number of any jurisdictional statute OR by setting forth facts giving rise to statutory jurisdiction.”  Gianelli clearly had to read and review my Petition in order to make that assessment and to conclude that I instead ramble on about “the tax court’s (alleged) general, inherent, equitable power to set aside a prior decision when procured by fraud in a matter over which it ALREADY has jurisdiction (e.g., Cohen’s 2001 tax court matter) BUT YOU DO NOT say what statutory jurisdiction exists to ENTERTAIN YOUR JULY, 2015 PETITION seeking to address that alleged “fraud” (sa in title and section number of a federal statute specifically authorizing jurisdiction).”  I have asked this Court to permit me to file a motion addressing fraud upon the court. 

Adoption of Fraud Upon the Court as an Exception to Section 7481


A threshold question is whether this Court has the jurisdiction to vitiate its former decision long after it has become final under the terms of section 7481 of the Code. Ordinarily, the granting or denial of a motion under Rule 19( f) is a discretionary matter, cf. Commissioner v. Meldrum Fewsmith, Inc., 230 F.2d 283 (C.A. 6, 1956), affirming 20 T.C. 790; but under the circumstances here present the exercise of that discretion may depend on other issues. There appears to be some conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this point. In Kenner v.Commissioner, 387 F.2d 689 (1968), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Tax Court does have the power to inquire into the integrity of its own decision even when such decision has become final but only in the extreme situation where such decision was produced by "fraud upon the court." But see Jefferson Loan Co. v. Commissioner, 249 F.2d 364 (C.A. 8, 1957), which holds that the Tax Court has no equitable jurisdiction to set aside a decision after it has become final even where fraud has been demonstrated. It should be pointed out, however, that no "fraud on the court," as we understand the meaning of the phrase and as explained later in our opinion, was involved in the Jefferson Loan Co. case. There, the petitioner-corporation's president and accountant had falsified income in order to conceal losses and financial weaknesses of the corporate taxpayer and the petitioner's income tax liability and personal holding company tax liability determined in the Tax Court decision (under written stipulation) were based on these false income figures.

In the light of this uncertainty it seems prudent to at least examine the substantive question involved in the motion to vacate before we decide whether to grant the motion for special leave to file out of time. *297297 In doing so we must first understand the limitations of the phrase "fraud on the court." Some guidelines are at hand.

The court in the Kenner case carefully defined "fraud on the court" as embracing "only that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." The court cites 7 Moore's, Federal Practice, sec. 60.33, p. 512 (2d ed.), for this definition. To this definition, the text in Moore's adds the following qualification: "Fraud inter partes, without more, should not be a fraud upon the Court * * *."
An illustration of the type or degree of fraud contemplated by the phrase "fraud on the court" appears in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). In that case Hartford had defrauded the Patent Office by helping along its application for a patent through the use of an article written and caused to be published by certain of its attorneys and officials under the name of an ostensibly disinterested expert. Later, in a patent infringement action against Hazel-Atlas, Hartford defrauded the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit through the use of this spurious article and obtained a favorable judgment. In 1941 Hazel-Atlas commenced an action in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to set aside the judgment entered against it in 1932 on the ground that such judgment had been obtained by fraud. The Supreme Court held that the earlier judgment against Hazel-Atlas had been fraudulently obtained and should be set aside, stating in part as follows:
This is not simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury. Here * * * we find a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals.2 *298


Gianelli, who is not a judicial officer with Tax Court, has concluded that my Petition has not met the “burden to show a stator basis for tax court jurisdiction” and therefore “tax court has no choice but to grant the motion to dismiss.”  Gianelli would like to know “Is any of this sinking in?” or will I spend the rest of my life “ignoring the procedural rules that govern your access to relief in court?”

42.       On November 19, 2015, Gianelli wrote me an email addressing the illegal tampering with the blog I created for this Tax Court case.  I used that blog to present evidence to this Court.  I personally believe that Stephen Gianelli, who clearly read my Petition to Tax Court, is the individual who illegally accessed my blog; tampered with and deleted the evidence I uploaded for this Court; inserted a photograph he previously sent me; and wrote the defamatory comments that he has relentlessly emailed me and others.  I also believe Stephen Gianelli is the individual who used my email address to illegally open a Gravatar.com account with which to upload some of the information used to deface and alter the Word Press blog.  Stephen Gianelli’s email is his defense which essentially argues that he was unaware of this blog; the blog was not publicly indexed; he wouldn’t know how to hack into someone’s blog; and my allegations are devoid of the important ingredient of proof.”  Gianelli then relies on a third party’s statements about Leonard Cohen’s own position that he participated in CIA’s MKULTRA program which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Tax Court Petition or the blog I used to submit evidence to this court. Gianelli relies on slander and defamatory extraneous material to argue his causes and defend himself.  He then falsely accuses me of deleting the blog myself in aid of more “self-manufactured drama.”  The blog, however, was not deleted.  A third party attempt to change the password and delete the blog were made.  As with Gianelli’s legal argument that he is immune from prosecution, due to the fact that he resides in Greece, he believes that the lack of proof that he engaged in criminal conduct with respect to this blog is sufficient.  I personally believe that there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Gianelli had both the motive and ability to tamper with my blog.  The login information was clearly part of my Petition which stated that the blog was specifically created for Tax Court.  The Petition did not authorize anyone, other than the parties involved in this case, to access that blog:

“20. I have created a blog - 
taxpetition.wordpress.com - for the sole purpose of this Tax Court
Petition and Motion addressing fraud upon the court with respect to the April 1, 2003 stipulated
decision. I have uploaded evidence to that site which can be accessed using the following login
information: odzerchenma (must be lower case); password: tsimar2012. The evidence referred to
below is on this private blog. The most relevant fraud upon the court relates to the following three
facts: 1) Traditional Holdings, LLC entered into an agreement with Sony and that deal closed on or
around April 18, 2001; 2) Leonard Cohen personally received the $1 million prepayment and failed
to transfer that amount to Traditional Holdings, LLC (or account to Blue Mist Touring Company,
Inc.); and, 3) the prepayment was a non-refundable payment against the $8 million price Sony agreed
to pay with respect to this transaction. See taxpetition.wordpress.com evidence made a part hereof.
See also Exhibits A and B attached hereto and made a part hereof.”

43.       On November 19, 2015, Gianelli continued with his argument that he did not access and delete the evidence on my Word Press blog.  He copied FBI, DOJ, and Alan Hootnick on his email that advised me that the photograph inserted onto the blog was a “photograph” available from “several places on the internet if one does an image search for crazy conspiracy lady.”  This is the precise image that Gianelli has routinely and continuously sent me and his argument is neither plausible nor credible.  The individual attempted to change the password to include my name and the numbers “5150.”  Gianelli routinely and continuously accuses me of being a “5150” case and wrote that an FBI agent in Oakland, California concluded that this defamatory description – “cop talk for crazy” - fits me.  Gianelli, who finds his own conduct amusing, sarcastically suggested that perhaps the “MKULTRA/CIA/Leonard Cohen conspiracy did it.”  I believe absolutely nothing Stephen Gianelli, who appears to be nothing other than a common criminal has to say.

44.       On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to inform me that his “point” is and was simply this:  “Your posted blog comment indicated your agreement with the theory that Leonard Cohen is in a conspiracy with the CIA as a graduate of MKLUTRA program to manipulate (“socially engineer”)  society through Cohen’s published and performed song lyrics.”  I have indicated no such thing.  Leonard Cohen personally informed me, and others, that he participated in CIA’s MKULTRA Program.  He has also insinuated that he was the first member of CIA’s landing party during the Bay of Pigs.  Leonard Cohen personally has informed the news media for years that he was arrested by Castro’s forces, interrogated, and released just prior to the Bay of Pigs.  Leonard Cohen has a pattern and practice of fabricating tales and narratives.  He is a fabulist who would like the world to view him as a daring revolutionary.  In fact, he has gone so far as to advise the news media that he planned to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War although Leonard Cohen has no military training whatsoever.  These stories have gone largely unchallenged throughout the years but are extremely material and relevant.  I cannot even imagine what CIA would be attempting to manipulate or engineer by promoting Leonard Cohen’s “published and performed song lyrics.”  The mere notion sounds positively insane.  Gianelli then takes the position that my “comment offered up additional alleged corroboration for the premise that Cohen’s entire career has been in secret service of the CIA and his goal has been not to entertain but to manipulate an unsuspecting public through mind control techniques cleverly hidden in his lyrics.”  I have seen no evidence that would indicate that Cohen was ever in “secret service of the CIA.”  I have heard Cohen’s statements that he studied hypnotism and once used his powers to hypnotize the family
maid into removing her clothes for him.  Leonard Cohen has in fact manipulated the public into believing that he is an enlightened religious sage, possible CIA operative, and revolutionary when in fact he is a thoroughly ordinary individual consumed with revenge fantasies and greed.  This is not particularly well hidden in his lyrics.  A cursory review of the lyric to “My Secret Life” will reveal that Leonard Cohen understands his nature all too well when he confirms that he cheats, lies, and will do whatever it takes to get by.  Truer words have rarely been spoken.  I did not participate in Ann Diamond’s interviews with either Truth Sentinel or Rigorous Intuition and my comment confirming that I was mentioned on Rigorous Intuition does not “sing a different tune” with respect to that fact. 

45.       On November 21, 2015, Tax Court was still on Gianelli’s mind when he wrote “One more thing before awaiting the dismissal of your tax case (which should be any day).  Before the federal court even gets what you frame as the central question in your threatened RICO suit (the effect of alleged perjury in prior state court proceedings against you) you are going to have to run a gauntlet of threshold issues, including whether you have properly pleaded a claim for which relief may be granted, whether your complaint is timely, whether the conduct you complain of is privileged, and the res judicata effect of Leonard Cohen’s 2006 $14 million judgment for damages and declaratory relief on your claims.”  I have never stated publicly that my RICO suit will frame the central question of the effect of the alleged perjury in prior state court proceedings against me.  Therefore, Gianelli has simply made this up in an attempt to elicit information about my planned RICO suits.

46.       On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that I “once again fail to understand the proper jurisdiction of the tax court.”  I believe I do understand the proper jurisdiction of Tax Court.  I also believe that Gianelli is intentionally attempting to mislead me legally and dissuade me from pursuing appropriate legal remedies with respect to the ongoing situation between me and Leonard Cohen.  Gianelli also informed me that “Tax Court is not a law enforcement organization” and “does not refer third parties for criminal investigation pertaining to the alleged hacking of weblogs maintained by private persons.”  This blog was specifically created for Tax Court, used to submit evidence to Tax Court, and made a part of my Petition.  Gianelli is actually responding to my statements that I planned to ask this Court to refer this matter to federal law enforcement for investigation.  Gianelli does note that I should personally ask the FBI to investigate it so he seems to believe that the appropriate federal agency who would investigate criminal evidence tampering and computer crimes, related to a tax controversy and Tax Court case, would be FBI.  FBI has not informed me that they declined to investigate the matter.

47.       On November 23, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote and inquired:  “You do know that Alan Hootnick is ex-CIA, don’t you?”  I am aware that Alan Hootnick has an intelligence background and is familiar with MKULTRA.  I have no idea if Alan Hootnick is ex-CIA.  He has never personally informed me of such.

48.       On November 25, 2015, Gianelli forwarded me an email he received from Alan Hootnick with his own comment “And that is the wacky conspiracy claim.”  Alan Hootnick wrote Gianelli that he made a good point when he wrote that “Cohen never said his music was being used by MKLUTRA.”  I have never heard Cohen personally claim that CIA was using his music to engage in social engineering and continue to find that notion positively farcical. 

49.       On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that I may or may not have a constitutional right to use “profanity.”  Gianelli was referring to an email I sent him, after being relentlessly harassed for over six straight years, advising him to “fuck off.”  I personally do not believe the word was used in any type of profane manner and was and remains an appropriate use of an intentionally harsh word. 

50.       On November 9, 2015, Gianelli responded to an email I posted on my blog requesting an interview with Spector prosecutor Truc Do.  I am writing a book about this situation and felt Ms. Do might clarify which version of Leonard Cohen’s good rock ‘n roll gun story the government actually believes since the version Spector prosecutors used was contradicted by Cohen’s testimony during my 2012 trial.  I do think this question begs an answer.  I never harassed anyone at the Los Angeles County District Attorney Major Crimes Unit from 2007 through the present.  Gianelli is evidently impressed that Truc Do has landed a job with one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.  I’m not.  I find it mind boggling. 

51.       On November 11, 2015, Gianelli informed me that I “still don’t get it.  Everyone on the cc list of this email to which I now reply by bcc concluded that you are utterly without credibility years ago.”  My credibility is a very serious issue, in terms of undermining it, for Leonard Cohen, his representatives, the City Attorney of Los Angeles, and Stephen Gianelli. 

52.       On November 10, 2015, after receiving forwarded emails from Alan Hootnick, I responded to Gianelli’s absolutely insane communications with an alleged email correspondent by the name of “Nestor Hobson.”  The name is clearly a fake monitor and Gianelli has been known to create monikers such as the 14th Sheepdog which he has used to slander and harass me with.  Nestor Hobson is an individual used to slander me. 

53.       On November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote that despite all appearances, I am convinced that he is “Nestor Hobson.”  I am also convinced that there is a very real probability that Gianelli is Mongochili, Kelly Green, and the 17th Shitzu who wrote and transmitted the “bloody stump” email to me.  Once again, Gianelli – who apparently uses TOR – informed me that I will never be able to prove that. 

54.       On November 12, 2015, Gianelli informed me that when I “file a request to proceed in forma pauperis in the Central District of California the magistrate reviews” the complaint for sufficiency and failure to set forth a plausible claim is grounds for denial of a request for fee waiver under the FRCP.”  I’m not certain I understand what one’s financial situation has to do with the plausibility of a claim.  I also do not understand why Gianelli believes he has the right to harass me over this issue or due to the fact that I do not have the financial ability to hire an attorney at this time.  Gianelli attached the following case to this particular email: 

Jessie Braham v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing (Central District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-8422-MWF (GJSx)
Order re. Request to Proceed in Former Pauperis
HOLDS PRO SE LITIGANTS, WHO APPLY IN FORMA PAUPERIS, TO HIGHER STANDARDS OF REVIEW THAN ATTORNEYS – BASED ON THEIR FINANCIAL RESOURCES

55.       On November 15, 2015, Gianelli informed me that the “only money referenced in Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit is the proceeds from the sale to Sony Music of Leonard Cohen’s music catalogue.  You were paid your 15% commission on the deal, so there is no doubt it was Cohen’s money involved.”  This is actually the only money referenced in Cohen’s Complaint which means that the monies Cohen owes me have not actually been litigated.  Gianelli disingenuously states that he now understands I claim “that Cohen withdrew the funds” I removed from “Traditional Holdings, LLC using Cohen’s POA.”  Leonard Cohen’s loans from this entity, including his personal transaction fees, are Leonard Cohen’s loans which he understood needed to be repaid within three years with interest.  He has evidently embezzled these monies and therefore these monies are nothing other than disguised income.  The reason I did not make this argument in 2005 is due to the fact that Cohen failed to serve me the summons and complaint.  This has not been established as a matter of law as the Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me.  I can assure this Court that I did not “spend the money” that Cohen  used to purchase homes for his girlfriend and son; pay his personal taxes with; settle his personal litigation matters with; or any other monies he personally spent or caused to be expended.  Leonard Cohen is not an extension of this entity or me.

56.       On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that “Paulette will never see the money” I promised her.  I have never promised Paulette any money apart from promising to pay her rent for the time I have resided with her.  Stephen Gianelli has also spent an inordinate time slandering and disparaging Paulette Brandt.  He went so far as to serve as legal counsel for her former roommate and assisted that individual in defrauding Ms. Brandt of approximately $6,700 in rental arrears after the individual contacted Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory. 

57.       On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote that he has never been arrested, accused of a crime, or convicted of a crime.  Gianelli has most definitely been accused of committing criminal activity and that would include by the individuals who have reported his conduct to law enforcement or government agencies throughout this country.  Leonard Cohen owes me millions of dollars and it is my personal opinion that he should pay me what he owes.  I haven’t spent a decade scamming rent, money, and/or booze.  Gianelli, like Cohen, is a chronic liar and misogynist. Leonard Cohen and his lawyers have also attempted to discredit Paulette Brandt.

58.       On November 16, 2015 Gianelli decided to harass me over a Proposed Order I submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court with respect to the Court’s denial of Leonard Cohen’s entirely retaliatory Sanctions Motion.  Gianelli believes the situation with respect to the Proposed Order was transformed into a mini-soap opera and believes his language would have been more appropriate.  Gianelli felt he had to weigh in on the language of the Proposed Order because “someone has to say it in response to” my “self-deluded views publicly expressed in the court of public opinion through the referenced internet posting.”  This is clearly not a viable defense for the ongoing harassment, stalking, and other criminal conduct this man is engaged in with respect to me and others.

59.       On November 18, 2015, Gianelli wrote regarding my “blog post of 11/18.”  This email informed me that “IRS has over 9,000 employees, most of them working in its headquarters in Washington DC and a huge, crushing workload.”  Gianelli used this email to advise me that the IRS could care less about my blog posts and that individuals from IRS were simply on my blog and had determined that the issues were irrelevant or of no interest to IRS.

60.       On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote with respect to the illegal tampering with my Tax Petition evidence blog.  He believes we “previously discussed” that “your tax court was not preceded by a notice of determination by the IRS that was transmitted to you at any time, let alone within 90 days of the filing of your petition.  For that reason the IRS, Office of the Chief Counsel has moved to dismiss your tax court petition for lack of jurisdiction.  You had filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, which awaits decision.”  I think this is self-evident and do not need to be reminded of what has occurred by this stalker.  Gianelli concluded that “Since the tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition (which relates to alleged events taking place from 1999 through 2003), the court is not going to allow you to engage in third party discovery (let alone about alleged “harassment” you have suffered by third parties in 2015” and therefore “there will be no subpoena issued.”  Gianelli is engaged in blatant witness tampering, witness intimidation, and may have engaged in computer crimes and destruction of evidence.  It is my personal opinion that the Court itself should refer this matter to federal law enforcement for an investigation and potential prosecution.  In a separate email dated November 20, 2015, Gianelli goes into further details about a federal subpoena in connection with the tax court matter. 

From: Stephen R. Gianelli Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:13 PM Subject: To: kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com 

Ms. Lynch, The “equation” as you put it is simpler than you think. Tax court petition + no notice of determination from the IRS = no jurisdiction. This is not a judgment call by the tax court. That is the law. You seem to be under the impression that if you can create a compelling enough argument that Leonard Cohen mislead the IRS in 2003 when it entered into a stipulated disposition concerning Cohen’s tax court contest of the letter he received from the IRS concerning a spurious 1099 from Sony 16 years ago that the tax court will overlook the limits on its jurisdiction to act imposed by Congress. However, any consideration by the tax court of your petition without a statutory basis for jurisdiction over your matter would be a legal nullity. Your tax court petition will be dismissed because the court has no choice but to do so. One does not even need to get into the bigger picture – the absurdity of your thinking that you can waltz into tax court in 2015 and ask it to set aside a settlement agreement entered in 2003 that you were not even a party to. Very truly yours, Stephen R. Gianelli Attorney-at-Law (ret.) Crete, Greece

61.       On November 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that “In 30 days, 90 days, a year from now, and a decade from now there will be NOTHING you receive from the tax court except an order DISMISSING your case (which will be issued shortly).

62.       On November 22, 2015 Gianelli wrote with respect to “The fantasy that Lynch will ever publish a book.”  This letter related to what is ostensibly Leonard Cohen’s legal position that because he has a large judgment against me, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department could serve a request for garnishment with respect to any possible book I write.  This would also permit the Sheriff’s Department, as was apparently done with OJ Simpson, to seize the book rights and manuscript.  This email was written in response to my request submitted to CIA with respect to an email regarding Leonard Cohen’s claims that he participated in MKULTRA and was reconnaissance during the Bay of Pigs incident.  I do believe that Leonard Cohen renewed the judgment, in part, to threaten me over any potential book I write.  I have in fact been offered at least one publishing deal.  Gianelli is also using this email in an attempt to elicit information about any potential publishing deal I have been offered.

63.       On November 23, 2015, Gianelli copied me on an email to Ann Diamond regarding her “declaration provided to Kelley Lynch repeating an allegation about Lorca Cohen.”  The email accuses Ann Diamond of libel with respect to this situation.  Ann Diamond has truthfully recounted what unfolded around Lorca Cohen’s public statements that her father molested her.  Gianelli has now decided that the “litigation privilege” does not apply to libel which would mean that every single false statement Cohen and his lawyers uttered with respect to all matters before all California courts are not covered by the “litigation privilege” since they are all entirely false and evidence of fraud and perjury.  The only “logical connection” these statements have with respect to me is Leonard Cohen’s attempt to blame his wrongdoing, and issues related to tax fraud, on me through a fabricated complaint narrative.  Leonard Cohen, including through his proxy lawyer, likes to threaten women who he understands are not in a position to hire lawyers to stop him in his tracks. 

64.       On November 24, 2015, Gianelli responded to my statement that I have informed IRS, FBI, and DOJ that Gianelli personally belongs in prison.  Gianelli, who is endlessly amused by his own psychotic conduct, decided to use this statement as a further moment to harass me.  It is quite clear that this individual is a professional criminal who has no sense of boundary and could care less that his conduct is blatantly criminal. 

65.       On November 23, 2015, Gianelli was back to the topic of Phil Spector and wrote that he wants the conviction reversed, not because he is innocent, but because Gianelli is convinced Phil Spector did not get a fair trial.  Gianelli understands that Phil Spector is in poor health and it could take 2-3 years for the 9th Circuit appeal process and even longer should the matter ultimately be pursued to the U.S. Supreme Court which I imagine it will.  Gianelli wrote that it is a real possibility that Mr. Spector is going to die before the appellate process has run its course.  This is merely a vicious attempt on this man’s part to elicit information about the actual state of Mr. Spector’s health.  Stephen Gianelli has evidently consulted with Phil Spector’s adopted sons about their father’s estate.  As the saying goes, “Where there’s a Will, there’s a relative.”  In this case, it’s rather disturbing given the fact that all three of Mr. Spector’s adopted sons have conducted themselves abominably and, regardless of the forensic evidence, have openly acknowledged that they personally believe their father is guilty.  As adult men, they continue to blame their father for their personal problems, neuroses, and absolute lack of morals or ethics.  Gianelli would like me to believe that no one is “worried” about a third Spector trial.  I find that statement positively laughable. 

66.       On November 26, 2015, using my email advising Gianelli to “fuck off” he attempts to once again discuss Bruce Cutler.

67.       On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote with respect to the claim letters I sent the City and County of Los Angeles notifying them that I intended to file federal RICO suits naming them as parties and to inform me that litigation misconduct is absolutely privileged in California.  The system certainly works beautifully for criminals.  In fact, it appears to have been designed specifically for them.

68.       On November 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote a rather long-winded harassing email copying in Alan Hootnick.  This email was Gianelli’s defense to my belief that he is the individual who tampered with my blog and destroyed evidence.  This email informed me: 

Even if I was the culprit (I am not) you could never prove it, because (among other reasons) I connect through the internet through the Tor network for reasons of anonymity and security, and for the last 30 years (due to security  concerns arising from my former felony defense of people who hurt people for a living) the title to my homes and my utility accounts have always been registered through the names of trusts or individuals that have no relation to my first or last name. That includes (and has always included) any and all ISP accounts.”

69.       On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote and copied in Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office.  Gianelli argued that Hazel-Atlas is a 71 year old Supreme Court case that has been superseded and limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).  Gianelli evidently wanted Mr. Fabian and me to understand that there are “three takeaways here – all three of them fatal to what you are trying to do.”  The first fatal takeaway has to do with the fact that I, the Tax Matters Partner for Traditional Holdings, LLC, was not a “party” to Leonard Cohen’s stipulated tax court decision and therefore I do not qualify for relief.  The second fatal takeaway has to do with the fact that Leonard Cohen was not my “opposing party” in the original Tax Court matter and I do not qualify for relief from the alleged fraud.  And, the third fatal flaw is due to the fact that, because 13 years has passed since the stipulated tax court decision was entered on April 1, 2003 in Docket No. 007024-02, my request is evidently neither reasonably timed, nor was it made within the 1-year outside time limit to ask a federal court to set aside a prior judgment or other order based on “fraud upon the court.”  Gianelli has evidently already noted that “tax court does not have general equitable power to act.  It’s jurisdiction can only come from Title 26 – which requires that a tax court petition be proceeded by a notice of determination mailed to the petition [which, according to Gianelli, would be me] prior to the petition being filed.  As I have evidently “conceded that no such notice of determination was ever mailed to me … the tax court has no choice but to dismiss” my pending Petition for “lack of jurisdiction.”  According to Gianeli, it’s really quite that simple.  This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with a disgruntled former employee.  This situation involves egregious tax fraud, theft, the use of corporate entities as shell corporations to launder money and evade taxes, and local Los Angeles government actors who have lied about federal tax matters.  If the legal system actually held someone accountable, fraud, perjury, litigation misconduct, and fraud upon the court might not be as rampant as it is. 

70.       On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli continued to harass me over the Tax Court case.  He copied Paulmikell Fabian and Alan Hootnick, an individual I met through his interest in the Phil Spector case and someone with an intelligence background.  Gianelli evidently feels that Alan Hootnick is interested in federal tax controversies.  In this particular email, Gianelli advised me that I may wish to read the 9th Circuit Opinion in Toscano vs. CIR and concluded that “Assuming the separate issue of jurisdiction to even entertain your petition is resolved in your favor (and the tax court even has jurisdiction to consider your motion in the first instance), it appears to support the argument that a motion to vacate a final tax court decision may be made on the grounds of alleged fraud – even years later.”  Of course, according to the Criminal Stalker, “the tax court must first find it has jurisdiction to even allow your tax court petition to remain pending.  And the attached decision does not speak to whether your motion for leave to move to vacate (if any) sets forth a prima face case for ‘fraud on the court.’”  I personally do not believe that I must establish a “prima facie case for fraud on the court’ in order to request leave to file such a motion.  I have provided this Court with specific facts and evidence, which has now been intentionally destroyed, to support this request.

71.       On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli again wrote and copied in Paulmikell Fabian.  Gianelli “respectfully,” while criminally harassing me over this situation, directed my attention to “Tax Court Rule 162.”  I believe, and did refer to Rule 162 previously, that I am able to read this sentence:  “Any motion to vacate or revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, shall be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit.”  Gianelli evidently wanted me, and Mr. Fabian, to understand:  “Of course, before any additional  motions can be heard and determined (including any motion to set aside Leonard Cohen’s 2003 stipulated decision in another matter) you will need to service the pending motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, since you were not mailed a notice of determination by the IRS relating to tax year 1999 prior to filing your petition.”  Stephen Gianelli has no idea what notices, or anything else, IRS has or has not sent me and this email is simply an attempt to illegally elicit information. 

72.       On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli decided to write me about “Man of La Mancha.”  Again on November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote about the “lyrics from Man FROM La Mancha” noting that this referenced a literary character and not my “alleged relationship status” with Leonard Cohen.  The reference, according to Gianelli, was a reference to my “futile 10+ year obsession with bringing Cohen down through tax fraud allegations, mass emails, blog posts, and (more recently) my failed legal proceedings.”  Or, as Gianelli put it, “tilting at windmills.”  This reference was evidently “too subtle” for me and/or I “have a literary/cultural IQ of about a 2” since I didn’t engage in the abject insanity with respect to “Man of La Mancha” with a Criminal Stalker attempting to interfere with a federal Tax Court case.  Gianelli ends this email by advising me as follows:  “The views that I have expressed about your tax court (and other) matters are mine alone. Indeed, I don’t even know if Cohen knows about your tax court petition, let alone what his views of it are. It will be dismissed soon for lack of jurisdiction anyway, so it really doesn’t matter, does it?”  Clearly, Gianelli sees a connection between “Man of La Mancha” and the matter before Tax Court. 

73.       On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to my letter to Vogue Magazine and Conde Nast which was published on my riverdeepbook.blogspot.com blog.  That letter asked this organization to retract certain slanderous, defamatory, and libelous statements in the following article about Leonard Cohen’s birthday.  The journalist was evidently sobbing that Cohen was left penniless although he was not.  Perhaps the journalist was sobbing for one of the corporate entities?  Gianelli had a “NEWSFLASH” to convey:  “He’s up, not down. It’s you that is down, way down.”

 74.      On December 1, 2015, copying in Alan Hootnick, Gianelli wrote to ask how Leonard Cohen brought himself down.  Gianelli’s position, and he does appear to be an unofficial member of Cohen’s legal team is as follows:  Financially? A net worth going from near zero in 2004 to more than $50 MILLION today is up, not down.  Record sales? He has sold more records since 2004 than he did before you left his employ.  Critically? Let’s see now. 2006 inducted into the Canadian Songwriter’s Hall of Fame. 2007 received a Grammy for Album of the Year. 2008  inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 2010 received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. 2010 Cohen was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame.  No, I don’t think that is  what one would call a downward career trend – by any measure.  Okay, perhaps you meant legally? Let’s see. Kelley Lynch has been threatening to sue Leonard Cohen in federal and state court since 2004, but has never even filed suit, let alone won a judgment against him. Kelley Lynch reported Cohen to the IRS Criminal Division in 2006, but was cleared in 2007 (or so his attorneys claim, but it is a matter of record that a. no criminal charges were ever filed against him and b. the statute of limitation for tax fraud is six years and has run). No, Cohen was not brought down in a legal sense.  One can only conclude, Ms. Lynch, that you are not residing what most people would call ‘reality.”  I intend to file a federal RICO suit against Leonard Cohen within the next month.  Leonard Cohen prefers being unopposed.  This has permitted him to obtain a fraudulent default judgment, fraudulent restraining orders, and fraudulent tax refunds.  I have seen no evidence proving IRS Criminal Division cleared Cohen of criminal charges with respect to the alleged tax fraud.  I reported the allegations that Cohen committed tax fraud to IRS on April1 15, 2005 and at other times.  Gianelli has conveniently written “2006.”  I suppose he doesn’t want it to appear that Cohen retaliated against me which is precisely what has occurred.

75.       On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote quoting a statement from my blog: “but will be filing a federal RICO suit in the very near future” and noting “I hope you don’t wait eleven  more years to file! Ha!”

76.       On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote, copying in Alan Hootnick, to advise me that he has “read everything!”  What Gianelli actually wanted to address is my statement that I do not believe criminal tax fraud necessarily has a “6-year statute of limitations.”  Gianelli then quoted from the United States Department of Justice Criminal Tax Manual, section 7 as follows: 

Section 6531 of Title 26 controls the statute of limitations periods  for most criminal tax offenses.  This statute provides:        No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any of the        various offenses arising under the internal revenue laws unless the  indictment is found or the information instituted within 3 years next  after the commission of the offenseexcept that the period of   limitations shall be 6 years --        (1)   for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud   the United States or any agency thereof, whether by conspiracy or not,  and in any manner;   (2)   for the offense of willfully attempting in any manner to evade  or defeat any tax or the payment thereof; (3)   for the offense of willfully aiding or assisting in, or        procuring, counseling, or advising, the preparation or presentation  under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal  revenue laws, of a false or fraudulent return, affidavit, claim, or        document (whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such        return, affidavit, claim or document);        (4)   for the offense of willfully failing to pay any tax, or make any   return (other than a return required under authority of part III of        subchapter A of chapter 61) at the time or times required by law or        regulations;        (5)   for offenses described in sections 7206(1) and 7207 (relating to     false statements and fraudulent documents);   (6)   for the offense described in section 7212(a) (relating to        intimidation of officers and employees of the United States);        (7)   for offenses described in section 7214(a) committed by officers        and employees of the United States; and        (8)   for offenses arising under section 371 of Title 18 of the United        States Code, where the object of the conspiracy is to attempt in any        manner to evade or defeat any tax or the payment thereof.        Thus, under section 6531, the general rule is that a three-year  statute of limitations exists for Title 26 offenses.  However, a six-year  period applies to certain excepted offenses.  Section 6531 switches back and  forth between enumerating the exception by specific Code reference and by a  description of the offense.  For example, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206(1),  7202, 7212(a) and 7214(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to evade  taxes), are all specifically designated by code section as falling within  the six-year exception.  Failure to file an income tax return and failure to  pay a tax, 26 U.S.C. § 7203, however, are designated by description rather than code section.  Generally, the statute of limitations begins to run when an offense is  completed.  Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970).” 

77.       Gianelli concluded by informing me that I am “so full of nonsense it staggers the mind.  What else?  Oh, you will be suing Leonard Cohen ‘shortly?’ Ha!  You have been saying that since 2009!  Ha!  Don’t you think that waiting eleven years (going on 12 years) from the date your business relationship ended to sue Cohen for moneys you claim you are owed under that relationship – when you didn’t even have a written contract with him, and in the meantime he has obtained a $14 MILLION judgment against YOU – was a bit too long?”  Leonard Cohen has intentionally run statute of limitations and not serving me the complaint has permitted him to take this legal position.  By December 2005, when Cohen applied for and received his fraudulent tax refunds, he was quite certain the “default judgment” would be entered against me.  Gianelli ends on an insulting note.  Leonard Cohen clearly believes he was entitled to litigate matters against me unopposed and seems indignant that I would have the audacity to seek appropriate legal remedies.  In fact, because I have sought such remedies, I have been exposed to further harassment, stalking, threats, intimidation tactics, slander, and retaliation.  There are indeed written agreements, corporate records, stock certificates, and federal tax returns related to the corporate entities themselves.

78.       On December 1, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote that I would need to have a pending trial to subpoena Agent Tejeda who I did subpoena during my trial.  However, Judge Vanderet was not inclined to wait two hours for Agent Tejeda to meet with DOJ or IRS attorneys even though he was hearing what appears to be a federal tax case.  Stephen Gianelli has relentlessly argued Leonard Cohen’s legal issue and targeted me, my sons, and many others for six and a half straight years now.  It defies logic that this man has simply decided to insert himself into every legal issue I have with Leonard Cohen without being a party at interest.  I have no idea what Agent Tejeda would testify to or about.  I would like to ask Agent Tejeda to explain these specific statements in the January 2005 memorandum Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, transmitted to my lawyers.  If there was no tax fraud by Leonard Cohen why am I in possession of a memorandum that clearly states that Traditional Holdings, LLC failed to report $8 million in gross income to Internal Revenue Service in 2001?  And, if my ownership interest was a mistake that was rectified secretly and in hindsight, by Cohen and his personal and corporate tax lawyer, why was I included as a partner on the 2001 through 2003 tax returns and why was phantom income shifted to me but not distributed?  Given the fact that there was no delta of $5 million, it would seem rather obvious that the $8 million in gross income could not be consumed in fees paid to third parties.  Furthermore, these third party fees were not deducted from the 2001 Traditional Holdings, LLC corporate returns due to the fact that the third party fees were Leonard Cohen’s personal expenses and transaction fees.  I suppose if Agent Tejeda were asked these questions, I could “wind up looking like the dumbass” that I am, to quote Cohen’s operative, Stephen Gianelli.

“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).”

“Impact of phantom income to Lynch from profit allocations without distributions from Traditional Holdings.”

This Memorandum is being uploaded in its entirety with the exhibit document that should be attached hereto and made a part hereof.

79.       Stephen Gianelli harasses me using a number of my email accounts.  He is presently harassing me at both kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com and kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com.  I will now address the emails sent to the latter account.  On November 7, 2015, Gianelli wrote about the “silly emails implying Cutler will represent you.”  As I have stated above, I never sent any such email.  This is merely a tactic Gianelli uses to elicit information.  Gianelli has increasingly begun copying Alan Hootnick on his emails to me.  Alan Hootnick is an individual who believes Phil Spector is innocent.  He resides in Chile, works with military prisoners there, and has an intelligence background.  Gianelli wrote to inform me that Alan Hootnick is in “correspondence with Mrs. Spector,” addressed the letter Cutler wrote to my “sentencing judge,” falsely accuses me of suggesting that “Cutler might represent” me in “civil RICO litigation,”  advises me that Dennis Riordan (a man he doesn’t know) is being harassed, and asks me how I think “the Spector’s feel about” my “relentlessly imposing” myself on their attorneys.  Gianelli believes that is like trying to help oneself to “Spector’s rare wine collection or his bank account.”  Gianelli does not know me, Phil Spector, Rachelle Spector, Dennis Riordan, or Bruce Cutler.  His obsession with these matters overwhelmingly indicates that he personally is a “party at interest.”

80.       On November 8, 2015, I wrote Spector’s prosecutor, former DDA Truc Do, to request an interview.  I am working on a book and will confront Cohen in court if he attempts to place any type of lien on anything having to do with me.  Leonard Cohen clearly believes theft and extortion is acceptable conduct.  I posted my email to Do on my riverdeepbook.blogspot.com blog.  I have interviewed a number of people for my book.  That would include, but is not limited to, Detective Mark Lillenfeld (LA Sheriff’s Department and investigator on the Spector case) and Ed Lozzi (Clarkson publicist).  I am presently interviewing Paulette Brandt extensively.  I have also asked Phil Spector personally for an interview.  At this time, Paulette Brandt and I believe a mutual book would be of interest.  Paulette Brandt has a fascinating background; is a very interesting and creative woman; and has friendships with many high profile individuals.  That would include Roman Polanski who Paulette Brandt dated around the time he was sentenced to a “psychiatric evaluation” at Chino.  In any event, this is a project we are currently working on.  Paulette also has many interesting and historical documents related to her relationships with people.  I asked Do if she would consider commenting on her statement during closing that Spector played “Russian Roulette” with women and wondered what evidence she has to support those assertions.  I have never heard anyone say that Phil Spector played “Russian Roulette” with women and Paulette Brandt, who was Spector’s girlfriend (in the 70s, again in the mid-80s, and lived with him at his Beverly Hills home), assured me that he did not.  I asked Do to comment on the District Attorney’s decision not to prosecute Leonard Cohen.  I have no further details about that matter but the City Attorney was quite clear during my trial that the DA elected not to prosecute Cohen.  I also asked Do which of the three versions of Leonard Cohen gun stories about Phil Spector (before LA Superior Court) she believes is true.  After all, the version the prosecution used during Spector’s trial (in motions submitted to the court) is contradicted by Cohen’s personal testimony during my trial.  I feel that the answers to these questions would be enlightening.  Gianelli, who appears to have information about Spector’s prosecutors, wrote in response to my request to Do.  He falsely accused me of harassing the DA’s Major Crimes Unit.  The DA, based on an anonymous tip placed to that office about my friendship with Phil Spector, rolled by my home and dragged me into situation.  Investigator John Thompson, DA’s office, informed me that I was “probably a witness.”  I never harassed the District Attorney’s office but I can assure this Court that I have been threatened by members of that office; asked to tell the Denver FBI “Merry Christmas” by the former DA’s personal investigator; and was retaliated against by Cooley himself.  Steve Cooley has a history of retaliation and that has been documented for the Central District Court in California.  It seems that former DA Steve Cooley didn’t like the fact that Leonard Cohen told me for 20 years that Spector never held a gun on him.  He evidently also didn’t like my September 2009 letter or the fact that I informed Detective Brian Bennett that Cohen lies about Spector and was attempting to blackmail me.  Perhaps Cooley didn’t like the fact that the Attorney General of the State of California and City Attorney advised me to contact his office with respect to the King Drew and SWAT incidents.  He may also have found my requests that his office investigate the criminal negligence in Rutger’s Whole Foods matter disturbing.  I viewed that situation as a serious public safety threat.  It’s hard to say right now what specifically disturbed former DA Steve Cooley or why he aligned himself publicly with Leonard Cohen in targeting me.  This is an issue I intend to pursue in federal court.

81.       On November 9, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to my email (posted on my blog) to FBI and DOJ.  He gratuitously noted that I had sent him numerous emails.  Those emails advised this man to cease and desist.  Gianelli clearly believes these emails will end up in a court of law and wants to plead his case while slandering me, eliciting information, interfering with legal matters, and infesting a variety of matters with “extraneous material.”  However, Gianelli wanted to elicit information about “billionaire businessman Ron Burkle.”  It was actually my mother who thought, given the fact that Ron is single, we would make a nice couple.  My mother thinks Ron Burkle is a wonderful father and knows his son quite well. Gianelli has no idea what my relationship with Ron Burkle is so when he states that “you knew Ron Burkle to say hello to when you both had small children in the same school a decade ago” he is attempting to elicit information about the nature of Ron and my relationship at the present time.   Gianelli uses statements like “Burkle certainly has had no relationship with you at all” to provoke a response and elicit information.  Stephen Gianelli has harassed Ron Burkle.  Ron Burkle has been copied on my emails documenting what has unfolded since reporting Leonard Cohen’s tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005. 

82.       On November 9, 2015 Gianelli wrote again about my emails to FBI and DOJ.  These were posted on my blog.  Gianelli referred to an October 5, 2005 email to the managing partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher which Ron Burkle was copied on.  Ron Burkle’s divorce was high profile so I did not indiscreetly reference anything.  Ron Burkle attempted to have his personal financial details sealed but the State of California refused.  That email referenced Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. and LC Investments, LLC.  Gianelli was also attempting to argue that referencing those entities gave a “clear indication that as of October 5, 2005” I had read Cohen’s lawsuit.  I did not read Cohen’s lawsuit until Gianelli posted it online in April 2010.  I was however aware of the issues my lawyers had discussed with Cohen’s representatives.  As of October 2005, I was aware that Leonard Cohen and LC Investments, LLC were plaintiffs.  By this time, I was well aware of early versions of the fraudulent expense ledger that included Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc, LC Investments, LLC, and Traditional Holdings, LLC.  I was also well aware of the fact that as of November 2004 Cohen had taken the position, in response to my lawyer’s October 27, 2004 letter, that I had received “overpayments” with respect to my commissions as his personal manager.  That’s a blatant lie.  I did mention years ago that I was interested in working with Bruce Cutler as an attorney but that issue is no longer relevant.  It is to Gianelli because he is desperately attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector and infiltrate his legal team and/or matters.  Gianelli has no idea if Cutler ever “replied” to any of my alleged messages or emails.  He wants to know if Bruce Cutler replied.  His reason for pointing this out is because this man, who does not know me, doesn’t believe my “denial of service with Cohen’s lawsuit.”  I don’t understood who would ever believe Cohen served me or a Jane Doe.  Gianelli is clearly representing Leonard Cohen’s legal interests.

83.        On November 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to a post on my blog.  In response to Gianelli’s emails attempting to elicit information and interfere with certain legal matters, I wrote Cohen’s lawyers at Kory & Rice to advise them that if they, the attorneys of record, would like to discuss the issues Gianelli was harassing me over, they should hit reply all.  I believe the email reflects Leonard Cohen’s legal theories.  Stephen Gianelli lies extensively so I can assure this Court that I will not take his word for anything.  

84.       On or about November 11, 2015, Alan Hootnick forwarded emails Gianelli sent him privately.  They related to Gianelli’s alleged discussions about me with someone called “Nestor Hobson.”  I do not believe this individual exists.  I believe that Cohen and Steve Lindsey have passed along slanderous and fabricated stories about me to Stephen Gianelli.  Gianelli continued to harass me, at this point, over a rabbit that was attacked by one of my dogs when I was not home.  The children brought the rabbit out that we took care of over one summer.  They wanted to say goodbye and were apparently unaware that one of my Akitas was nearby.  That was a tragic accident and didn’t involve me as I was there when the incident occurred.  Nestor Hobson also appears to be Stephen Gianelli. 

85.       On November 11, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wanted to elicit information about the Franchise Tax Board.  Doug Davis is a Tax Advocate who works with FTB.  He removed a wage garnishment based on a guesstimate of income based on 2003 income/standard deductions and mortgage interest payments.  My 2004 and 2005 income and expenses are not similar to the year 2003.  Gianelli, who doesn’t know me, has opinions about who I should or shouldn’t write.  The reason for this is because he uses this tactic to elicit information.  As of this date, Gianelli appeared interested in a declaration I am preparing to submit to the Franchise Tax Board’s Fraud Unit.  Leonard Cohen refuses to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information (1099, K-1s, corporate accountings and financial statements, corporate profit and loss statements and so forth) and Franchise Tax Board would like that information and my 2004 and 2005 returns.  Cohen is intentionally obstructing me from obtaining this information.  I have no idea what Doug Davis wrote Gianelli after he contacted him about me.  I know that the FTB has assured me many times that they are not permitted to discuss third parties with strangers or individuals who do not have powers of attorney.  What I have or haven’t called anyone is not Gianelli’s business.  I was incredibly pissed off that Gianelli was contacting the FTB about me at all.  Gianelli didn’t bother including the actual email but prefers his selective and absurd narrative.  I have called former DA Steve Cooley a “faggot.”  I believe, so as not to insult the LGBT community, I should have called him a “dangerous clown.”  I can assure this Court that the government actors in Los Angeles could care less if my son’s fingers were ripped off.  They even lied about that incident.  Gianelli also seems interested in discussing “Steve Cooley.”  I only feel comfortable discussing “Steve Cooley” with IRS, FBI, and DOJ. 

86.       On November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me to obtain a subpoena for the Google gmail account “Nestor Hobson.”  Anyone can open up a Gmail account in any name.  I will not be apologizing to Stephen Gianelli, a common criminal, on my knees.  The man who criminally harassed, stalked, and terrorized my sons for over six straight years sadistically believes I should get down on my knees.  Gianelli is a very twisted, sadistic, and sick individual.

87.       On November 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote to address the fact that I will be filing my RICO suit in federal court in “forma pauperis.”  The reason for this is due to the fact that Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me; withheld commissions due for services rendered; and then used the fraudulent default judgment as an opportunity to steal from me.  This has provided Leonard Cohen with a serious litigation advantage.  Gianelli is convinced this will be used against me in the Central District of California where the magistrate reviews the complaint for sufficiency and “failure to set forth a plausible claim is grounds for denial of a request for fee waiver.”  According to Gianelli, a self-represented litigant is viewed by this Court with utter disdain and held to higher standards than an attorney.  Gianelli attacked an example of a complaint (Braham v. SonyCase No. 2:15-cv-8422-MWF [GJSx]) where a complaint was dismissed on the court’s own motion upon review of the application for a fee waiver.  Gianelli closed this email by advising me that “Any RICO suit by you that is accompanied by a request for fee waiver will never survive that initial review.”  Gianelli has been clear in recent emails that he is attempting to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies and clearly believes his harassment will silence and deter me. 

88.       On November 14, 2015, Gianelli wrote regarding my “pending Tax Court petition.”  Gianelli again advised me that “Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and my exercise jurisdiction only as expressly provided by statute” and it “may not use general equitable powers to expand its jurisdictional grant beyond this limited Congressional authorization.”  Gianelli informed me that this applies to my general arguments based on fraud upon the court.  Gianelli had other points to make.  The second point is that the “burden” is on my, as the taxpayer, to show that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over my July 2015 petition.  I have asked the Court to grant me leave to file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court with respect to Docket No. 7024-02.  I have provided the Court with a general overview of the situation, specific facts, and certain pieces of relevant and material evidence.  The reason for doing this is because I personally felt that in order to make a decision with respect to my request, the Court would need at least rudimentary information rather than reading my mind and guessing.  I’ll address the burden with this Court personally.  The third point my stalker wanted to make is that “Tax Court’s jurisdiction is always predicated upon both the issuance of a notice of deficiency or other notice of determine.”  I have addressed this issue with the Court.  The IRS issued a proper notice of deficiency based on an inadvertent $1 million 1099 that Sony withdrew in 1999 and replaced with a $0 1099.”  There is no issue with respect to the deficiency notice.  The issue that I am addressing arose when Leonard Cohen availed himself of this Court’s jurisdiction and fraudulently argued that the $1 million was income to him in 2001.  I have been clear that I personally was asked by Cohen to advise Sony that he was demanding a non-refundable $1 million down payment against what became the 2001 Traditional Holdings, LLC transaction.  Westin wrote that the November 1999 transmittal letter from Sony proves that the $1 million was not a loan.  Furthermore, by the time Cohen submitted his Petition to Tax Court in 2002, the Traditional Holdings, LLC transaction had closed.  The $1 million belongs to Traditional Holdings.  The assets however are owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. who should have been reimbursed as well.  This matter involves fraud upon the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office and Tax Court.  It also involves theft from corporate entities.  And, it appears to involve egregious tax fraud.   Hazel Atlas, which is a case acknowledged by the 9th Circuit, addressed a 10 year old judgment obtained by fraud upon the court and related to fraud upon a federal government agency.  The circumstances are nearly identical although it does not relate to the Patent Office.  It relates to the Internal Revenue Service.  There also exists theft of intellectual property.  My Petition addressed the fact that, while I was “appointed” Tax Matters partner for the years 2001 through 2003, the notice of determination was not issued to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  I believe I have met my burden in support of my request that this Court grant me leave to file a motion addressing the fraud upon the court. 

89.       On November 15, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote regarding Ray Lawrence.  I never promised to pay off Ray Lawrence’s mortgage.  I promised to pay off the precise amount I owe Ray Lawrence for rent from October 2012 through June 2013.  Once I find a job, which is very difficult due to the fact that Cohen destroyed my reputation over his wrong doing, I intend to begin making payments to Ray Lawrence.  That was our agreement.  The agreement doesn’t involve Gianelli.  The email Gianelli attached confirmed that my appellate attorney, who was harassed for over a year by Gianelli, advised me to send a formal cease and desist letter and maintain all evidence.  Francisco Suarez also instructed me to forward all harassing emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ. 

90.       On November 15, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote that the “only money referenced in Leonard Cohen’s lawsuit is the proceeds from the sale to Sony Music of Leonard Cohen’s music catalogue.”  Gianelli, who defends Leonard Cohen’s legal interests, falsely advised me that “You were paid your 15% commission on the deal, so there is no doubt it was Cohen’s money involved.”  I have no idea what Gianelli is talking about.  That also includes with respect to whether or not I was paid a “commission.”  Gianelli understands that I now “claim that Cohen withdrew the funds” I “removed from Traditional Holdings, LLC using Cohen’s POA.”  I didn’t withdraw Cohen’s $3.3 million in personal transaction fees.  Cohen personally signed a fax, that was sent to Neal Greenberg, authorizing the payment of his personal transaction fees.  The approximately $2.7 million deposited directly into Leonard Cohen’s personal bank account were authorized by Leonard Cohen.  Cohen has now testified that he bought homes for his girlfriend and son and used assets from the Traditional Holdings, LLC account.  While Gianelli argues, on Cohen’s behalf, that I could have made this argument in 2005, that is blatantly false.  Cohen failed to serve me and I diligently and continuously attempted to address this issue.  It’s evidently very important to Cohen that the default judgment establish certain facts as a “matter of law.”  That goes to his motive.

91.       On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that his “point is that Paulette will never see the money” I promised her.  Stephen Gianelli doesn’t know me or Paulette Brandt.  The only agreement or promise I have with Paulette Brandt is to repay her for the rent that would have accrued during the period of time I have stayed with her.  This agreement does not involve our stalker.

92.       On November 15, 2015, Stphen Gianelli wrote that he has never been arrested or accused of a crime.  That is a blatant lie.  The Court should feel free to verify that with IRS, FBI, DOJ, or Treasury.  I haven’t used anything to scam “rent, money, and booze” for a decade.  My agreement with Ray Lawrence was in writing.  He wasn’t scammed.  Paulette Brandt did not confide in “Karina Von Watteville” that I promised her a share of my “millions.”  I am aware, and Boies Schiller confirmed this fact after reviewing three huge boxes of evidence, that Leonard Cohen owes me millions of dollars.  The theft of millions of dollars is perfectly acceptable in certain circles. 

93.       On November 15, 2015, Gianelli wrote to ask “Do you think you had the right to hijack MY BLOG in April 2009 while I was away in Greece?”  Gianelli’s blog wasn’t hijacked but my Tax Petition evidence blog was illegally altered and tampered with.  Gianelli would like to obfuscate issues.  I never hijacked his blog.  I posted in response to slanderous statements about Phil Spector.  I didn’t post thousands of disparaging posts.  I also sent the blog articles and posts to IRS and other authorities.  Gianelli approached me, using the fake moniker “Joff Belark,” to advise me that he was a journalist interested in details related to my situation with Leonard Cohen.  I bcc’d the IRS and other authorities on my responses to “Gianelli.”  He then proceeded to write an entirely slanderous hit piece about me while defending Leonard Cohen.  This occurred shortly after he publicly announced that he heard from Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, in May 2009.  I didn’t send Gianelli “abusive emails.”  I attempted to address his slander, false accusations, and ultimately the targeting of my sons and others. 

94.       On November 16, 2015, Gianelli sent me the LA Times article “Leonard Cohen’s former business manager jailed for harassment” in violation of “protective orders.”  I have addressed the situation with respect to the use of fraudulent restraining orders to discredit and silence me.  They have also been used to prevent me from requesting IRS required tax and corporate information from Leonard Cohen.  Vanderet was correct that I showed remorse but lied publicly when he stated that I engaged in a “long, unrelenting barrage of harassing behavior.”  His statement that “No person should be subject to that kind of targeting by anyone” is laughable and obscene.  I didn’t blame the prosecutors for carrying out a “vicious attack” on me.  I stated that the prosecutors carried out a “vicious attack” on me.  The “anger management requirement” arose due to the fraudulent domestic violence order.  It’s evidently a statutory requirement.  There was and remains no “domestic violence” and the domestic violence order is fraudulent.  I had no intent to annoy Leonard Cohen and the prosecutor argued that Cohen was annoyed.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that annoyance statutes are unconstitutional.  Many states have modified their statutes to reflect this fact.  California has not.  They evidently cannot even define a “dating relationship” as evidenced by the case Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397.  I suppose that’s irrelevant since LA Superior Court simply assigned me a “dating relationship” and the statutory language is obviously irrelevant in any event.  The following bill analysis addressed the fact that the government in California needed a bill that defined “dating relationship” that can be used to “determine whether in fact the alleged victim and perpetrator are in a dating relationship.”  Cohen and I were not and he literally confessed to perjury on the witness stand over this issue.  During my 2012 trial, the prosecutor played voice mail messages that were altered and tampered with.  They also were not date or time stamped.  The transcripts provided the jurors, as I have stated above, were incoherent and some of that seemed intentional.  The thick binders contained the same email printed out over and over and over again.  I don’t think addressing the fact that Cohen exposed his “penis” to me is a “sexual reference.”  I think it’s a criminal act that the City Attorney attempted to victimize the victim over.  This happened repeatedly.  The allegations related to criminal tax fraud were brought to the attention of Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 and thereafter.  Leonard Cohen has a long and publicly documented history of drug use.  My prosecutor doesn’t like that; Cohen testified that I assailed his reputation; and, at nearly the same time, Cohen provided his biographer with details about his extensive use of meth, LSD, and mandrax.  When Cohen testified that he “fired” me in 2004, he was perjuring himself.  I refused to meet with Cohen and his personal corporate and tax lawyer to unravel their handiwork.  I refused to privately hand over the corporate books and records and elected to have my lawyers formally transmit them to Greenberg, Glusker who were representing Cohen at the time.  I didn’t begin calling and emailing Cohen shortly after we parted ways.  I was represented by DiMascio & Berardo who were dealing directly with Robert Kory.  I have addressed why I feel rhetorically that Cohen should be “taken down and shot.”  That’s a manner of speech unless one is attempting to set someone up and falsely accuse them.  I did acknowledge that I may have engaged in “excessive and unauthorized rambling.”  Evidently, Barry Bonds did as well.  Dennis Riordan used this phrase to address his client’s response to a question before a Grand Jury.  The fact that I am barred from owning, possessing or using a firearm for 10 years is a legal issue that will be addressed with federal court.  The Colorado Court felt that I was exempt from the Brady Handgun statute.  This changed when Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the Colorado order, issued without findings, in California as a “domestic violence” order.  That matter also involves wire fraud with respect to the entry of this information into databases.  The domestic violence statutes require individuals to undergo anger management classes, psychological training, and alcohol education sessions.  I wasn’t required to under a “mental health evaluation.”  And that was addressed by Judge Vanderet and Judge Barela.  I do think certain parties however should be required to submit to mental health evaluations with respect to their targeting of me.  Leonard Cohen is a liar who said he feared I would contact him as soon as I was released from custody.  It’s now been approximately 4 years and Cohen shouldn’t hold his breath.  This is probably just wishful thinking.”  I think it gave Cohen pleasure to see his “onetime friend” shackled.  That’s why he took the stand and perjured himself excessively.  My attorneys did argue that my “messages” contained legitimate requests for tax documents.  Cohen and his attorneys argued that I have “long been in possession of documents she requested.”  That is a bald faced lie and can be verified with IRS or FTB.  Leonard Cohen did fraudulently file a Complaint accusing me of “stealing $5 million from his personal accounts and investments while he lived for several years at a Zen center near Los Angeles.”  And a judge did fraudulent grant Cohen “a default judgment in that case.”  I have no details regarding the $9.5 million judgment that was referred to in a March 2006 Billboard article.  Cohen evidently leaked this information to the press.  I was advised by a journalist that Cohen issued a press release to the Hollywood Reporter that was then picked up by the AP with respect to his fraudulent default judgment.  The actual judgment entered against me in May 2006 related to $5 million in “damages” and an extortion amount of approximately $2 million that relates to fraudulent financial interest.  Leonard Cohen does not know when to quit.  However, as Paulette Brandt continues to note, his lies have worked well before LA Superior Court. 


 95.      On November 16, 2015, Gianelli wrote to harass me over a blog post dated “November 15, 2015.”  That blog post related to a proposed order I submitted to Judge Robert Hess in connection with his denial of Cohen’s retaliatory and wholly fraudulent Motion for Sanctions.  Gianelli informed me that only I “could manage to parlay what should have been the routine exchange of a proposed order following hearing on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions into a mini soap opera.”  Gianelli then proceeded to advise me how the proposed order should have been transmitted – with a postage paid return envelope and a cover letter.”  Department 24 advised me to drop the order off with a prepaid envelope.  I have now done that.  I have no idea if the proposed order meets with Judge Hess’ approval.  It can be viewed at this link.  Michelle Rice was actually required to inform me why she disagreed with the proposed order language.  She failed to do that and refused to communicate with me.  That’s one of Kory & Rice’s tactics.  She prefers to communicate with Stephen Gianelli.  Michelle Rice screamed at me in the halls of LA Superior Court.  She called me a “bitch” in front of a witness.  This woman is entirely unprofessional and has spent 10 years getting “rich” by targeting and lying about me.  I may be unaccustomed to routine “housekeeping” matters but it is Leonard Cohen and his representatives who routinely lie to court, perjure themelves, make fraudulent misrepresentations throughout legal documents, and engage in litigation misconduct.  They have concluded that this conduct is privileged in California.  I am not attempting to become an attorney.  If I was interested in becoming an attorney, I would have attended law school.  My grandfather was a magistrate and I was planning to attend Wharton to obtain a dual degree in business and law.  However, the conduct of certain attorneys turned me off completely.   Gianelli has to say this to me because he is defending Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and Kory & Rice’s unprofessional conduct.   


96.       On November 17, 2015, Stephen Gianelli, who has spent over six straight years targeting me and my sons, wrote about “Anosognosia – why a large percentage of those with mental illness are incapable of realizing it.  This email was an attempt to determine if I have ever received a diagnosis of “mental illness.”  Gianelli seems to have “King Drew” on his mind these days.  That file does not relate to me.  It is not the spelling of my name (an ongoing problem with LA Superior Court, the government of Los Angeles, and others).  It is not my date of birth, place of birth, religion, social security number, medical number, or my medical file.  I hardly view myself as the “same youthful woman” that I was in my early 1990s.  However, having said that, the following photographs show what my hair looks like blonde vs. the color brown I dyed my hair in August 2005.  No process server would assume that I had blonde hair.  It doesn’t matter how old the photographs are.  I am referring specifically to the hair color.  Paulette Brandt submitted a declaration to LA Superior Court confirming that she dyed my hair a very dark shade of brown in the summer of 2005.  In fact, she dyed my hair the morning of August 24, 2005 when the process served alleges he served a Jane Doe with blonde hair.  Cohen submitted photographs of me, as a blonde, to the Court in support of his arguments that I was served.  I didn’t resemble the individual that Cohen evidently described for the process server.  He hadn’t seen me in approximately one year and apparently didn’t realize I was wearing my hair almost black at that time.  My son and I didn’t have a female co-occupant.  We had a male co-occupant, Chad Knaak, and no one would confuse him for a female.  No female visited that day other than Paulette Brandt who doesn’t resemble the Jane Doe either. 

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bxAGI6WxDMo/VacPaB1_-2I/AAAAAAAABOg/crdVvjaxdTs/s1600/Kelley%2B-%2Baround%2B1990.jpg

Throughout the summer of 2005, I brought very dark, nearly black dye and helped Kelley color her hair.  I would also help cut it.  She wore it quite short at that period of time.  At some point, I personally felt the dark hair made Kelley look harsh and commented on this. 
91.       On November 18, 2015, Stephen Gianelli sent me an email advising that “IRS has over 9,000 employees, most of them working in its headquarters in Washington DC and a huge, crushing workload.”  This was Gianelli’s argument with respect to the fact that IRS in Washington, DC visited my riverdeepbook blog.  I don’t believe IRS is like my next door neighbor.  I know for a fact I reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS on April 15, 2005 and at other times and I believe, based on what has unfolded, that this was naïve.  I don’t know if the IRS “could not care less” about tax fraud, failure to report millions in income, or anything else for that matter.  It sounds rather preposterous.

97.       On November 19, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to my public comment that “the stakes must be very high and lows remain inconceivably vile.”  Gianelli wants to know “What stakes exactly.”  Gianelli uses the “CIA experiment in mind control” to argue that my “claims” have not gained traction either in court or in the court of public opinion.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who claimed he participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA program.  Cohen is the individual who has told countless versions of his tales about the Bay of Pigs and Yom Kippur War.  Cohen is the individual who wrote that he is our “most important spy.”  I have no idea how Gianelli knows if IRS, FBI, CIA, DOJ, LAPD, Berkeley PD, Houston PD, Governor of California, or State Bar “stopped listening.”  He previously advised me, and provided evidence to support his statements, that IRS blocked his emails as harassing.  I do not believe for one moment that this man dislikes Cohen.  He relentlessly argues Cohen’s legal position, defends Cohen, and targets people in matters related to Leonard Cohen.  That would include, but is not limited to, me, my sons, and witnesses who have submitted declarations in Cohen related cases.   

98.       On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli responded to an email I sent Alan Hootnick with respect to the Tax Petition Word Press evidence blog.  Gianelli copied in the Washington Field Office of FBI, IRS Commissioner’s Staff, and Criminal Division of DOJ.  I asked where on my to IRS, FBI, and DOJ Alan Hootnick was copied in.  Gianelli accused me of lying and forwarded an email I privately sent Alan Hootnick. The email I sent to Stephen Gianelli with IRS, FBI, and DOJ copied in stated that I believed he illegally accessed my blog for Tax Court, changed my password, added the photograph he’s sent me countless times, and then deleted the account.  It was actually an attempt to delete the account and an attempt to change the account password.  Alan Hootnick was not copied on that email.  Gianelli lies and obfuscates matters.

99.       On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote that I wrote directly to Hootnick and he forwarded my email to Gianelli.  Gianelli began copying Alan Hootnick on many emails to me and I asked “what does Alan Hootnick” have to do with this.  That doesn’t me a “conniving little liar” because I didn’t copy Alan Hootnick on the email to Gianelli with a cc to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and DOJ’s Criminal Division.   

100.     On November 20, 2015, Stephen Gianelli, copying in DOJ’s Criminal Division, wrote that his point was simply “Your posted blog comment indicated your agreement indicated your agreement with the theory that Leonard Cohen is in a conspiracy with the CIA as a graduate of the MK ULTRA program to manipulate (“socially engineer”) society through Cohen’s published and performed son lyrics.”  Gianelli, who stalks me online and slanders me throughout the internet, descended on Rigorous Intuition’s blog.  That site is devoted to a discussion about MK ULTRA and Leonard Cohen’s possible participation in that program.  Ann Diamond was interviewed by the blog owner, referred to me, and posted my review of her book on Cohen.  Other individuals located Ann Diamond’s article and posted that noting that I appeared to have been targeted by a “criminal enterprise.”  Stephen Gianelli located the blog poster’s site and posted slanderous and fraudulent comments about me.  This is one of his jobs and it has happened repeatedly for years now.  I posted a note to Jasun Horsley in September 2015.  By November 2015, Gianelli began slandering me on that blog.  My post did not indicate that I believe Leonard Cohen participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA program.  This is what Leonard Cohen told me.  I also didn’t indicate that I believe the CIA was attempting to manipulate people by promoting Leonard Cohen’s lyrics and have never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life.  The Court should feel free to confirm this information.  I didn’t offer up additional evidence.  I simply referred Jasun Horsley to information Cohen personally has provided to the news media or included in his lyrics.  That would include his lyric stating that he is our “most important spy.”  That remark did not indicate that Cohen “has been in secret service of the CIA and his goal has been not to entertain but to manipulate an unsuspecting public through mind control techniques cleverly hidden in his lyrics.”  Why would the CIA want to promote Leonard Cohen’s lyrics?  I do believe Cohen is a highly manipulative individual who communicates with his fans through his lyrics.  A number of them appear to believe he is a spy who worked with CIA or possibly Israeli intelligence.  I suppose that’s the message he wanted to communicate.  Since radio promo people have a hard time promoting Cohen’s music to radio, I tend to doubt CIA has found some secret way to promote his work globally.  That requires working and touring behind studio albums.  I wrote thanking Jasun Horsley for including me in his article.  Gianelli wrote that I posted “Thank you for interviewing me  for your story.”  There is nothing this man won’t lie about.  I didn’t participate in the Truth Sentinel segment, with Ann Diamond, on Cohen and CIA’s MK ULTRA program.  The reason for that is due to the fact that I am unfamiliar with this program; believe it has been blown out of proportion; and do not believe Leonard Cohen participated in it.  Of course, I am speculating so I don’t think people that believe he participated should be looked down upon.  Leonard Cohen likes to allude to his roles in various revolutions.  That would include the “Bay of Pigs.”  I don’t have conspiracy theories.  I believe there are blatant “legal conspiracies” related to this situation.  That’s very different from a conspiracy theory that involves “Leonard Cohen and the CIA” attempting “control people’s thoughts.”  Leonard Cohen cannot control his own thoughts and I do not believe CIA would be able to help him out with that.  Gianelli then sneaks in a reference to my Tax Petition evidence blog in an attempt to explain it away as a conspiracy theory.  It is not.  This situation occurred and the person or parties involved should be prosecuted.  The Blog was not confidential.  It was a private blog but I uploaded the Petition to Scribd in September 2015.  Gianelli is obsessed with my blogs, Scribd account, emails, etc.  He therefore conceivably had access to that account.  The blog was not hacked.  The login information was contained in the Petition.  And for the record, I wrote the review of Cohen’s book personally.  Gianelli doesn’t believe, although he doesn’t know me, that I am capable of cogent thought.  I believe he is capable of, and engaged in, criminal conduct. 

odzerchenma [Kelley Lynch]
Jason, I want to thank you for including me in your article on Leonard Cohen. You have absolutely addressed the crucial point with Cohen – his public persona and how that differs from who he really is. Leonard Cohen is chilling and I personally feel he verges on pure evil. Cohen has hinted at his relationship with CIA and intelligence for years and years now. In his lyric “Field Commander Cohen” he notes that he is our most “important spy.” His tales of revolutions he’s been involved with (including possible reconnaissance) re. the Bay of Pigs cannot be overlooked. I would also like to add that Ann Diamond is a wonderful individual who was in a relationship with Cohen years ago. I never once, in the 17 years I worked as Cohen’s personal manager, heard a mean comment about her from Cohen – until she was questioned about comments his daughter made while attending Concordia University. After that, Ann was demonized and referred to as a stalker, someone who harassed Cohen, and a disgruntled ex. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a pure disinformation campaign and the same tactics were used against me. Cohen also didn’t want to pay what he owed me. He has a pattern of that as well. I will give you a head’s up. I have a “stalker” who is also targeting Ann Diamond. His name is Stephen Gianelli and he appears to be an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team. He appears to spend 24/7 on this campaign so the stakes are high and the lows are inconceivably vile. Cohen uses operatives to target others. I’ve witnessed it for years. Thank you again. Kelley
·         https://0.gravatar.com/avatar/617c9d32a14bbc3696e543fdb4a37bf8?s=38&d=identicon&r=Xjasunhorsley
You’re welcome Kelley, and happy that you read the piece and were inspired to comment. Thanks for the heads up also.


Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby lunarmoth » Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:48 am
Kelley Lynch reviews The Man Next Door

Goodreads
Search My Books

Odzer Chenma rated a book 5 of 5 stars
22 days ago
The Man Next Door by Ann Diamond
The Man Next Door
by Ann Diamond (Goodreads Author)
Read 
Read in October 2015
The Man Next Door immediately throws one into the late 1960s – poetry readings, student uprisings, Bistros and Montreal bars, the tragic deaths of Janis Joplin and Jimi Hentrix, and Canadian armed forces occupying Montreal triggered by the kidnappings of a provincial cabinet minister and a British diplomat by members of the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ). Magic was indeed afoot! This is the historical moment Ann Diamond’s book immediately propels one into. The Montreal Bistros and bars were hangouts for intellectuals, artists, journalists and drunks. Leonard Cohen and Pierre Trudeau were regulars. In the summer of 1977, Montreal was in the midst of rather shocking revelations about doctors, psychiatric patients and classified experiments, some of which were attributed to CIA’s MKULTRA Program, in articles appearing in the local press. The brilliant and flamboyant Tibetan Buddhist teacher, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, was also part of this dynamic landscape.

Ann’s first fleeting encounter with Leonard Cohen occurred one night in the midst of these radical and romantic times. She describes Cohen as a mythical figure in her youthful revolutionary dreams. His books were sacred texts. The encounter left Ann feeling as though she was floating above her “occupied city like Kateri Tekakwitha, at one with all the Mohawks and other disembodied saints.” She prophetically sensed that she might run into Leonard Cohen again. A number of years later, Ann Diamond would find herself sitting at Leonard Cohen’s kitchen table asking if he recalled their first fleeting encounter. By that time, Cohen was a celebrated international figure who had just released an album produced by Phil Spector. 

Cohen rang Ann up and introduced himself in typically witty fashion: “Hello Ann? This is Leonard Cohen. We have to stop meeting like this.” Ann’s first evening with Leonard Cohen left her dazed and delirious. A mutual friend had provided Cohen with her phone number. I immediately recognized the familiar phrases used by Leonard Cohen and could literally visualize him jumping in the air and asking “The girl with the bicycle? How tall is she?” 

Having spent nearly 20 years working as Cohen’s personal manager, I had grown quite familiar with his speech, phraseology, and frequently eccentric behavior. I also know Cohen’s taste in women and understood why he found the youthful, spirited, and adventurous Ann Diamond so compelling. Over the years, I had come to know of Ann through Leonard Cohen. I understood her to be an old girlfriend who had remained friends with him throughout the years. The descriptions of Cohen’s home, encounters with his Montreal crowd, the Swiss bank book tucked away in a drawer, Joshu Sasaki Roshi, smoked meat, gifts, poetry books, Persian rugs, trinkets, religious chatchka, personal notes, Hydra, tales about CIA and the MKULTRA program, meth and LSD experimentation, mental hospitals and suicides also resonated. 

While most biographies devoted to Leonard Cohen consist of impersonal or sanitized third party accounts that are dripping with awe and admiration, Ann’s biography is personal, revealing, and touches upon Cohen’s darker side which a friend of hers described when he cautioned her: “Be very careful of that guy. He's totally ruthless when it comes to women.” Leonard Cohen’s ruthlessness is invisible to anyone who bases their perceptions of him on the description of a sage-like individual whose speech is littered with profound expressions and cleverly crafted quotes. It is nevertheless an essential component of his private persona. Ann herself could not connect her friend’s remark to the man who appeared to be an “eccentric saint,” devoted son, and exceptional artist who associated with a rather odd assortment of neurotic friends. Cohen’s personal life is tortured and up close resembles a controlled disaster area. Leonard Cohen also understands his own nature. When Ann asks “But are you trustworthy?” he responds “No.” 

Cohen’s public persona has a cultivated Europeanized air to it that leads one to conclude that he is humble, wise, calm, dignified, deeply spiritual, and in possession of courtly manners. Privately, Cohen is lonely and bitter as he confessed to Ann. This too resonated because I recall Cohen’s seething anger and resentment. (The book’s mention of the arrest of Suzanne Elrod made me wonder if Leonard Cohen was personally involved. For years, he had told me that his housekeeper’s husband, then Chief of Police on Hydra, had arrested Suzanne over a minor marijuana incident. It was hard to imagine Evangalia and Coulis being involved in something that extreme without Cohen’s permission.)

Ann’s relationship with Leonard Cohen would eventually land her on the Isle of Hydra where Cohen mingled with Greek peasants, millionaires, tourists, and had experimented with LSD and meth. I frequently heard Cohen’s stories about these experiences, drunken binges, CIA agents and other spies at Bill’s Bar, and how he wrote “Beautiful Losers” on LSD while visiting Hydra. In 1979 Ann had received a small writing grant from the Canada Council and decided to extend her trip to Greece, partly due to Cohen’s imminent arrival. Cohen was viewed as a God on Hydra while in Montreal his reputation was one of an eccentric failure. In the United States, Cohen was largely unknown although his work with Phil Spector led to numerous mentions of him in articles and news media accounts. 

Ann’s book intimately recounts Cohen’s relationship with the muses and women in his life as well as his relationship with his young children, Lorca and Adam. Ann also had an opportunity to accompany Leonard Cohen on his 1979 UK tour and experienced the sordid world of alcohol-filled performances and an intense cult following. Ultimately, Ann’s experiences with Cohen led her to question her own sanity and emotions. She wondered if she was “entering a schizophrenic’s world where nothing was stable or straightforward, and where ordinary reality constantly erupted with subconscious material from who-knows-what source.” Five cities and six concerts later, Ann concluded that “Leonard was schizophrenic.” 

Ann Diamond was a naïve, young woman in love with Leonard Cohen and felt that she could save him from himself. A sense his other, illicit relationships comes across. By the end of their relationship, Leonard Cohen would use his toolkit of tactics to attack, silence, frighten, and discredit Ann. It was clear that Cohen had exposed her to his personal world, which is both seductive and disturbing, and when he felt she questioned his conduct, he set out to destroy her. 

This is not the type of biography fans of Leonard Cohen’s will readily embrace. It is far too naked and poignant. Ann Diamond is a very brave woman who has experienced and tangled with the man who wrestles with the angel and the beast. I applaud her courage and honesty.

Kelley Lynch
Unlike Comment Like: 1 Comment: 1
Ann Diamond With Justin Trudeau now sitting as Prime Minister, like the re-enactment of his famous father, this review seems very timely. Are we doomed to repeat the sixties, follow leaders, stumble blindly on? Or will we wake from our engineered dream?

Big thanks to Kelley Lynch for reading and responding to The Man Next Door!

Re: Leonard Cohen, Operative? (Ann Diamond material)

Postby guruilla » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:39 pm
Cohen's lawyer and harassment agent Peter Stephen Gianelli just posted at my blog; interesting that it happened immediately after I was asking about Kelley Lynch here (the blog post being two months old).


101.     On November 20, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in FBI and Alan Hootnick.  He informed me that “we have previously discussed, your tax court was not preceded by a notice of determination by the IRS that was transmitted to you at any time, let alone within 90 days of the filing of your petition.  For that reason the IRS, Office of the Chief Counsel has moved to dismiss your tax court petition for lack of jurisdiction. You had filed an objection to the motion to dismiss, which awaits decision.  In the meantime, everything else in your tax court case is being held in abeyance pending a disposition of the motion to dismiss.  Since the tax court lacks jurisdiction over your petition (which relates to alleged events taking place from 1999 through 2003), the court is not going to allow you to engage in third party discovery (let alone about alleged "harassment" you have suffered by third parties in 2015).  There will be no subpoena issued.  What will be issued shortly is a motion to dismiss.”  I have no idea why Gianelli copied in FBI or Alan Hootnick.  I had publicly stated that I wanted to ask Tax Court to grant a subpoena with respect to the IP information related to all parties who accessed the Tax Petition evidence blog.  However, since Gianelli has advised me that he uses TOR and I could never prove that it was him in any event, I believe the Court should refer this matter to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  I personally believe that the criminal harassment over my Tax Court Petition is a very serious matter.  In fact, I believe the harassment over all of these issues is a very serious matter and criminal in nature.  Nevertheless, Gianelli has concluded that Tax Court will not issue a subpoena.  What Tax Court will issue shortly is a “motion to dismiss.”  I don’t believe Tax Court will ever issue a “motion to dismiss.”  Perhaps Tax Court will issue a decision regarding dismissal but I do not believe Tax Court will be submitting motions in this matter. 

102.     On November 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote about my “litigation threats of today.”  He had one more thing to say to me and that is as follows “Before the federal court even gets what you frame as the central question in your threatened RICO suit (the effect of alleged perjury in prior state court proceedings against you) you are going to have to run a gauntlet of threshold issues, including whether you properly pleaded a claim for which relief may be granted, whether your complaint is timely, whether the conduct you complain of is privileged, and the res judicata effect of Leonard Cohen’s 2006 $14 million judgment for damages and declaratory relief on your claims.”  It is important to note that I have not publicly addressed what my RICO suit will “allege.”  I have sent IRS, FBI, and DOJ a copy of a very rough draft of my RICO Complaint against Leonard Cohen.  This is how Gianelli attempts to elicit information.  He wants me to confirm whether or not what he has alleged will be the central question in my RICO suit.  Gianelli goes onto state that my “RICO threat is as empty as your threats over the last 6-years to issue subpoenas” and states that “no one takes your threats seriously.”  First of all, a RICO suit is not a threat.  It is a legal Complaint.  Beyond that, people do take me seriously or Gianelli wouldn’t be engaged in such excessive criminal conduct and Leonard Cohen wouldn’t have gone to the lengths he has gone to target and destroy my life. 

103.      On November 22, 2015, Gianelli wrote me copying in Ann Diamond.  The subject of this particular harassing email was “The fantasy that Lynch will ever publish a book.”  Gianelli wrote about OJ’s book and the fact that LA Superior Court issued a “writ of execution” that permitted the Sheriff’s Department to request a “garnishment request” by a lawyer for plaintiff permitting the seizure of the manuscript and books rights.  Gianelli is clearly representing Leonard Cohen’s interests in this matter.  When LA Superior Court issues another fraudulent “writ” related to me, I will ask that it be removed to federal court where I will be addressing federal tax matters and other related issues.  LA Superior Court has exposed me to this ongoing insanity and yet the Court has no jurisdiction over me.   It is my personal belief that the judges are now literally lying from the bench about matters related to me and Leonard Cohen.  I find that deeply disturbing.  I also find their demeanor appalling. 

104.     On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote an email to Ann Diamond copying me in.  The email related to her “declaration provided to Kelley Lynch repeating an allegation about Lorca Cohen.”  This is an attempt on Gianelli’s part to threaten and intimidate Ann Diamond.  There is nothing libelous in the declaration Ann Diamond provided me which was submitted to LA Superior Court.  Libel requires false statements.  I am aware of what unfolded with respect to Lorca Cohen’s statements that her father molested her.  I have emails from Leonard Cohen about this matter.  I also have a letter from my brother-in-law, Van Penick, an attorney in Canada about this issue.  This evidence will be submitted to federal court with my RICO suit against Cohen.  Gianelli has relentlessly argued that Cohen, who has lied extensively, has a litigation privilege but Ann Diamond evidently does not.  His rationale for this is that the litigation privilege applies when statements are (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) they have some connection or logical relation to the action.  At a preliminary hearing on April 6, 2012, the prosecutor fraudulently argued that I accused Cohen of being a “child molester.”  This statement was made in open court with the LA Times present.  I didn’t accuse Cohen of being a child molester.  Lorca Cohen did at Concordia.  This information was then repeated by the mother of one of Lorca Cohen’s classmates to Ann Diamond.  I worked with Leonard Cohen and Van Penick to have these comments removed.  However, I have now been falsely accused of making these accusations by the City Attorney of Los Angeles.  I have yet to see the findings of their investigation into this matter.  The Court, who read the charges publicly, addressed the fact that the order I allegedly violated was a domestic violence order.  Leonard Cohen’s own conduct annoys him and I personally do not believe that is an element of the “intent to annoy” statute.  When I filed my motion to vacate the fraudulent domestic violence order, I addressed some of the issues raised during my trial.  The two matters are related.  I was not served or notified of the newly created domestic violence order.  I was not aware of how there could be a domestic violence order until LA Superior Court asked me in the Spring of 2013 “Is Leonard Cohen your boyfriend” and explained that based upon the case number it was a domestic violence order.  It took me over a year, until April 2014, to confirm with Boulder Combined Court that the order Cohen obtained in 2008 was not a domestic violence order.  Therefore, the Court’s position that I did not file my motion to vacate in a timely matter is unconscionable.  I don’t have a crystal ball and have diligently investigated this matter without having all necessary legal pleadings and evidence.  Ann Diamond’s declaration is covered by the litigation privilege.  Cohen’s lies and perjured statements are not.  They are slanderous, defamatory, and libelous. 

Excerpt of Trial Transcript
April 6, 2012

Prosecutor (Sandra Jo Streeter):  Yes, so as – just to reiterate, the People view virtually all of the comments made by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations, but, nevertheless, some of the things that Ms. Lynch has said have been incredibly troubling to Mr. Cohen in particular, for example, the accusation that he is a child molester, things of that nature.  And so the – and then, you know, just the fact of – while the charge is only – the People don’t want to say “only” – is a court order violation, annoying phone calls, this is something the People are going to make an offer of proof the Court as to, that has been going on since 2005, and Mr. Cohen is very, very unsettled by this, it has just completely up-ended his life … and as the People mentioned previously when you put Leonard Cohen in a Google search, his name comes up first, and there are loads of pictures as to Mr. Cohen.  The People are loath as to why there must be a picture of Mr. Cohen in this particular setting.  RT 3-4  [LA Times Motion – unable to obtain from Public Defender’s Office]

Court reads charges:  RT 19-20:  violations of domestic violence order & annoying phone calls and other electronic communications to Leonard Cohen. 

105.     On November 23, 2015, Gianelli wrote an email with the subject “Read before you make assumptions and draw judgments.”  Evidently, Gianelli wanted me to know that he is “among those who want Phil Spector’s murder convictions to be reversed, not because I think he is necessarily innocent, but because I have been convinced from day-one that he did not get a fair trial.”  If this were true, why did Gianelli post on Truth Sentinel that Clarkson’s DNA was not on the ammunition and the gun was Spector’s?  Because he is arguing on behalf of the Spector prosecution.  Gianelli has confirmed that he personally spent hundreds of hours blogging about this case.  Gianelli then wrote, although he does not know Phil Spector at all, that “given Spector’s health and the 2-3 years that it is going to take the 9th Circuit to do his thing, then another expected appeal from there to the U.S. Supreme Court – delaying the finality of whatever the 9th Circuit does –we have to face the real possibility that Spector is going to die before the appellate process has run its course.”  This is a blatant attempt to elicit information about Phil Spector’s health, what he plans to do legally, and whether or not his estate will pursue the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.  Gianelli then states that “No one is worried about a third Spector trial.”  I find it impossible to believe that the Spector prosecution, and government officials in Los Angeles, do not have any concerns about a possible remand and third trial. They have spent millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars prosecuting Spector.  It is irrelevant if Cooley, Dixon, Jackson, Do, etc. have all “left government service for bigger and better things and will be completely unaffected by any reversal.”  I personally believe DOJ and FBI should investigate this case.  It is overwhelmingly clear that the fabricated narrative and theories are not supported by the forensic science.  It also defies logic that five of the greatest forensic scientists in this country would all lie for Phil Spector.  For some reason, Gianelli then decides to argue that he is “not slandering Ann Diamond.”  He is merely forwarding her email to him from January 2014 with respect to my motion to vacate Cohen’s default judgment.  Who cares if Ann Diamond believes or doesn’t believe that I was served?  Ann Diamond and I did not know each other until 2008.  The default judgment was entered in 2006.  Cohen failed to serve me in 2005.  The situation is a very serious legal matter that does not involve hearsay or guesswork on the part of unrelated individuals.  Gianelli concludes by informing me that my claims – while amusing – are all barred by the passage of time and the res judicata effect of the 2006 default judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC338322.  Stephen Gianelli is arguing Leonard Cohen’s legal positions while attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector.  Ann Diamond personally wrote to confirm that she now believes, after hearing my side, that I was not served.  Stephen Gianelli obviously does not speak for Ann Diamond.  He stalks, harasses, threatens, intimidates, and slanders Ann Diamond.  That benefits Leonard Cohen as well. 

From: Ann Diamond <anndiamond2011@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Subject: FW Re: FYI - Read before you make assumptions and draw judgments
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>

Back then I didn’t. Now I've heard your side, I believe you.

106.     On November 23, 2015, Gianelli continued with his argument that “If Ann Diamond testified that you were never served with Cohen’s suit, which I very much doubt, then she perjured herself.”  I have no idea what this man is talking about.  Ann Diamond has never testified about any matter related to me, Leonard Cohen, or service.  She isn’t in a position to do so as she did not know me until approximately two years after the fraudulent default judgment was entered.  If Ann Diamond was clear in her email to Gianelli, she was equally clear in the email submitted with this declaration that clearly states that she believes I was not served.  Ann Diamond was confused about the situation where Gianelli literally wrote me while I was in Lynwood.  I filed a Complaint with LASD about that incident and spoke to LAPD detectives about the situation with Gianelli.  Gianelli never visited me in jail.  He wrote me although I do not know this man.  Stephen Gianelli is an extremely twisted individual.

107.     On November 23, 2015, Gianelli again wrote to advise me that “Diamond’s declaration does not even discuss the service of the suit on you” but rather covers events that occurred decades ago.  Gianelli is lying when he states that none of the events in Ann Diamond’s declaration involve me.  I was falsely accused, by the City Attorney of Los Angeles, of accusing Cohen of molesting his daughter.  Ann Diamond was involved in that situation and so was I.  The City Attorney had an obligation to investigate its witness and the allegations themselves.  Instead, the prosecutor simply informed LA Superior Court that my statements were “unsubstantiated allegations.”  How could anyone make that statement without an investigation into the allegations themselves?  I personally believe Ann Diamond’s statements about Leonard Cohen’s character are both admissible and material.  The alleged hearsay about Lorca Cohen is confirmed in Van Penick’s letter to me.  The facts, as Cohen presented them, were addressed.  For Gianelli to say that a false accusation made against me by the City Attorney of Los Angeles, in an attempt to convict me over Leonard Cohen’s own conduct, is outrageous.  The City Attorney not only set out to discredit me but also has exposed me to the relentless harassment by people functioning as Cohen’s legal representatives, operatives, proxies, and Cohen himself.  He uses legal documents to lie about and slander me.  It doesn’t seem as thought that conduct is protected but a federal court can decide for itself. 
Streeter:  Yes, so as – just to reiterate, the People view virtually all of the comments made by Ms. Lynch as nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations.” 

108.     On November 23, 2015, Gianelli felt it was necessary to advise me, although he is not the federal court or Tax Court, that no one is going to “take the witness stand” because any suit I initiate will be dismissed well before the testimony stage on procedural grounds. 

109.     On November 24, 2015 Gianelli wrote with respect to my blog posted email to Ann Diamond, FBI, DOJ, and others.  He copied Ann Diamond, DOJ’s Criminal Division, and FBI on the email.  Gianelli is arguing Leonard Cohen’s legal issues with IRS, FBI, DOJ and others.  Gianelli begins by arguing that he did not threaten me or Ann Diamond.  He was simply “pointing out” that the allegations in Ann Diamond’s declaration were not even remotely germane to the issues before the court when it was filed.  The issues were and remain germane.  All issues raised during my trial relate specifically to the fraudulent domestic violence order.  Gianelli then attempts to obfuscate issues by writing that the issue before the court was whether I was properly served with Cohen’s August 2005 lawsuit.  Ann Diamond’s declaration is privileged.  Leonard Cohen’s slanderous, libelous, and defamatory declarations that contain fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured statements are not privileged.  Stephen Gianelli is Leonard Cohen’s operative.  Ann Diamond’s declaration confirms that Leonard Cohen uses operatives to target people and that is highly material and relevant.  It is entirely probable that Lorca Cohen would lie in order to protect her father.  The situation would have to be thoroughly investigated by appropriate authorities.  I can testify to the truth of these accusations.  What is a given, and I have the evidence to support this fact, is that Freda Guttman advised Ann Diamond that her daughter was present at Concordia when Lorca Cohen alleged that her father molested her.  Van Penick’s letter does not state that I made these accusations because I did not.  Lorca Cohen was willing to go into my management office and remove my personal business files on behalf of her father.  Lorca Cohen evidently made the statements that an “informant” advised her father that he could never retire.  That individual evidently analyzed corporate books and records, financial statements, and other relevant materials.  However, no “casual employee” of mine was in a position to do that type of analysis and probably wouldn’t know who owned the corporate entities.  This is blatant criminal witness tampering with respect to me and Ann Diamond.  This is another one of Gianelli’s roles.  Stephen Gianelli, being a chronic and blatant liar, goes onto state that he did not “target” my son Ray Lindsey.  He most certainly did and that began when Ray was a minor.  His father evidently felt it was acceptable for strangers, who are adults with motive, to target my son.  He didn’t subsequently write Gianelli.  After Gianelli criminally harassed both of my sons, Ray wrote Gianelli, Walsh, and Lawrence to advise them that their emails made him physically ill.  These people belong in prison over this situation.  The evidence of the targeting of my sons was apparently irrelevant to the City Attorney because I wrote the City Attorney years ago documenting this situation.  I also wrote LAPD because my sons were LAPD residents and Ray was a minor.  IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others were copied on those emails. I want to assure this Court that I don’t want my sons involved in any discussions about Phil Spector’s case or the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud – including with operatives like Stephen Gianelli and Susanne Walsh, an individual who may have connections to a jihadist sympathizer and also attempted to lure my son into communicating with her privately.  LA Superior Court, who destroyed my sons’ lives based on fraud and perjury, ordered Steve Lindsey to have my son call me every other night.  The Court ordered Lindsey’s lawyer, Daniel Bergman, to communicate with me.  Both Lindsey and Bergman were in contempt of court continuously for approximately five years.  Leonard Cohen then hired Daniel Bergman, the custody lawyer who lied relentlessly about me and my sons, to represent him in the Motion for Terminating Sanctions matter.  That matter addressed egregious fraud upon the court.  Ray said what he had to say in his declaration.  That would include the fact that the slanderous emails, which Cohen’s lawyer was frequently cc’d on, confused him.  Rutger confirmed that they confused him as well.  I am not mentally ill or an alcoholic.  And this will not be Leonard Cohen’s defense to anything.  Ray wasn’t present for the SWAT incident.  He was dropped off at the bottom of the hill and was not a witness to what unfolded.  Rutger was and addressed that situation in his declaration.  My mother addressed certain facts as well. 

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2014/09/ray-charles-lindsey-kelley-lynchs-son.html

Stephen Gianelli is indeed Leonard Cohen’s operative.  He is a proxy.  Leonard Cohen is not my “Daddy.”  I don’t want “Daddy’s” attention.  I want to address the merits of the issue and submit actual evidence to a court of law.  I want the IRS required tax and corporate information.  And, I believe people should be held accountable for their actions.  Gianelli’s emails speak for themselves and they are evidence that he is representing Leonard Cohen’s legal issues and functioning as his legal representative.  The reason Gianelli ends by noting that I continue to cc Doug Davis of the Franchise Tax Board is because he is attempting to elicit information about the declaration I am preparing for the FTB’s Fraud Unit re. Cohen’s willful and knowing refusal to provide me with required tax and corporate information (1099 and K-1s).  Doug Davis is an adult male, who works for FTB, and can personally speak for himself.  I most certainly will not rely on the statements made by someone I view as a common criminal. 

110.     On November 24, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote that he “couldn’t care less what” my declaration filed with the Franchise Tax Board says.  Gianelli attempts to explain away his harassing emails over FTB by complaining about my emails to Doug Davis.  They have nothing whatsoever to do with Gianelli and Doug Davis can and should speak for himself.  My emails to Doug Davis were not “obscene.”  When Gianelli writes that I have shredded my credibility with that agency, he is attempting to provoke me into providing him with any information re. conversations I’ve had with FTB.  Nothing I could say to IRS or FTB regarding the events of 1999 through 2005 could possibly change a thing.  Perhaps IRS and FTB would like to explain the following statements included in Robert Kory’s 2005 memorandum.  This statement confirms that Traditional Holdings, LLC failed to report $8 million in income.  Leonard Cohen hired the individuals who handled all accounting, corporate, and tax matters.  His representative, Richard Westin, prepared the 2001 through 2003 federal tax returns.  He worked solely for Leonard Cohen and I did not oversee or approve his work.  I was instructed to sign the returns and mail them.  I didn’t review them and it was not until the fall of 2004 that my lawyers and accountant advised me that Cohen failed to report the income from the Sony sale on the 2001 return; my promissory note was extinguished from the 2002 return (using a separate tax ID number); and the annuity obligation itself was extinguished from the 2003 return and the amount of $4.7 million was moved to the partners’ capital accounts.  This all sounds highly illegal and I believe IRS and FTB are capable of reviewing the tax returns.  Cohen’s Complaint, in connection with the fraudulent default judgment, confirms that Cohen and his representatives failed to file state corporate tax returns.  I didn’t handle IRS or tax matters so the blame for these issues cannot be shifted to me.  Cohen’s Objection document, served on me but not filed with LA Superior Court, confirms that he and his representatives do not even believe I have the right to speak about tax matters.  My February 2002 email to Cohen and Westin confirms that I did not handle IRS, tax, accounting, corporate, legal, or financial matters. 

“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).”  Robert Kory January 14, 2005 memorandum. 




111.     On November 25, 2015, Gianelli wrote that I “omitted” my forwarded email from the message string posted on my blog.  He copied FBI, DOJ’s Criminal Division, Ottawa IRS Attach, and Alan Hootnick on his email.  He evidently wanted these parties to understand that I wrote, in an email with the subject matter “Is Cooley coming after me with a parody email” give it up DC.  I quoted Eminem from his Concert for Valor in Washington, DC.  Gianelli is not IRS, FBI, CIA, FTB or FSB and my emails to those parties are not addressed to Gianelli.  The man has simply concluded that when I post on my blog, he has the right to criminal harass, stalk, slander, threaten, intimidate, and insult me. 

112.     On November 25, 2015, Gianelli wrote, copying in Alan Hootnick, that it is not “Leonard Cohen who claims that Cohen’s music is a MK ULTRA plot to control people’s minds through song lyrics.”  Evidently that is Ann Diamond and her Canadian pals who are discussing this on various blogs.  Gianelli falsely states that these are discussions in which I am participating.  I have never said anywhere that Cohen claimed his music is a MK ULTRA or CIA plot to control people’s minds through song lyrics.  I have no idea if this is being discussed and could care less.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who claimed to have participated in CIA’s MK ULTRA program.  What Ann Diamond and her Canadian pals discuss is their business and I most certainly am not part of that discussion.  I thanked Jasun Horsley for mentioning me in an article and addressed Gianelli’s slanderous comments on his blog. 

113.     On November 25, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote again copying in FBI, DOJ’s Criminal Division, and Alan Hootnick. This email related to an email I sent IRS, FBI and DOJ.  Gianelli has lied to IRS, FBI, and DOJ that I stole $7 million from Cohen; was an abusive, neglectful, and horrible mother; and someone who has turned on everyone while engaged in a decade-long campaign of vicious harassment against dozens of unnamed people although Gianelli states that he is one of them.  I have engaged in no such campaign.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who has spent approximately 10 years slandering me, lying in numerous courts, submitting perjured statements, and fraudulently misrepresenting facts.  Stephen Gianelli has relentlessly targeted me, my sons, elderly parents, sister, brother-in-law, friends, my appellate attorney, and Paulette Brandt.   My emails to IRS, FBI, DOJ, ICE, CIA, NSA, and others are not profanity and epithet laced.  I have at times used strong language because this situation is unconscionable, outrageous, and inconceivably vicious.  I did not violate any restraining order.  As of January 2010, Boulder Combined Court advised me and others that Cohen’s permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  I was unaware of the fraudulent domestic violence order.  Leonard Cohen, his representatives, operatives, and local Los Angeles government actors are the individuals who have lied and cemented my reputation as the “crazy woman who stole Leonard Cohen’s retirement savings and was arrested for stalking him.”  I think that was the plan and this was most definitely pre-meditated.  Cohen evidently believes that if he merely lies about these matters, and conceals evidence, his loans/expenditures from corporate entities (including approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC) will simply dissolve.  He has come up with a fraudulent and fabricated narrative that has worked beautifully with LA Superior Court. 

114.     On November 26, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to ask if I felt my April 23, 2015 email was “profane?”  No, it was not profane.  It expressed precisely what I intended to express:  “Fuck off psychopath.”  This is an individual who has relentlessly targeted my sons, elderly parents, and nearly everyone in my life.  I think that statement is precise.  However, Stephen Gianelli remains undeterred.  He is convinced he is immune.  In any event, there is nothing profane about the word “fuck” which has become part of our vernacular.  As for profane and obscene emails, I remain convinced that Stephen Gianelli (who uses monikers he creates) wrote the “bloody stump” email that clearly states that I should be raped, murdered, or commit suicide.  As I have said, the stakes are high and the lows are inconceivably vile.  This is the individual the City Attorney instructed to harass and pass along an official message from their office to me.  And this email makes it abundantly clear that certain parties have it out for Oliver Stone. 

From: Helvetia Hornwaller <simitheseventeenthshitzu@gmx.at>
Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 1:44 AM
Subject:
To: 
Kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com
Kelley, you are diseased scum and the essence of evil. In another time you, like all alcoholic, drug addicted witches and whores, would have been burned at the stake for your horrible crimes and insanity. The best we can hope for now is that you are raped and murdered in jail after you are sent back shortly. Or maybe you will die of a brain tumor or lung cancer. However you die, it is important that you burn in Hell for all eternity. How you ever escaped jail for abuse of your children is a mystery. Not only did you abuse them emotionally and neglect their basic material needs, nutrition, and safety, but you abused them sexually too, and allowed your depraved Hollywood friends to abuse them sexually. Really Kelley, making Rutger and Ray snort coke off the head of Oliver Stone's cock at your infamous parties. That is just beyond evil, not to mention a severe violation of Miss Manner's etiquette. Rutger and Ray still to this day cry themselves to sleep reliving the horrible abuse you dished out to them. That's why Rutger's hand is now a DISGUSTING BLOODY STUMP. He was overwrought with grief for his mentally ill, alcoholic mother, so grief stricken that he couldn't pay attention at the slicing machine and got his fingers lopped off. You like to say it was Leonard Cohen's fault but it actually was your fault, Kelley, entirely your fault. I guess that's why Rapunzel's second cousin told everyone how you wanted to be fist fucked with RUTGER'S BLOODY STUMP. Go to the stump, Kelley, go to the stump. And maybe you could coat it with LSD, for a long time your drug of choice, before he shoves it up your foul, diseased cooze and wipes off his BLOODY STUMP on your saggy, wrinkled tits. I'm sure you'll let out several howls and dozens of your infamously foul vaginal blood farts after he consummates the act. Alex The Rat and Libby The Lush would approve and so would Dorcas Dooglemeyer. Nor to mention Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector. Don't bother forwarding this email to the FBI, IRS, DOJ, ATF, FTB, LAPD, Vivienne, Dennis, Doug, Ann, Kelly, Robert, Michelle, Bruce, Anderson, or any of your other regulars. They blocked you long ago. Your emails to them go into the ether. Thank God you and your flea bitten attorney, Francisco the Fuckup Feeb, are too incompetent to file a proper legal motion. Criminal appeal denied. Writ denied. Motion to vacate the seven year old default judgment will soon be denied. Soon you will have your probation hearing and will be sent back to jail for a very long time. You could always commit suicide, Kelley. I think that would be your best option, actually. Do the world a favor, you drunken old hag.   

Your friend,
Simi The Seventeenth Shi-Tzu

115.     On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that I may or may not have a constitutional right to use profanity (depending on the context) but felt he has a legal right to address my emails to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.  Gianelli, of course, is simply attempting to elicit information. 


116.     On November 26, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to my position that the City Attorney or LAPD’s Threat Management Unit should arrest Justin Bieber’s fans for their use of the “F” word in posts about Leonard Cohen.  This was in response to an email I posted on my blog that related to Justin Bieber’s fans.  Gianelli wanted to advise me that I was not “arrested for using profanity in a tweet or a blog post.”  I was evidently arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for “unapologetically sending obscene, threatening, and abusive emails to Leonard Cohen in violation of a “2008 Colorado restraining order” that Boulder Combined Court advised me, and others, expired on February 15, 2009.  However, I was arrested for violating the fraudulent domestic violence order and the prosecutor was quite clear about that fact during my bail hearing where Cohen testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind – and we were in a purely business relationship.  That must have been fairly disturbing to the prosecutor from the City Attorney’s “domestic violence unit.”  Obviously, Leonard Cohen wasn’t properly coached for that hearing.


The jurors in debriefing informed my lawyer that they wanted to hear from IRS and one juror relied on Streeter’s fraudulent and false statements about Traditional Holdings, LLC’s assets although the judge advised the jurors not to rely on attorney statements as they were not evidence.  I have no idea what Judge Silverman, in the motion to vacate the fraudulent domestic violence order, agreed or disagreed with.  I disagree with Judge Silverman.  I didn’t have an opportunity to litigate this matter because I wasn’t served or notified of the fraudulent order and didn’t have the information necessary to confront the fraudulent order until April 2014.  I suppose I could have been and arrested for violating the Colorado order but I wasn’t.  I was arrested and prosecuted for violating the fraudulent California newly created domestic violence order. 

117.     On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote regarding my blog post of November 26.  Apparently Gianelli wanted to know why I bothered to transmit to the City and County of Los Angeles government claims in 2014 if it is your contention that the Government Claims Act is inapplicable to my federal claims against the City and County.  I put the City and County of Los Angeles on formal notice.  My claims relate to two false arrests, an order issued without findings in Colorado, a fraudulent domestic violence order, and VAWA funding fraud.  Gianelli is now arguing that the lies, fraud, perjury, slander, and false accusations on the part of the City Attorney’s office are protected by the litigation privilege.  Gianelli doesn’t know my litigation position so it would be impossible for him to state that there is “no logical response.”  He is attempting to elicit information and did inform me that he worked with the City Attorney on two occasions to have me falsely arrested.  I will evidently be held to higher standards than an attorney before the Central District of California’s Court due to the fact that Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me, stole from me, and I will apparently apply for a fee waiver.  My letter to the City and County of Los Angeles addressed some of the issues that will be raised in my RICO suit.  I, of course, have not received a response. 


Kelley Lynch
c/o Paulette Brandt
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California  90028

                                                                        31 July 2014



Thonas Wong                                                  Jessica Rivas
Chief Investigator                                            Associate County Counsel
City of Los Angeles                                         General Litigation Division
City Hall East                                                  648 Kenneth Hahn Hall                                 
200 N. Main Street                                          500 W. Temple Street
Room 800                                                        Los Angeles, California  90012
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Executive Offices of the Board of Supervisors
Room 383 Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California  90012

Re:  City of Los Angeles Claim No. C15-0063
       County of Los Angeles Claim No. 14-1115711*001

Thomas Wong, Jessica Rivas, and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,

Thank you for your letters dated July 8, 2014 (LA County), July 21, 2014 (LA County), and July 25, 2014 (City of Los Angeles). 

There seems to be some confusion with respect to the various dates and time frames addressed in my original claims.  I would like to reiterate the following:  These claims arise from a prolonged and sustained course of conduct that involves both the City and County of Los Angeles City.   
.
The course of conduct culminated with my false arrest and imprisonment on January 22, 2014 (Case No. 2CA0459) and LA Superior Court’s refusal to vacate a fraudulently obtained default judgment on January 17, 2014 (Case No. BC338322). 

This course of conduct also relates to the fraudulent registration of a foreign restraining order with Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC033717).  The City and County of Los Angeles failed to verify the nature of the foreign order.  It is not a domestic violence order and I received written confirmation of this fact from the Boulder Combined Court on April 10, 2014

On June 17, 2014, after diligently pursuing the matter for nearly two years, I finally located the Court Reporter from the March 23, 2012 bail hearing (Case No. 2CA0459).  I and others have repeatedly been advised, for a variety of reasons, that this transcript was unavailable.  The Court Reporter is currently on vacation and will provide me with a transcript of that hearing when she returns.  That transcript should successfully prove that Leonard Cohen testified (accurately, I might note) that we were in a purely business relationship and I never stole from him.  His perjury with respect to the “dating relationship” was addressed during my 2012 trial in connection with the violation of the domestic violence order.  When confronted, Leonard Cohen admitted changing his testimony from one hearing to the next.  He was not prosecuted for perjury and DCA Streeter’s attempt to rehabilitate him was farcical. 

The governments of the City and County of Los Angeles have simply assigned me a “brief intimate dating relationship” with Leonard Cohen.  The fraudulently registered foreign order remains in full force and effect.  That order prevents me from requesting information I require to file and/or amend federal and state tax returns and payment for work I’ve done and assets I own.  Additional problems have arisen due to the fact that Internal Revenue Service views me as a partner on entities LA Superior Court has concluded is the sole property of Leonard Cohen.

The California Tort Claims Act mandates that all claims for money or damages against a public entity must be presented in writing to the entity prior to filing suit.  My claims were presented in writing and were filed in a timely manner.  Both the City and County of Los Angeles have acknowledged receipt of my tort claims.  Federal civil rights violation claims are not subject to California’s tort claim requirements because such would violate the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 842 (1976). 

Pursuant to government codes and regulations, the claims must be in writing and signed by the claimant.  The claim must contain:  information to be a sufficient claim; claimant’s name and mailing address; date, place, and circumstances of the claim; description of the injury, damage, or loss for which recovery is sought; name of any public employees causing the loss if known and an indication as to whether the claim would be made in limited jurisdiction court or not.  My original claims satisfied these elements.  The descriptions need not provide evidentiary detail and I have outlined the prolonged and sustained course of conduct in relatively great detail.  My original claims were detailed enough to allow the City and County of Los Angeles to investigate and consider them.  Furthermore, I am available to answer any questions with respect to complexities that may appear “vague.”  It is my personal opinion that neither the City nor County of Los Angeles have provided an adequate explanation for the denial or insufficiency of my claims.  The City and County of Los Angeles have also not explained precisely what dates they believe do not fall within the legal claim periods. 

I look forward to your response.

                                                                        Very truly yours,



                                                                        Kelley Lynch


118.     On November 29, 2015, Gianelli had this Tax Court matter on his mind and wrote with respect to standing vs. jurisdiction:  “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.”
114.     On November 27, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to my blog posted emails to Word Press, FBI, IRS, and others.  Gianelli decided he would simply falsely accuse me of being the “culprit” who tampered with and altered the evidence blog submitted as evidence to Tax Court.  People in the general public were indeed aware of this blog and the Petition was posted to Scribd in September 2015.  The login information was contained in the Petition.  Gianelli has a lie and excuse for everything.  I wrote Word Press and they responded to my request for information on who to address a subpoena to.  Gianelli decided to argue that matter using FRCP Rule 45.  Given the fact that Gianelli has now advised me that he uses TOR, and even if he was the “culprit” I could never prove it, I am asking this Court to refer this matter to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  Gianelli clearly has problems with reading comprehension since he cannot comprehend the fact that my Word Press blog was created specifically for Tax Court and used to submit evidence to this Court.  Therefore, this matter involves criminal evidence tampering.  The FBI has personally advised me that they investigate federal matters that relate to criminal evidence and witness tampering.  The evidence blog relates to a case where I am “seeking to set aside a private agreement that Leonard Cohen reached with the IRS in 2003, regarding a form 1099 that Sony Music sent to Leonard Cohen in error in 2001 reporting $1M in consideration paid in connection with the sale of” intellectual property.  Gianelli, who continues to represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests, believes the intellectual property that was owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc. is “Leonard Cohen’s” intellectual property.  Corporate assets are not Leonard Cohen’s personal property.  Gianelli concluded his email by quoting “Man of La Mancha.”  Evidently, he feels I am a “scorned woman” although Leonard Cohen and I were not in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  Leonard Cohen should be forced to undergo psychiatric evaluations if he believes sexual harassment, indecent exposure, and other unconscionable conduct towards a female colleague is a “dating” relationship.  Perhaps this too relates to Cohen’s inconceivable sense of entitlement.

119.     On November 29, 2015 Gianelli wrote about an email I sent to Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, at 11.36 AM.  This email was posted on my blog and Gianelli was not a recipient.  Nevertheless, he personally responded and copied Mr. Fabian.  I have never heard of anyone lying so extensively to IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and others but the stakes are clearly high.  Gianelli’s email to me was clearly meant for IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office.  He wanted the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office to know that 1) he does not represent Leonard Cohen; 2) he did not tamper with the evidence blog I submitted to Tax Court; 3) Tax Court has limited jurisdiction which is defined by Title 26 of the United States Code (and Gianelli, who is clearly researching these matters legally, provided case citations) and Tax Court may NOT invoke general equitable principles; 4) Title 26 requires that the IRS make a final determination and notify a party of that determination as a prerequisite to the tax court taking jurisdiction; 5) setting all of that aside, what I am trying to do “flies in the face of common sense.  Our tax and legal system above all else rely on transparency, predictability and (above all else) finality.”  The justice system is not a venue where individuals should feel confident engaging in fraud, perjury, litigation misconduct, theft, embezzlement, and obstruction of justice.  Gianelli uses an example of a “disgruntled former employee or partner who was never made a party to a tax proceeding” that suddenly comes forward, out of the blue, and validly seeks to set aside a stipulated decision in a tax court case.  The reason for this is due to the fact that businesses and individuals, who have engaged in fraud and criminal conduct, could not “plan their affairs, and lenders and investors could not assess risk.  The entire financial system would collapse.”  I personally do not believe that the entire financial system would collapse if Tax Court permitted me to file a motion addressing the egregious fraud upon the court.  I also do not believe Tax Court would be overwhelmed because this situation is unconscionable and the fraud is egregious and may very well date back to when Leonard Cohen first obtained his first green card in 1970 and funneled income off-shore.  Gianelli’s sixth and final point relates to my position that he has inserted himself into this Tax Court case.  I am not attempting to litigate this Tax Court case in public and am unaware of a gag order related to this case.  Leonard Cohen, and others, believe I should be silenced while they relentlessly lie about these matters and slander me.  I have indeed filed documents with Tax Court addressing this ongoing criminal harassment.  These are not personal grievances and most certainly not my “self-manufactured drama.”  I also do not flood Mr. Fabian with “unnecessary correspondence daily.”  I am being relentlessly targeted due to the fact that I reported the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud and he decided to retaliate over that fact while further benefiting from his wrong doing.  Why don’t I give them all a break?  Why doesn’t this criminal cease and desist?  Why doesn’t Leonard Cohen stop lying in court?  Why did LA Superior Court permit Leonard Cohen to steal via default judgment?  Why did the City Attorney lie about federal tax matters and blame Leonard Cohen’s conduct on me?  Why did Leonard Cohen fail to advise IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office and Tax Court that the $1 million was a down payment against the Traditional Holdings, LLC deal and belongs to Traditional Holdings, LLC?  Why is Leonard Cohen arguing that he is the alter ego of numerous corporate entities who is entitled to engage in self-dealing, embezzlement, and money laundering?  Why did Cohen and his representatives fail to report $8 million in income to IRS?  Why was phantom income shifted to me but not distributed?  Why did I pay taxes to IRS based on K-1s Leonard Cohen’s personal tax and corporate lawyer prepared on behalf of Traditional Holdings, LLC and attached to the federal tax returns?  There are countless questions one could ask but “Why don’t I give them all a break” is not a valid question from my perspective.  To quote Gerald Shargel in the John Gotti trial:  “Give me a break.” 

120.     On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote once again copying in Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s Office.  Gianelli responded to an email I sent IRS which was posted on my blog.  Gianelli had certain points he evidently wanted to make to the IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office.  One point Gianelli wanted to communicate is his belief that Hazel-Atlas has been superseded and limited by FRCP 60(b).  The three “takeaways” Gianelli presented are all “fatal” to what I am trying to do.  First, I was not a “party” to Leonard Cohen’s stipulated tax court decision and do not qualify for relief; Second, because Leonard Cohen was not my “opposing party” in that matter, I do not qualify for relief from the alleged fraud; and, Third, because 13-years has passed since the stipulated tax court decision was entered on April 1, 2003 in Docket No. 7024-02, my request is neither reasonably timed, nor was it made within the 1-year outside time limit to ask a federal court to set aside a prior order based on “fraud” (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic).  Gianelli is defending Leonard Cohen with IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office in this email.  I completely disagree with Gianelli’s interpretation of FRCP 60(b).  Gianelli remains convinced that “Tax Court does not have general equitable power to act.  Its jurisdiction can only come from Title 26 – which requires that a Tax Court petition be preceded by a notice of determination mailed to the petitioner.  I have, according to Gianelli, conceded that no such notice of determination was ever mailed to me.  Therefore, Tax Court must dismiss my pending petition for lack of jurisdiction.  Perhaps Tax Court, using this logic, should dismiss Cohen’s Petition for lack of jurisdiction and address the fraud upon the court.  I am not a disgruntled former employer.  I was retaliated against for numerous reasons including the fact that on April 15, 2005 and at other times I reported the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud to IRS. 

121.     On November 29, 2015, Gianelli sent me a criminally harassing email with the subject line “Public Comment – Your 11/29/2015 blog posted humorous photograph.”  Gianelli is well aware of the fact that my blog does not accept comments.  He simply feels entitled to harass me over my blog posts.  He views that as his legal right.  Gianelli felt an image I posted on my blog was “funny” and wanted to use the email as an opportunity to insult and slander me. 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9f/d8/9f/9fd89f2921926e7eb3d7a08f65261768.jpg


122.     On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote again copying Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsels’ office.  My attention was “respectfully directed” to Tax Court rule 162:  “Any motion to vacate or revise a decision, with or without a new or further trial, shall be filed within 30 days after the decision has been entered, unless the Court shall otherwise permit.”

123.     On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote supplementing his response and copying in Mr. Fabian and Alan Hootnick.  Gianelli suggested that I read the attached opinion of the 9th Circuit in Toscano v. C.I.R.  According to Gianelli, it appears to “support the argument that a motion to vacate a final tax court decision may be made on the grounds of alleged fraud – even years later.”  Of course, according to Gianelli, Tax Court “must first find it has jurisdiction to even allow” my Tax Court Petition to remain pending.  Toscano, according to Gianelli, does not speak to whether my motion for leave to move to vacate sets forth a prima facie case for “fraud on the court.”  Stephen Gianelli continues with his attempts to elicit information. 

124.     On November 30, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that the lyrics he sent me were from a Broadway play and he’s quite sure Leonard Cohen had nothing to do with writing the musical score.  I, on the other hand, am quite sure that this man is a criminal who is amused with his own conduct and positively deranged. 

125.     On November 30, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote to harass me over the lyrics from “Man of La Mancha.”  He didn’t send the lyrics to me to address Cohen and my “relationship status” but rather to address the literary character “Don Quixote.”  Gianelli must have thought long and hard about this insane theory.  The reference, according to Gianelli, is an “allusion” to my futile 10 year obsession with “bringing Cohen down.”  Actually Boies Schiller, who reviewed three huge boxes of evidence, felt a lawyer might enjoy “taking down another Hollywood fraud.”  They were speaking about Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen has brought himself down through his conduct with respect to the evasion of taxes.  Gianelli’s deranged reference was too “subtle” for me because I have a “literary/cultural IQ of about a 2” although his criminal does not know me at all.  I won’t dignify this insanity by advising this Court if I immediately wrote IRS, FBI, and DOJ that the lyric related to “Don Quixote” and “Man of La Mancha” but feel free to guess.  Gianelli ends this email with the disclaimer that the views he has expressed about this Tax Court case are his alone.  He evidently doesn’t even know if Cohen knows about the Tax Court Petition.  I can assure this Court that Cohen and his lawyers are aware of my Tax Court Petition since it was addressed with Judge Hess when Cohen’s lawyers were present.  Gianelli is a chronic, pathological liar so I do not believe a word he utters.  It is my firm conviction that Stephen Gianelli represents Leonard Cohen’s legal interests and is probably moonlighting for the Spector prosecution. 

126.     On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote and copied Alan Hootnick on his email.  Gianelli wants to address Cohen’s success since we parted ways.  He has evidently amassed a “$50 million net worth.”  Part of the reason for this is Cohen finally delivered a studio album, toured behind that album, and granted interviews where he maliciously maligned and slandered me.  I personally do not believe “criminal tax fraud” has a six year statute of limitations but that is not something I would need to argue legally since I am not IRS or DOJ.  The Kentucky Fraud Unit advised me that IRS would go back and audit Cohen from the moment he obtained his first green card in 1970 and noted that the cumulative penalties and interest would be astounding.  I personally believe the Kentucky Fraud Unit knows what they were speaking about.  Gianelli quoted Section 6531 of Title 26 which evidently controls the statute of limitation periods for most criminal offenses.  Gianelli wants to know why I am not reading the United States Department of Justice’s Criminal Tax Manual because he evidently is.  The offenses Gianelli mentions are defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States, willfully attempting to evade or defeat taxes; willfully aiding or assisting in, or procuring .. a false or fraudulent return, affidavit, claim or document; 4) willfully failing to pay any tax, or make any return; 5) making false statements and fraudulent documents; 6) intimidating officers or employees of the United States; or 6) engaging in a conspiracy to evade or defeat taxes.  Gianelli argues that I am so full of “nonsense it staggers the mind.” 

127.     Stephen Gianelli, on behalf of Leonard Cohen, publicly states that IRS Agent Luis Tejeda exonerated Leonard Cohen.  On December 1, 2015 Gianelli wrote to me copying in Alan Hootnick.  In order to subpoena Agent Tejeda, I need to have a pending trial.  This is not likely, according to Gianelli, because any federal suit will be dismissed long before trial, before Cohen needs to file an answer, as soon as the court rules on, and denies my fee waiver.  According to Gianelli, Agent Tejeda “would only testify that in 2007 he concluded that there was no tax fraud by Cohen and closed the file.”  Therefore, I will “wind up looking like the dumbass” that I am – only more so.  I did subpoena Agent Tejeda.  Judge Vanderet refused to wait two hours for my lawyers to contact Agent Tejeda who was meeting with attorneys from IRS/DOJ.  The jurors ultimately informed my lawyer that they wanted to hear from “IRS.”  I personally believe that is a very serious matter particularly as my appellate attorney believed my trial was a federal tax case related to Cohen would should be investigated by IRS and my public defender concluded that the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage IRS; discredit me; the DA didn’t want the Spector verdict overturned; and there may have been a juror plant on the jury. 

128.     On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote that 1) the memorandum I referred to [Robert Kory’s January 14, 2005 memorandum) was “intended as an agenda or list of potential issues for settlement discussions, and not a statement of facts.  As such it is privileged and inadmissible.  I refused to entertain any type of settlement discussion with Cohen or his representatives.  They spent over 7 months attempting to coerce me into a deal that appeared to involve providing false testimony about Cohen’s representatives.  The memorandum is not privileged or inadmissible.  I am enclosing that memorandum herewith.  I have mocked the memorandum up with my comments in red due to the fact that Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory used false accusations in their attempts to force or coerce me into a settlement agreement that involved testifying against Cohen’s representatives in secret mediations.  The memorandum raises very serious issues and one of those issues is the fact that Ira Reiner, former District Attorney of Los Angeles is copied in.  Another is the fact that Kevin Prins, Cohen’s so-called forensic accountant, was copied in on a memorandum that confirms that Cohen and his representatives failed to report $8 million in income; this was a “mediation” point; and, income was shifted to me without being distributed.  I have no type of privilege with Kory & Rice.  I do however have my attorney notes from my trial where my attorney concluded that Kory’s motive involves the fact that he personally may have engaged in criminal conduct.  I will submit that document to the federal court with my RICO suit.  Gianelli then goes onto address why my RICO suit will be dismissed.  He has been clear in emails that he is attempting to “dissuade” me.  Gianelli continues to argue Leonard Cohen’s legal positions with respect to claim preclusion. 

129.     On December 1, 2015, Gianelli wrote (copying in Cohen’s lawyers at Kory & Rice) that he doesn’t know why I am writing to Robert Kory/Michelle Rice regarding his email.  Gianelli would like me to believe that he does “not represent Leonard Cohen” and does not “work for Kory or Rice; they have no power to affect my behavior or my emailed responses to your mass emails.”  I will believe this when hell freezes over. Gianelli is merely taking an “active interest in correct the legal and factual errors that commonly riddle” my blog posts.  Gianelli then gets into a rather lengthy legal argument, on behalf of Leonard Cohen, with respect to my RICO suit.  Gianelli believes my claims against Cohen fall into the following main categories:  unpaid commissions and intellectual property arising out of a business relationship; Cohen’s alleged “tax treatment” of the same prior relationship (“alleged illegal K-1s; alleged illegal refunds; alleged refusal to provide form 1099”) which claims are, according to this psychopath, “time barred by the 4-year RICO limitations period;” and Cohen’s alleged “tax various civil and criminal legal proceedings” which claims are subject to California’s “litigation privilege” and are therefore immunized.  I, of course, being self-represented, will be held to higher standards than a federal court practitioner and the Court will look upon me with absolute disdain.  I will evidently be forced to argue through to verdict in my Complaint.  The standard my pleadings will be held to is inconceivably high as I will be forced to apply for a fee waiver. 

130.     On December 2, 2015, Gianelli wrote coying in Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office.  He asked if Kory and Rice were writing me and answered his question with “I don’t think so.”  I believe a lawyer representing Leonard Cohen’s legal issues and defending him is writing me. 

131.     On December 2, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that he is not arguing Cohen’s case.  He is “pointing out the obvious legal obstacles that will lead to the dismissal of the claims” Iintend to file against Cohen, the City and County and others. 

132.     On December 3, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick and Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan.  This is the Deputy City Attorney who instructed Gianelli to harass me with additional emails and communicate an official message for that office to me.  This email merely confirms how extensive Gianelli’s obsession with these matters is. 

133.     On December 3, 2015, Gianelli wrote that the “City of Los Angeles does not need a defense in respect to its handling of” my alleged “criminal case.”  I beg to differ.  According to Gianelli, “prosecutors were presented with a facially valid protection order and clear written and recorded oral evidence that you egregiously violated that order on multiple occasions.”  The fraudulently registered domestic violence order is not a valid protection order.  I was not aware of the fraudulent domestic violence order and Boulder Combined Court advised me that this permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  The “legitimate business purpose” will be a legal issue as the City Attorney of Los Angeles appears to believe that the only “legitimate business purpose” in California relates to federal tax matters and, on top of that, they lied extensively about federal tax matters.  I didn’t “berate” Leonard Cohen’s penis size.  I addressed the fact that this man sexually harassed me and exposed his penis to me.  I didn’t accuse Cohen of molesting his daughter.  His daughter did.  According to Gianelli, the only legitimate issue would relate to a 1099.  Leonard Cohen has willfully refused to provide me with a 1099 or K-1s for the years 2004 and 2005.  The City Attorney lied about this issue extensively.  Cohen and his representatives testified that they provided me with this information.  The prosecutor elicited perjured testimony about Phil Spector and a gun while concealing legitimate requests for tax information and an email to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  She was quick in her attempts to conceal this information by stating that she “misspoke.”  There were no grounds whatsoever to file charges.  Furthermore, there appears to be blatant evidence of legal “entrapment.”  I didn’t violate probation.  The prosecutor permitted a man who has criminally harassed me, my sons, sister, brother-in-law, elderly parents and others to email her while slandering me and used this to retaliate.  We shall see if the City has “absolute immunity in connection” with my criminal prosecution.  Gianelli is defending the interests of the City.  This is highly relevant based on his statements that he worked with them on two occasions to have me falsely arrested; the fact that the City Attorney permitted this man to criminally harass me while lying to that office for over a year; and, due to the emails between the City Attorney’s office and this individual.

134.     On December 3, 2015 Gianelli continued to harass me over “proceedings in forma pauperis.”  According to Gianelli, “any suit” against “the City in federal court will be dismissed as soon as the district court rules on” my request for fee waiver.  It is of interest to note that Gianelli is not mentioning “the County.”

135.     On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote with respect to an “impermissible” collateral attack on a state court judgment in federal court.  Gianelli has no idea what my RICO suit will argue but has taken the position that it will be an attack on the California Superior Court’s determination.  This is merely a further attempt to elicit information.

136.     On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to harass me over RICO and what a plaintiff must allege in order to state a claim.  He quoted 9th Circuit Court cases.  Gianelli believes my RICO suit will address “theft” regarding my “alleged intellectual property and/or partnership interests” through default and has concluded that there are no economic damages. 

137.     On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote that “Personal harm or injury does not give rise to standing to sue for an alleged RICO violation” and copied Alan Hootnick on his email.  Although he has no idea what my RICO suit against Cohen will address Gianelli wrote that I have overlooked another point related to the economic injury suffered through the “alleged theft of intellectual property rights, lost commission income, the loss of your alleged corporate shares and/or partnership interests.”  According to Gianelli, this occurred no later than May 2006 – when the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a $7 million judgment in favor of Cohen.  The alleged “illegal tax refunds” – regardless of when I discovered them – could not be considered damages that I sustained even if “fraudulent” because the injury was suffered by the United States Treasury, not Kelley Lynch.  The injuries to my liberty (false arrest, wrongful convictions and incarcerations) in connection with the 2012 trial resulting from the fraudulent domestic violence order are in the nature of personal injuries and are not “business or property” in nature.  The same is true with respect to any “reputational damage that” I suffered in connection therewith.  RICO, according to my stalker, was “created to combat the anticompetitive invasion of legitimate business interests by organized crime.”  “Emotional distress” does not give rise to standing under Section 1964.  The principles, as set forth by Gianelli who continues to represent Leonard Cohen’s legal interests, provide yet another basis for dismissal of any federal RICO suit.  Gianelli is attempting to elicit information while attempting to dissuade me from pursuing legal remedies. 

138.     On December 4, 2015 Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick and Deputy City Attorney Vivienne Swanigan to advise me that he is not representing any of the people or entities that I mention formally or informally.  I think his actions lead one to conclude otherwise.  Gianelli has concluded that my RICO suit is fatally flawed although he has no idea what will be addressed in my RICO suits. 

139.     On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that “Sandra Jo Streeter was simply a civil servant doing her job.  It wasn’t personal.  And aside from that she won the trial against you and obtained an 18-month jail sentence.”  This simply goes to show that lying about everything in order to convict someone will lead to a false conviction.  Gianelli asks “Why would she retaliate?  Retaliate for what exactly?”  Sandra Jo Streeter will have to read my RICO suit and analyze the answer for herself.  I didn’t realize that a civil servant’s job was lying about people; lying about federal tax matters; and eliciting perjured testimony while concealing relevant and material evidence.  I suppose I’ve been naïve but now I am very clear about the so-called job of this so-called civil servant. 

140.     On December 4, 2015, Gianelli wrote about the “ongoing overlapping legal conspiracies.”  Alan Hootnick was copied on this email.  Gianelli wants me to make sure I mention the “overlapping legal conspiracies related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.”  He finds this “amusing” and believes “lithium” will clear those “conspiracies” right up

141.     On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote that “there is no way in hell that the outcome of your 2012 criminal trial and/or related appeal could have affected the habeas petition filed in the Spector matter or the outcome of Spector’s earlier direct appeal from his murder conviction.  Lynch has never taken the absurd position that her trial could have any effect on Spector’s direct appeal or habeas petition.  This is simply Gianelli’s attempt to elicit information.  He does this constantly by lying, insulting Lynch, and attempting to provoke a response or refutation.  Lynch will address the “overlapping, ongoing conspiracy” with a federal court.  Lynch doesn’t believe “little green men beamed into court and tampered with the verdict that convicted” her.  She knows for a fact that the prosecutor, Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, and Michelle Rice lied extensively throughout her trial.  It was her public defender that informed Lynch that he personally believed there may have been a “jury plant” on her jurors.  Lynch does not understand why this wasn’t brought to the attention of the Court but perhaps her public defender understood that all of these parties are colleagues with the same employers.  I am not mentally ill and there is no evidence to support Gianelli’s slanderous statement.  The City Attorney felt Lynch had mental health problems when her prosecutor, who worked with a “domestic violence” quack, concluded that Lynch’s letters to Bruce Cutler were too chatty and familiar.  This issue will be featured in Lynch’s RICO suit against the City and County due to the fact that the prosecutor attempted to have Lynch drugged and committed.  Lynch’s three letters to Cutler will also be submitted to federal court.  Lynch would like to address with that court the fact that her prosecutor had a hard time speaking English and believes lying excessively to jurors is not a sign of mental instability or deviant conduct.

142.     On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote that “the big picture re your criminal trial is that there was a restraining order THAT YOU AGREED TO that prevented you from contacting Leonard Cohen.  Lynch has addressed what the “big picture” actually is and that includes a fraudulent domestic violence order, VAWA funding fraud, attempts to extort fines/fees for domestic violence from Lynch, sentencing Lynch for domestic violence and forcing her into domestic violence programs that include anger management, AA, and so forth.  These programs relate to the domestic violence statutes.  There was and remains no “domestic violence.”  Due to the fact that the Colorado order, issued without findings, was fraudulent registered in California as a “domestic violence” order (which the Colorado order was not), these are now federal issues which will be addressed in the appropriate venue – federal court.  Boulder Combined Court advised Lynch, and others, that the permanent Colorado order expired on February 15, 2009.  I think if Agent Tejeda testified, and he was issued a subpoena, some of the issues would have been clarified.  The jurors wanted to hear from IRS so Gianelli’s gratuitous statement that the “entire IRS criminal division could have testified and it would not have made any difference” is a ridiculous statement.  Evidently the jurors felt they were hearing a federal tax case.  The “gun incidents” came up because the prosecutor elicited perjured testimony from Cohen who, after reviewing Lynch’s April 18, 2011 email to Dennis Riordan, perjured himself when he confirmed that he was a recipient on that email.  He was not and confirmed that fact during cross-examination.  The prosecutor intentionally concealed the elements of the email thread requesting legitimate tax information and addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  She covered this up by stating that she “misspoke.”  That tends to prove that her concealment of evidence was willful and knowing.  Lynch has no idea which of Cohen’s three versions of the Spector gun story the local Los Angeles government believes is true.  She knows that Cohen testified that Spector held an automatic to his head and the DA’s, in their motions in the Spector case, used a version that involves Spector holding a semi-automatic to Cohen’s chest.  At the outset of Lynch’s trial, in response to the prosecutor’s emails, Cohen wrote the City Attorney that Cohen held a gun to his neck.  Lynch doesn’t believe any of these versions because Cohen told her for approximately 20 years that Spector never held a gun on him and these stories were merely good rock ‘n roll stories.  Lynch believes that is precisely why Cohen and the City Attorney elected to submit her email to Dennis Riordan, not copied to Cohen, into evidence.  It permitted Cohen to take the stand and address the fact that he told Lynch for 20 years that Phil Spector never held a gun on him.  Lynch has never stated anywhere that she believes she was “essentially framed on criminal charges because the prosecution was afraid of the Phil Spector murder verdict being reversed.  The DA was publicly aligned with Cohen during Lynch’s trial, had an investigator in the courtroom, and the City Attorney elicited testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during the election campaign for the office of District Attorney.  Spector’s prosecutor, Deputy DA Alan Jackson, and the City Attorney, Carmen Trutanich, were both running for that office.  Lynch’s public defender concluded that the City Attorney was attempting to sabotage IRS, discredit Lynch, and the DA didn’t want the verdict overturned.  Lynch has never stated anywhere that convicting her had any “effect on Spector’s pending appeal.”  Stephen Gianelli is merely attempting to elicit information and obfuscated these matters.

143.     On December 5, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  Gianelli had the following points to make:  1) I attended the Boulder, Colorado hearing; 2) I did not testify at my 2012 criminal trial that I phoned the Colorado court and was told the order expired.  I actually testified that I believed it was expired and was not the attorney questioning me.  I was told that Judge Vanderet refused to permit us to attack the Colorado order.  3)  Paulette and I do not “claim” we called the Colorado order and were told the permanent expired.  We called the Colorado court and were told, numerous times, that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  Paulette Brandt testified about this fact approximately 4 months prior to Boulder Combined Court providing Lynch with a print-out of their data based.  4.  This is irrelevant, according to my stalker, to my state of mind at the time.  I testified that I believed the order expired.  Berkeley PD and I could not figure out how a court had jurisdiction.  5.  The emails at my trial came up because they were selected by certain parties and a great deal of information was concealed.  6.  Did I speak to any of my jurors?  My public defender did.  He informed me that they wanted to hear from IRS; one juror relied on Streeter’s lies about Traditional Holdings, LLC’s assets; and the public defender felt there may have been a jury plant on the jury.  These matters will be addressed in federal court – not with the Appellate Division.  7.  I have addressed the fact that there are blatant legal conspiracies and that would include with respect to Leonard Cohen’s blatant retaliation over the fact that I reported the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to IRS.  I did indeed make this statement about Stephen Gianelli in an email that was posted to my blog:  "You attempt to infiltrate matters, elicit information, threaten and intimidate witnesses, and are engaged in an ongoing campaign of harassment that involves overlapping legal conspiracies related to Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector."

144.     On December 5, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote and copied Alan Hootnick.  Gianelli has taken the position, with respect to the Colorado order, that “no findings were required” because I agreed to the issuance of the Colorado order.  I did not agree to the entry of any order based on fraud and/or perjury.  The Court advised me, when I raised this issue, that she could not give me legal advice.  I will submit the transcript of that hearing to federal court.  I did not discover Leonard Cohen’s entirely perjured declaration until after the hearing.  An order, issued without findings, does not meet VAWA requirements.  Cohen then proceeded to register the non-domestic violence order in California as a domestic violence order.  This created a new order and Lynch was not served or notified of that order. 

145.     On December 5, 2015, Gianelli continued to harass me with Alan Hootnick copied in.  He raised points addressed in my blog posts of the same date.  Gianelli has now written that he spoke to my public defender or a “source” close to my public defender.  That is a very serious legal matter.  Gianelli publicly confirmed that he attempted to elicit information about my witnesses (Rutger Penick, Steven Machat, and Agent Luis Tejeda) and what they confirmed for my lawyers.  My lawyer advised me that he felt there may have been a juror plant on the jury.  It was not addressed in a motion for new trial.  I have no explanation for this situation.  The City Attorney, Cohen, and Cohen’s lawyers lied extensively about federal tax matters.  They informed the jurors that I was in possession of IRS required tax and corporate information.  I have never said that the outcome of my trial would have any effect on Spector’s appeal from his 2009 murder conviction and find Gianelli’s statements ominous and deplorable.  My appellate attorney wrote about Gianelli and confirmed that he personally viewed my trial as an “IRS tax fraud case” (related to Cohen).  There is no reason why Francisco Suarez should address a federal tax issues with the Appellate Division.  Lynch will submit that letter to federal court.  I absolutely waived no objections whatsoever during the Colorado hearing.  In any event, I’ve addressed this matter ad nauseum.  The Colorado order, issued without findings, and the fraudulent domestic violence order, will be addressed in my RICO suit. I have asked DOJ and Senate Judiciary to investigate the VAWA funding fraud and LA Superior Court’s attempts to extort domestic violence fines and fees from me.  Stephen Gianelli is attempting, through this email, to elicit information about my RICO suits.  Gianelli has sent me countless emails attempting to “dissuade” me from pursuing legal remedies.  I am well aware of that fact.

146.     On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote that “Federal district court is not a venue where one cobbles together every grievance one has accumulated over the last decade, includes as many facts and exhibits as possible, calls it a RICO suit and waits for a check at the end of the process.  Gianelli has no idea what my RICO suits will address but is desperately trying to elicit information.  I am aware that there are rules of pleading, jurisdiction, plausibility, timeliness, and so forth.  I didn’t begin my “hate emails campaign” ever and wasn’t targeted by Gianelli until after he heard from Michelle Rice in May 2009. 

147.     On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote “The food bank.  Wow.”  This refers to the fact that Paulette Brandt and I stopped by a Church to see a woman she knows and is assisting with a particular issue.  This email is evidence that Stephen Gianelli has operatives spying on Lynch and Brandt.  In this case, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the operative is Karina Von Watteville, Gianelli’s former client who he assisted in defrauding of approximately $6,700 in rental arrears from Paulette Brandt.  Von Watteville is the individual who attends the Church’s food bank and evidently contacted Gianelli with information about Lynch and Brandt. 

148.     On December 6, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that I “know exactly” what this stalker is talking about.  Gianelli believes calling Paulette Brandt my “partner” is a term of disparagement.  Paulette Brandt and I are roommates and old friends.  Gianelli then gratuitously wrote the following comment:  Not exactly the restaurant at Neiman Marcus Beverly Hills where you used to lunch with Betsy Superfon after dropping six figures on shoes or jewelry or the Ivy is it?”  Betsy Superfon is a friend of Steve Lindsey’s.  We had a friendship for a spell.  She is the individual to whom Robert Kory confirmed that the deal he and Cohen had in mind was not the type of deal one could fax through.  Superfon and I concluded that it was therefore an illegal deal.  Superfon and I never had lunch at any restaurant in Neiman Marcus or the Ivy.  I never dropped six figures on shows or jewelry anywhere.  This is just part of Leonard Cohen’s narrative to obfuscate issues and slander Lynch in an attempt to defend himself against the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  Leonard Cohen will never be able to support these slanderous statements. 

149.     On December 6, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  He highlighted a portion of the Boulder Colorado hearing transcript but concealed the statement the judge made, with respect to my question about fraud and perjury, when she informed me that she could not provide me with legal advice.  It would be completely inappropriate for a judge, in any event, to advise me that I could not attack an order based on fraud and perjury.  I raised the Confrontation Clause in matters before Judge Hess.  The fraudulent allegations of “misappropriation” are quasi-criminal in nature and were used against me by the City Attorney of Los Angeles.  Therefore, I had a right to confront my accuser, Leonard Cohen, with respect to his fabricated Complaint narrative.  Leonard Cohen didn’t bother showing up for the Colorado hearing.  Gianelli ends this letter by confirming that he has tried to dissuade me from filing federal RICO suits.  This is part of Gianelli’s goal and that includes with respect to this Tax Court case and federal tax controversies.  Gianelli is obviously Leonard Cohen’s operative; argues Cohen’s legal positions and defends him; and appears to be moonlighting for the Spector prosecution. 

150.     On December 6, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  He was responding to my email advising him to cease and desist and the IRS, FBI, and DOJ confirming that Gianelli uses monikers, such as the 14th Sheepdog, and I personally believe he is “Kelly Green.”  Kelly Green was posting online as early as 2007, on a Spector hate site, that she hates Bruce Cutler.  Gianelli’s response to this opinion was to advise me to “shut up and give it a rest.”  I believe nothing out of this man’s mouth, for the most part, and do not believe that Kelly Green is a “female paramedic in the middle United States.”  Green thinks Spector should come home in a “body bag” and once questioned Lynch online about Spector’s forensic scientists, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden.  Kelly Green always reminds me of Phil Spector’s prosecutor Alan Jackson.  The situation demands an investigation and no one should rely on statements made by the inveterate liar known as Stephen Gianelli.

151.     Gianelli continued to write about Kelly Green and seemed to be in a dialogue with himself. It is my personal opinion, and I have studied this man carefully, that one of his roles is to set up reasonable doubt theories about Spector (online and in his emails) that can be attacked and refuted.  This seemed to be the purpose of Gianelli’s so-called Law Blog where Michelle Blaine and Sprocket were posting with “Kelly Green” who may be one of Gianelli’s more abusive personalities.  Gianelli wrote “You never did get along with Kelly Green, did you?”  Gianelli thinks I ought to know what someone on “drugs/alcohol writes/talks like.”  I do because I worked with Leonard Cohen for approximately 17 years and he has a long and publicly documented history of illicit drug use and alcohol abuse.  In fact, Cohen has publicly stated that he wrote “Beautiful Losers” while high on LSD and/or meth.  I don’t hang out at any food bank.  I stopped by one time.  Gianelli’s former client, Karina Von Watteville, hangs out at the food bank on a regular basis.  I don’t know a woman called “Debbie the dominatrix.”  I don’t really know Linda Carol.  She lived with Paulette Brandt, while I was staying there, but was essentially holed up in her room making videos such as the one that can be found at this link.  Karina Von Watteville referred Linda Carol to Paulette Brandt.  I didn’t call the cops to have Linda Carol evicted.  Linda Carol gave Paulette Brandt 30 days notice that she was moving out.  She asked for a few additional days and appeared to be in the middle of a serious meltdown. She has since written Paulette Brandt to explain that she was not on her medications and apologized to us for her behavior  LAPD was here on numerous occasions about Linda Carol.  Linda Carol called LAPD when she was afraid someone was under her bed; the City or County was poisoning the water (based on a notice posted outside); and so forth.  She asked LAPD and the paramedics to take her to the hospital.  I don’t know if Linda Carol is crazy or not.  Stephen Gianelli began contacting Linda Carol who, in turn, forwarded many of his harassing emails to me.  At one point, Linda Carol inexplicably sent me the address of “Michelle Rice.” This permitted Gianelli to argue publicly that Rice then feared for welfare.  I would like to remind this Court that Michelle Rice has made partner targeting and lying about me.  She has lied repeatedly during hearings before LA Superior Court.  She apparently wrote Leonard Cohen’s fabricated narrative and is the individual who decided to defraud Richard Westin’s insurance company using false allegations about me during secret mediations.  Gianelli sent me an email about that matter and I contacted Lloyd’s of London.  I have no further details about these secret mediations at this time.  Michelle Rice has also written Gianelli that his harassment of me is making her “rich.”  That would go to motive on the part of Rice.  Karina Von Watteville resided with Paulette Brandt for over a year.  She infested her apartment with cock roaches and has evidently done this to others as well.  These “accusations” say absolutely nothing about Paulette Brandt who is not my “partner.”  She didn’t really know Karina Von Watteville.  Her former roommate, from years ago in New York, asked Paulette Brandt to help this woman at a time when she was facing homelessness.  The woman promised to repay Paulette Brandt her rent payments when she received a lump sum social security check.  In the alternative, she and Gianelli worked together to defraud Paulette Brandt of $6,700 in rental arrears after contacting Robert Kory of Kory & Rice.  I personally don’t believe Leonard Cohen could stoop much lower than he has but we shall see what unfolds in federal court. 


152.     On December 7, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  His focus was once again on “Kelly Green.”  However, Gianelli was interested in discussing Ann Diamond and her writer buddies who are on an MK ULTRA conspiracy kick according to my stalker.  Leonard Cohen is the individual who has claimed he was in this program.  He has also told extremely suspect stories about his role as reconnaissance during Bay of Pigs and his desire to join the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War.  Leonard Cohen evidently enjoys being viewed as “our most important spy,” as he wrote in “Field Commander Cohen,” and a revolutionary.  I thanked Jasum Horsley for including me in his article.  I then refuted Gianelli’s slanderous comments on his blog.  Horsley concluded that Gianelli was Cohen’s lawyer and harassment agent.  I have nothing further to say about Cohen’s alleged participation in CIA’s MK ULTRA program. 

153.     On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that he believes I meant “Sybil” when I wrote IRS, FBI, and DOJ (posting that email online) that Gianelli’s monikers are similar to the multiple personalities, or alter egos, in the film Sybil. 

154.     On December 8, 2015, copying in Alan Hootnick, Gianelli wrote transmitting an alleged email from “linda XXXX a/k/a Sydney.”  This individual who also posts online with Gianelli may in fact be one of Gianelli’s alter egos or multiple personalities used to engage in dialogues with himself.

155.     On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  This email addressed “traditional bases for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” 

156.     On December 8, 2015, Gianelli wrote that he was doing his best to “educate” me regarding some of the many ways in which my “threatened” lawsuit against Leonard Cohen an d others would at this point be “subject to dismissal based on your complaint alone.”  Gianelli, who is obsessed with me, my family, and friends, believes I have spent too much time on these matters.  He mentioned a motion I drafted that was 15 pages but attached substantial evidence that Leonard Cohen has desperately attempted to conceal.  That evidence thoroughly undermines that default judgment.  Gianelli believes I could have “reinvented” myself after LAPD arrested me, I lost custody of Ray, and suffered a fraudulent $7 million judgment that is evidence of theft, extortion, embezzlement, self-dealing, and money laundering.  I have no reason to reinvent myself over the fact that Leonard Cohen, his representatives, Steve Lindsey, Stephen Gianelli, and others have decided to slander me relentlessly.  I have no idea why “Robert Downey” would come to mind.  I don’t have a drug or any substance abuse issues.  Leonard Cohen and Steve Lindsey did.  I think it is clear that it is nearly impossible for me to find work based on the lengths Cohen and others have gone to slander me, falsely accuse me of many matters, and relentlessly lie in court and to the news media about me.  Stephen Gianelli has no idea who I am.  He is a stalker, engaged in egregious harassment, and someone who attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information.  I don’t have a “harassment campaign” with respect to Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen has a slander campaign with respect to me.  Pursuing legal remedies is not “harassment.”  I don’t know if people “worldwide know about about” me and believe I am a “crazy thieving stalker who has not changed one bit.”  If that’s what they believe it is due to the extraordinary lengths Leonard Cohen and others, including his operative Gianelli, have gone to discredit me and destroy my reputation.  I didn’t harass my so-called prosecutor.  Sandra Jo Streeter lied about me relentlessly; evidently provided Gianelli with her email address; permitted him to harass and slander me to her; and then used it as an opportunity to retaliate.  I never stole from Leonard Cohen.  Leonard Cohen has now stolen from corporate entities; stolen from me, Machat & Machat, and probably Phil Spector; and believes he is entitled to extort millions in fraudulent financial interest from me.  I have a fraudulent domestic violence order “hanging around” my neck which will be addressed in federal court and that will include the use of fraud restraining orders to prevent me from requesting IRS required tax and corporate information. 

157.     On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote Alan Hootnick copying me in.  Gianelli believes he has a “savant like recall of prior statements, correspondence, and documents.”  I believe Gianelli is sloppy and cannot keep track of his lies.  I believe I have been absolutely consistent in my emails documenting the destruction of my life, since reporting the allegations that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, to IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others.  I have no idea what Phil Spector’s former investigator, Bill Pavelic, had to say to this criminal.  I can assure this Court that I am thoroughly disturbed by this ongoing harassment and the relentless targeting of my sons, family members, and friends.    I believe Gianelli contacted Bill Pavelic in an attempt to infiltrate Phil Spector’s legal matters.  Gianelli’s email confirms that he attempted to elicit information from Captain Bornman (Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department), Doug Davis (Franchise Tax Board), and Agent Kelly Sopko (U.S. Treasury).  If Agent Sopko advised Gianelli, a man engaged in egregious criminal conduct, that she does not regard me as credible then Agent Sopko should resign as an investigator.  I think Gianelli’s statements about Agent Sopko actually call her credibility into question due to the fact that many people have asked their attorneys to advise Gianelli to cease and desist or contacted law enforcement in an attempt to put his harassing conduct to an end.

158.     On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that “Alan Hootnick” has made his living as an analyst for decades.  I remain unclear as to Gianelli’s obsession with Mr. Hootnick’s background in intelligence.

159.     On December 11, 2015, Gianelli wrote about a person he allegedly knows who spoke to Phi Spector and read Gianelli’s entirely slanderous hit piece about me to Mr. Spector.  I believe Phil Spector is aware of who Gianelli is because I have brought him, and his activities, to the attention of Mr. Spector personally.  I also informed Phil Spector that Gianelli works in tandem with Michelle Blaine and Cohen’s fan, Susanne Walsh.  I also informed Phil Spector that Investigator William Frayeh, concluded that Gianelli may have found a sympathetic ear about me with his prosecutor, Alan Jackson.  I do not believe for one moment that Gianelli knows anyone who speaks with or visits Phil Spector.  Phil Spector never thanked anyone for slandering me, defending Leonard Cohen, and attempting to infiltrate his legal matters.  Phil Spector didn’t explain to a pal of Gianelli’s the issues at stake in the pending habeas matter as well as the underlying fats of his criminal case.  This is another attempt of Gianelli’s to infiltrate Spector’s legal matters and elicit information about his health, finances, and appeal before the 9th Circuit.  Gianelli also wrote that he has “suspected all along Dennis Riordan” never bothered Spector with my accusations about him.  Gianelli is on a fishing expedition and part of that includes information with respect to Dennis Riordan.  Stephen Gianelli worked in tandem with Michelle Blaine to target my email accounts and blogs.  She publicly congratulated Gianelli for inspiring that “pull” on her blog.  Gianelli’s obsession with Phil Spector betrays his preposterous arguments defending himself.  Blaine didn’t post her congratulatory comment on Gianelli’s site.  She posted it on her own mControl blog where Gianelli was posting.  I didn’t have a hate blog.  I had a “Phil Spector and Kelley Lynch” blog dedicated to Phil Spector’s innocence.  I believe Gianelli is moonlighting for the Spector prosecutors or someone affiliated with them.  He has also evidently developed a relationship with Spector’s estranged sons, Gary and Louis Spector, and has written them copying me on the emails.  For all I know, Michelle Blaine may have introduced Gianelli to Gary and Louis Spector.  I don’t believe a word out of this criminal’s mouth. 

160.     On December 10, 2015, Gianelli continued to harass me over his position that someone he knows spoke on the phone to Phil Spector and read him the slanderous article Gianelli has posted online and is now transmitting to third parties.  Gianelli excerpts an email that he appears to have written to himself.  I am not a schizophrenic and do not have multiple other disorders.  No one Gianelli knows just got off the phone with Phil Spector.  This man is an absolute psychopath.

161.     On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  His email advised us that he has never spoken to Ed Lozzi.  Stephen Gianelli wrote an email to Ed Lozzi and for reasons I cannot imagine copied me on that email.  Ed Lozzi is alleged Lana Clarkson’s former publicist.  He has spent years demonizing Phil Spector on line. 


162.     On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote to advise me that if he wanted to know about Phil Spector’s finances, I am the last person on the planet he would ask.  Gianelli then lies that I don’t know Phil Spector and haven’t spoken to him in years.  Gianelli does not know either Phil Spector or me.  This is merely an attempt to elicit information and Gianelli is focused on Spector’s finances and continuously raises Dennis Riordan’s legal fees as a way to discuss that issue. Gianelli, who does not know Dennis Riordan, advised me that it is completely “inappropriate” for me to “unilaterally impose” myself on Phil Spector’s attorneys.  Gianelli is also obsessed with Bruce Cutler and has used me to phone him.  Gianelli has relentlessly attempted to infiltrate Phil Spector’s case, target witnesses, and elicit information.  Stephen Gianelli ends his note by telling me that I am a “narcissistic, self-entitled, rude, sociopath.”  This individual is twisted and sick.  If Dennis Riordan has something to say, I have no doubt that he will speak up.

163.     On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  I have explained some of the situation with Karina Von Watteville and Stephen Gianelli.  I do think it is highly relevant and material that this woman, someone I do not know, decided to phone Robert Kory in response to Paulette Brandt’s rental arrears letter.  She then ended up represent by Stephen Gianelli and together they proceeded to defraud Paulette Brandt of $6,700.  Paulette Brandt has provided declarations to numerous courts in connection with Leonard Cohen related matters.  She has been relentlessly targeted and harassed by Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh (Cohen’s fan), and others.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyers, Kory & Rice, lied in documents that Paulette Brandt materially changed her testimony.  Paulette Brandt was not provided the opportunity to testify.  When I filed my Motion (addressing fraud upon the court), she provided me with two detailed declaration.  Her declarations addressed the harassment she has been the victim of.  At one point, Paulette Brandt asked Linda Carol for a declaration.  That declaration was to be submitted to Small Claims Court.  Ms. Brandt filed a Claim against Von Watteville with respect to the rental arrears.  Von Watteville’s response was to rant to at least two mediators about Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory.  Linda Carol was referred to Paulette Brandt by Von Watteville.  She dictated her declaration to me.  It was ultimately not submitted to the Small Claims Court.  However, Gianelli relentlessly targeted me, Paulette Brandt, and Linda Carol over this proposed declaration and his new client, Von Watteville.  Von Watteville now appears to be providing Gianelli with information about me and Paulette Brandt.  Karina Von Watteville sued the estate of an elderly man, Sam Menning.  She recently lost that suit and I believe the legal pleadings prove enlightening. 


164.     On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote Alan Hootnick and copied me on the email.  Gianelli, who does not know Phil Spector, advised Alan Hootnick that “Lynch just cannot cope psychologically with the reality that – although others are visiting Spector in jail and talking to them on the phone, she is not.  Kelley Lynch is not even on Spector’s visitor list, let alone in daily communication with him.  She has concocted this fantasy of Spector’s continued friend and support (and the friendship and support of his attorneys and former attorneys) out of thin air, but sure is she of her delusion, she accuses me of writing myself.”  This email then mentions Bruce Cutler.  Gianelli is absolutely obsessed with Bruce Cutler.  The email also mentions Bill Pavelic.  Bill Pavelic and I communicated for a period of time.  He informed me that he believes Spector is innocent, charges should never have been brought, and explained that Spector’s former bodyguard (Jay Romaine) could have helped prove that the gun was not Spector’s.  Pavelic’s rather shocking blurb about the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, and some of the dirty politics in Los Angeles, can be viewed at this link.  Stephen Gianelli, as he has done countless times (including with respect to IRS Chief Trial Counsel’s office) then contacted Bill Pavelic using me as the reason for doing so.  He also used this same tactic with Bruce Cutler.  Stephen Gianelli has spent years working on his “project” which includes targeting and slandering me, terrorizing members of my family, harassing Paulette Brandt, and threatening, insulting, and intimidating witnesses.  This particular email was nothing other than an opportunity for Gianelli to continue his fishing expedition with respect to Phil Spector.  For some reason, Stephen Gianelli is also interested in the Coyote Shivers case.  He lied to Shivers investigator, Mike Conzachi, that I wanted him to arrest Gianelli for me.  That is a bald-faced lie but gave Gianelli the opportunity to contact Mike Conzachi.  I have spoken with Mr. Conzachi at length with respect to the restraining order abuse and fraud taking place in Los Angeles.  He contacted Paulette Brandt as well because she is aware of another domestic violence case that involves egregious fraud.  Coyote Shivers filed a complaint with the Criminal Grand Jury of Los Angeles.  He also contacted DOJ.  I personally have contacted DOJ and Senate Judiciary because it is my belief that these parties should investigate the fraudulent domestic violence orders, VAWA funding fraud, and extortion attempts with respect to fraudulent domestic violence fines and fees.  Gianelli has nothing whatsoever to do with the Coyote Shivers case.  He does not know Coyote Shivers.  I do.  Mike Conzachi believes the only way to bring down the restraining order Mafia in Los Angeles is through the use of RICO. 


165.     On December 10, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  Evidently Gianelli wanted one of us to re-read his email to “Ed Lozzi.”  I am uninterested in Gianelli’s letter to Ed Lozzi and found it astounding that he would write Lozzi, Clarkson’s alleged former publicist (and a friend of Spector prosecutor Alan Jackson), copying me on the communication. 

166.     On December 10, 2015, Gianelli remained fixated on Phil Spector.  The notion of someone reading Phil Spector a slanderous article about me, defending Leonard Cohen, is positively obscene.  This email informed me that my Tax Court case and “ridiculous RICO suit” will be dismissed.  It also informed me that I am “still the notorious thieving, stalking former manager of the (more popular than ever) Leonard Cohen.  I never stalked or harassed Leonard Cohen.  He, and the government actors in Los Angeles who targeted me, are chronic liars.  Leonard Cohen is the thief who has now stolen approximately $6.7 million from Traditional Holdings, LLC alone.  He has stolen intellectual property from me and Machat & Machat.  He appears to have stolen from Phil Spector.  Cohen withheld commissions due me and intentionally bankrupted me.  This does not even begin to describe Cohen’s embezzlement of royalty income related to assets owned by Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc.  However, Leonard Cohen has come up with one of his famous fabricated narratives and used that to further defraud the U.S. government with respect to his fraudulent tax refunds.  Leonard Cohen has used his own wrongdoing to further benefit himself.  It is all rather mind-boggling but his sense of entitlement and greed are inconceivable. 

167.     On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  He clearly believes he has an ally in Hootnick.  Gianelli evidently wanted to discuss Paulette Brandt and my relationships with Phil Spector.  Although this man does not know Phil Spector, he has decided to lie that Paulette and I do not know him well and are not his dear friends.  I worked for Phil Spector from approximately 1988 until 1990.  Paulette Brandt, who had previously worked for Phil Spector, returned to his employ in 1991.  While I did work as Phil Spector’s assistant, he and I remainder very close friends.  Paulette Brandt worked with Phil Spector in the 70s, lived with him in Beverly Hills, was his girlfriend, worked with him in NY and Los Angeles, worked for Apple Records and ABKCO Records, dated Phillip again in the mid-80s, and worked with him from 1991 through 2002 when Michelle Blaine targeted Phillip and managed to get rid of Paulette Brandt, Jay Romaine, and Morgan Martin (Mr. Spector’s driver).  Stephen Gianelli has no idea what Paulette and my relationship is with Phil Spector or his attorneys at this point in time.  He doesn’t know any of us.  He uses these types of emails to elicit information about Mr. Spector.  Gianelli would also like to know when was the last time Paulette or I spoke to any of our Hollywood friends or the Tibetan lamas who have guided me through this unconscionable ordeal.  It’s none of Gianelli’s business.  If the Court is interested, I would be more than happy to submit that information under seal.  Gianelli, of course, wrote the “bloody stump” email, using a moniker, and not only targeted me but horrendously slandered Oliver Stone.  If the Court would like to know the last time Oliver Stone and I communicated, I would be more than happy to provide that information under seal.  I have been very clear publicly that, after I was falsely arrested in 2012, I heard directly from Phil Spector.  If the Court would like a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Spector at that time, I would be more than happy to provide that under seal as well.  This Court should understand that Phil Spector views Paulette Brandt as “one of the most important” people in his life.  I think it’s important to re-emphasize the fact that Paulette Brandt worked inside the Pasadena home for years; knows a number of the witnesses; has never seen any of the conduct the Spector prosecutors used to convict him with; believes he is innocent; and has been quite public about that fact.  Paulette Brandt was also with Mr. Spector, at his Beverly Hills home, when Leonard Cohen and he began working together.  She was also present in the studio during their recordings and never heard about the infamous Spector/Cohen gun incident.  Ann Diamond was dating Leonard Cohen, immediately following the Spector/Cohen project, and Cohen never informed her that Spector held a gun on her. 

168.     On December 10, 2015, Stephen Gianelli again wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  Gianelli clearly wanted to address his letter to Ed Lozzi with Alan Hootnick.  Stephen Gianelli was on the Truth Sentinel site arguing that Clarkson’s DNA was not on the ammunition and the gun was Phil Spector’s.  This is not what the evidence supports and this individual argues Spector prosecution theories online.  He also sets up reasonable doubt theories that can be attacked and refuted.  I personally believe there’s something entirely sinister about my stalker writing Ed Lozzi and copying me on the correspondence.  Stephen Gianelli is attempting to elicit information about Phil Spector and his appeal before the 9th Circuit.  Judge Hess did note that I’m a “moving target” but I must say that I have never seen such unconscionable judicial demeanor in my entire life.  This is true for many of the judges before LA Superior Court.  For some reason, they all appear to have anger management problems.  Given the fact that my grandfather was a magistrate, I do not have any problems with judges, magistrates, and so forth but I find the conduct of the judges I have been before appalling and mind-boggling.  I also do not appreciate judges lying about me from the bench. 

169.     On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying Alan Hootnick.  Gianelli understands that Alan Hootnick communicates with Rachelle Spector, Mr. Spector’s wife who has been utterly demonized throughout the internet.  Gianelli evidently wanted us to understand that he never said the person who is alleged speaking to Spector (and evidently read him Gianelli’s entirely slanderous article about me) was not necessarily his friend.  The person is evidently “a friend of Phil Spector” who just happened to reach out to Stephen Gianelli.  Apparently, Louis and Gary Spector also decided to reach out to Stephen Gianelli.  I can assure this Court that Phil Spector is not grateful that this criminal has relentlessly targeted me, Paulette Brandt, my elderly parents, my sons, and many others.  That would include, but is not limited to, the Scientist who asked me to contact Spector’s attorneys to inform them that he would like to stand up for Phil Spector.  He has been targeted my gold diggers in the industry.  One attempted to commit suicide at his home.  He recorded her threatening to “frame” him for murder.  I have submitted that evidence to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.  I am not the only individual who has questioned this criminal’s integrity.  Many people have advised him to cease and desist or contacted law enforcement to file complaints.  My appellate attorney, Francisco Suarez, was harassed by Gianelli for over a year.  He contacted a computer expert about the situation and advised me that he has never seen anything like this activity in his entire career.

170.     On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  Although he doesn’t know Phil Spector at all, Gianelli wanted to inform us that “Phil Spector has no idea that Kelley Lynch claims that Gianelli works with Michelle Blaine; writes Ed Lozzi; defends the thief known as Leonard Cohen.”  I beg to differ.  I have personally addressed this situation with Phil Spector.  Stephen Gianelli is dreaming if he thinks Phil Spector views him as an “insightful lawyer who has helped his friend understand his legal process who believes that he didn’t receive a fair trial and whose conviction should be reversed.”

171.     On December 12, 2015, Gianelli again wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  This email attempts to argue that Gianelli can be friendly with people, such as Michelle Blaine or Ed Lozzi, and explain it away with further inane comments.  Stephen Gianelli does not support Spector.  He argues Spector prosecution theories online; posted extensively with Michelle Blaine and Sprocket; and attempts to infiltrate matters and elicit information.  Stephen Gianelli, who does not know Phil Spector at all, would like me to understand that “Spector has had more important things on his mind for the last decade that YOUR issues and problems.”  Phil Spector can speak for himself.  Stephen Gianelli has not “analyzed” my legal positions.  He has relentlessly targeted me, my family and friends, slandered me extensively online, worked with the City Attorney to have me falsely arrested, communicated extensively with Cohen’s legal representatives, worked with Susanne Walsh (Cohen’s fan) to slander and target me and others, and defends Leonard Cohen’s legal interests.  Gianelli may also have found a “sympathetic ear” with Spector’s prosecutor Alan Jackson about me.  I don’t know Alan Jackson.  This email addresses my communications with Phil Spector’s attorneys.  Those communications are none of Stephen Gianelli’s business but he is fishing for information.  Stephen Gianelli doesn’t know if Phil Spector phones me or Paulette Brandt.  He doesn’t know us.  However, he is attempting to elicit information and this is how he engages in that conduct.  This man appears to be working for Leonard Cohen and with Phil Spector’s prosecutors.  It is my personal belief that this situation should be thoroughly investigated. 

172.     On December 12, 2015, Gianelli wrote copying Alan Hootnick.  He evidently wanted us to know that he did not work with “Michelle Blaine” who was not Spector’s “former manager.”  Alan Klein was Spector’s manager.  Stephen Gianelli and Michelle Blaine did work together to target my email accounts and blogs.  They were frequently posting on one another’s blogs.  I captured that evidence and submitted it to IRS, FBI, and DOJ.  I also submitted all of Gianelli’s Blog articles and the comments to IRS, FBI, and DOJ since Gianelli seems dead set on infiltrating and sabotaging IRS matters while slandering and discrediting me.  I didn’t have a hate blog.  Michelle Blaine and Stephen Gianelli apparently share a “disdain” for me.  Gianelli is using this email to elicit information about Phil Spector and his legal team.  Evidently Gianelli believes Phil Spector and I may join forces and sue Leonard Cohen over his perjured testimony about Spector and a gun incident.  According to Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, Cohen’s statements or testimony were indeed presented to the Spector Grand Jury.  The prosecution included one version of Cohen’s gun story in motions regarding “prior bad acts” related to Spector.  The version the Spector prosecution used was contradicted by Leonard Cohen’s testimony during my trial.  That testimony was elicited by the City Attorney using an email Cohen wasn’t a recipient of.  He merely testified that he was, proceeded to address Phil Spector and a gun, and admitted during cross-examination that he wasn’t a recipient.  The prosecutor, using this email, concealed the portions of the thread requesting tax information and addressed to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff.  She “misspoke” and had to correct herself.  Stephen Gianelli is on a major fishing expedition and would like information about Dennis Riordan and Bruce Cutler. 

173.     On December 13, 2015, Gianelli wrote to inform me that he is “going to be away from a computer and traveling until approximately March 1 of next year.”  Evidently he wanted to advise me that his criminal harassment will stop during this period of time.  As of the date of this declaration, Stephen Gianelli continues to criminally harass me over Tax Court, my RICO suits, Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector.  For some reason, this criminal would like me to “Tell the FBI merry Christmas” for him.  This is precisely what former DA Steve Cooley’s investigator asked me to tell the Denver FBI when I called to discuss a situation related to a case before LA Superior Court and never mentioned FBI. 

174.     On December 13, 2015, Gianelli responded to an article I sent Alan Hootnick.  Charles Sevilla, Phil Spector’s appellate attorney, confirmed for the news media that Mr. Spector had a serious medical condition and could no longer speak.  This seriously undermines Gianelli’s insane statements that he has an associate who speaks to Phil Spector.  I don’t need to rely on information from the news media but felt the article was accurate. 

175.     On December 15, 2015, Gianelli once again wrote copying in Alan Hootnick.  He is attempting to explain away my blog posts, which primarily contain evidence I’ve submitted to IRS, FBI, and DOJ, by accusing me of attempting to avoid “any kind of self-assessment or awareness.”  That’s quite a fascinating statement given the fact that I, my sons, sister, Paulette Brandt, Eric Salter, and many others have relentlessly advised this criminal to cease and desist  Leonard Cohen has obtained a fraudulent default judgment, inserted suspended corporations into that judgment, wrongfully converted my property to himself, stolen intellectual property, used fraudulent restraining orders to discredit me, and believes he has the right to remain unopposed in courts of law and the ability to perjure himself extensively without suffering the consequences of his actions.  I believe I have the legal right to seek legal remedies.  By failing to serve me his lawsuit, Leonard Cohen was able to develop a fabricated narrative which he then used to defend himself with IRS against the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  I intend to address the perjured statements and fraudulent misrepresentations Cohen transmitted to IRS. 

176.     On December 21, 2015, Gianelli wrote in response to an email I sent IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, and Senate Judiciary.  I posted that email on my blog.  Gianelli felt the need to harass me over that post.  I mocked up his slanderous article, that was posted online and which he is transmitting to third parties, with my comments.  Gianelli confirmed that my post contained a “point-by-point rebuttal” of every “factual claim” made about my situation by third parties – including Gianelli.  However, because Gianelli is a pathological liar, he wrote that I said I would submit that document to federal District Court.  What I wrote, and the Court should review the email and verify this independently, is that I intended to update the original declaration I submitted to this Court regarding Gianelli’s ongoing criminal harassment and would provide this Court with a copy of the article being used to slander me and defend Leonard Cohen.   This post caused Gianelli to argue that Rule 8 prevents me from submitting this evidence to a federal court.  I personally believe this evidence is highly material and relevant and that would include with respect to this Tax Court case.  The Court should understand the totality of circumstances and the lengths people, including Leonard Cohen and his operatives, have gone to target, slander, threaten, intimidate, harass, silence, and destroy me. 

http://riverdeepbook.blogspot.com/2015/12/kelley-lynchs-email-to-irs-fbi-doj.html

177.     On December 21, 2015, Stephen Gianelli wrote copying Alan Hootnick.  Apparently, when an individual submits a Complaint to federal court, together with a fee waiver application, they are held to a higher standard than others.  Therefore, the District Court must perform a “spontaneous review of the complaint for compliance with Rule 8 (and other) pleading standards BEFORE the fee waiver is granted.”  Perhaps Courts should review all pleadings to determine if the parties are engaged in a pattern of egregious fraud, perjury, and litigation misconduct.  I personally do not believe individuals should be prejudiced due to the fact that they are self-represented.  Gianelli would like me to understand that if I submit his article and my rebuttal to federal court the Rooker-Feldman doctrine will apply.  For some reason, the fraudulent 2006 default judgment prevents me from addressing this egregious conduct and slander.  That’s the trade off – the Court will scrutinize my pleadings and squash me like a bug due to the fact that Cohen has intentionally bankrupted and stolen from me.  My fee waiver was an issue for Cohen when he filed his retaliation Motion for Sanctions.  Leonard Cohen prefers to be unopposed and believes I do not have the right to file legal pleadings.  Gianelli included his email to Alan Hootnick informing him that I have “reliable information” about Phil Spector.  That is Gianelli’s tactic for eliciting information from various individuals about Phil Spector and other matters. 

178.     As of today, I continue to receive harassing emails from Gianelli.  The relate to this Tax Court matter and my RICO suits against Cohen, the City, and County of Los Angeles. 

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>


Your tax court case and any district court case will be dismissed.

From: Stephen Gianelli <stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>


I think that Kelley Lynch is the one who needs to "cease and desist". Nor is Kelley Lynch emailing me a dozen times a day to that effect going to accomplish anything.

How is your 1,000 page "federal RICO suit" coming, BTW? Waiting for the decision on the Chief Trial Counsel's pending motion to dismiss your July 2015 tax court case before you file, so you can inform the district court you "won"? Don't hold your breath. You won't.

I can well understand your reluctance to actually file a RICO suit (instead of simply talk, talk, taking about it). Because once you do file it, it is a matter of DAYS (not months) until it is DIMISSED, and then you got nothing to threaten; at that point it's over. 

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Cease and desist, Gianelli.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <
stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
To: Kelley Lynch <
kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

You have it wrong. I am still on vacation. In fact, I board a Gulfstream jet for Mexico in 48 hours.

I notice you have ignored the Central District Court linked order + PACER docket proving that BEFORE the defendants are required to respond, the court will review the complaint for facial merit in connection with the fee waiver request and dismiss if appropriate. 
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:
Gianelli,

I see you've cut your three month vacation short in order to criminally harass me further.  I view you as a criminal and ambulance chaser so please speak to your wife, Kory & Rice, or someone interested in your insanity.

Kelley Lynch
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Gianelli <
stephengianelli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
To: alan hootnick <
ahootnick@yahoo.com>
Cc: Kelley Lynch <
kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>

Ms. Lynch,

Apparently you don't understand. In pro se cases where the plaintiff asks for a fee waiver, the district court performs a spontaneous review of the complaint for compliance with Rule 8 (and other) pleading standards BEFORE the fee waiver is granted, and BEFORE the defendants are required to respond and before any discovery is conducted or subpoenas issued.

Therefore, if incorporate your "rebuttal" into your complaint or file your typical prolix pleading of many hundreds of pages + exhibits and/or raise claims that are obviously time barred, violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, are precluded by the 2006 judgment,  ETC. Or otherwise violate Rule 8, - your complaint will be dismissed BEFORE the Cit
y and/or Cohen even knows it was filed. You will not bother them, they will not even know it was filed until AFTER the district court squashes you silly little lawsuit like a bug.

That is the tradeoff for the benefit of being able to ask the court to proceed under a fee waiver. Only meritorious cases are allowed to proceed on that basis, no need to bother the defendants otherwise.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
  Original Message
From: alan hootnick
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 15:41
To: Stephen Gianelli
Reply To: alan hootnick
Subject: Fw: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"

Kelley sent me this.

She has "reliable information" about Phil. Well, we know better

--- On Mon, 12/21/15, Kelley Lynch <
kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Kelley Lynch <
kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Your blog posts of 12/20 regarding "Gianelli"
> To: "Stephen Gianelli" <
stephengianelli@gmail.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" <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, "alan hootnick" <ahootnick@yahoo.com>, "Fabian Paulmikell A" <Paulmikell.A.Fabian@irscounsel.treas.gov>
 Date: Monday, December 21, 2015, 8:18 PM
Alan Hootnick,

Gianelli has sent his slanderous article to third parties.  Every word is a lie and this man has motive.  He must have shortened his vacation after asking me to advise FBI "Merry Christmas."  Many people think that means "Fuck You."  If Gianelli sent you his "article," please see my rebuttal.  Gianelli shouldn't worry about my RICO complaint.  He doesn't represent me; represents
Cohen's legal interests; and Cohen's attorney of record will be given the proper legal opportunity to respond to that suit.

The criminal has once again been advised to cease and desist.  Perhaps he can hang out with his pals on Spector's prosecution team over the holidays.  They can think of additional ways to infiltrate Spector's defense.  Who knows - perhaps Gianelli will call Bruce Cutler and ask him to marry him.  Maybe surprises await us in the New Year.

I have very reliable information that Phil Spector was not read this slanderous article and doesn't appreciate the criminal known as Gianelli.

Kelley Lynch

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
 wrote:

FBI,

Did you receive Gianelli's "Merry Christmas" message?  He must have shortened his three month vacation to begin criminally harassing me again.

Kelley

REDACTED ARTICLE


179.     Leonard Cohen retaliated against me for reporting the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud to Internal Revenue Service on April 15, 2005 and at other times.  He used his fraudulent Complaint narrative to file personal tax returns, amend others, obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and defend himself against the allegations.  This conduct with respect to Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and others has been ongoing since May 2009.  At that time, Gianelli publicly stated that he heard from Cohen’s representatives at Kory & Rice.  Gianelli, Kory & Rice now appear to be engaged in some kind of moronic cover-your-ass operation.  These matters, including my younger son’s custody matter which was clearly coordinated, are all inter-related.  I am asking this Court to refer the situation with respect to the illegal accessing and tampering with my Word Press blog to federal law enforcement for an investigation.  That blog was created specifically to submit evidence to this Court.  The evidence has now been destroyed and was replaced with slanderous and false accusations.  These are the same slanderous and false accusations that Leonard Cohen, his representatives, and Stephen Gianelli have relentlessly spewed into the public domain about me. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

This declaration is executed on this 23rd day of December 2015 in Los Angeles, California.

                                                            Signed Kelley Ann Lynch
                                                            ____________________________________
                                                            KELLEY ANN LYNCH



Signature page and evidence documents (including  will be uploaded separately.