Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Email to Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer & Mayor Eric Garcetti Re. the Ongoing Criminal Harassment Over Leonard Cohen, Federal Tax Controversies & Her RICO Suit

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM
To:, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Stephen Gianelli <>, Michelle Rice <>, Robert Kory <>
Cc: "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ASKDOJ <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, Fabian Paulmikell A <>, alan hootnick <>

Mike Feuer and Mayor Garcetti,

Stephen Gianelli, who clearly represents Leonard Cohen's interests, continues to criminally harass me and other Los Angeles residents.

I don't have any privileged documents from Robert Kory.  I don't know the man and find his perjured testimony deeply disturbing.  That would include, but is not limited to, his lies about providing me with IRS required tax and corporate information.  I am specifically referring to 1099s and K-1s.  Kory also testified that he understood I was asking Cohen to rescind the illegal K-1s from LCI that were transmitted to IRS and prove the fraudulent expense ledger is nothing other than evidence of financial and accounting fraud.  It's fascinating that the fraudulent ledger, submitted months before the fraud judgment, would take the position that corporate ownership interests should be willfully disregarded.  Leonard Cohen has merely argued alter ego, self-dealing, money laundering, co-mingling, and theft.  As for your office's opinion that corporate assets (including those owned by suspended corporations) are Leonard Cohen's assets, I would suggest that you take a look at the corporate books and records.  Also, the agreements Cohen personally signed.  As Steven Machat has publicly stated:  Cohen uses corporations to evade taxes and blames his representatives for ripping him off to breach contracts.  I personally believe the man is consumed with greed.  The lies of your office, including with respect to the fraud DMV order, have exposed me to further harassment by individuals such as "Stephen Gianelli."

There was and remains no case no. BC338322.  Cohen willfully failed to serve me the lawsuit and his fraud and perjured statements are extensive.  Perhaps you personally would like to explain his own testimony that I never stole from him - just his peace of mind - and we were in a purely business relationship.  Obviously, your prosecutor heard those statements but elected to conceal and obfuscate them.

This Criminal Stalker has not seen my RICO suit which he continues to harass me over.  This man is obviously arguing Leonard Cohen's legal issues, defending him, and is engaged in one of the more moronic cover-your-ass ops I have ever seen in my life.  

I take great offense at the fact that Cohen can merely summon LAPD's TMU and lie to them.  I have yet to find anything in the Constitution that permits this area of celebrity justice.  If you would like a list of the LA residents who continue to be criminally harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, slandered, etc. please let me know.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:31 PM

Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Dec 1, 2015 at 12:49 PM

1. The memorandum to which you refer 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.

2. How do I know what the federal court will do with your threatened RICO suit? I have reviewed recent (from this year) orders issued by the district court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles following fee waiver applications. I attach a sample in PDF.  As is apparent from the court form currently in use, at the time you make your fee waiver application, which will of necessity be when you file your complaint, the district court will evaluate your complaint to ascertain whether it states a claim for relief - said failure being a ground to deny the fee waiver application. (See the attached.)

3. Your claims, as discussed ad nauseam in mass emails and on your blog, are necessarily premised on key facts already established against you in the 2006 judgment entered in Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC338322 and are therefore subject to claim preclusion under res judicata principles. Your claims arise out of your former business relationship with Cohen that ended in 2004 and are therefore time barred. Your claims also rest of litigation conduct by the defendants and are  bared by privilege.  Your conspiracy and RICO claims do not meet the “plausibility” pleading standards for such claims when measured by the district court and Ninth Circuit precedents.

4. Therefore, one does not need a crystal ball to know what the district court will do with your threatened suit if filed. It sill dismiss.