Saturday, September 26, 2015

Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Should Hit Reply All & Ask Her Own Questions As The Representative Of The Actual Master Mind & Attorney Of Record

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 8:37 AM
Subject: The Criminal Stalker Proxy's Ongoing Harassment, Attempts To Elicit Information, Etc.
To: Michelle Rice <>,, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, 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 <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

Michelle Rice,

Let me know if I can answer any of these questions for you or the proxy operative.

Thank you.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:46 AM
Subject: Important

Finally, Ms. Lynch, I would argue (all these should be separate argument headings to avoid waiver on appeal) that is is not legally possible to for a defendant to make a “general appearance” in a civil action AFTER his or her default has been entered unless and until the default has been set aside (which has not been done in BC338322, obviously).

Note the last sentence of CCP 1014. I believe there is authority that a defendant is NOT entitled to “notice” of pleadings filed in an action after his default is entered. If that is true then it follows he or she cannot “appear” in the action as that phrase is used in section 2014.

Also, look at all of the motions and pleadings specified in CCP 2014 that constitute an “appearance”. NONE of these pleadings (for instance an answer, or a demurrer) may be filed by a defendant who is in default.

On reflection, I just don’t think it possible for a defendant who is not only in default, but whose default judgement has been entered, to make a “general appearance”.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 7:37 AM

There is also CCP 1014.  A defendant appears in an action when the defendant answers,
demurs, files a notice of motion to strike, files a notice of motion
to transfer pursuant to Section 396b, moves for reclassification
pursuant to Section 403.040, gives the plaintiff written notice of
appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of appearance for the
defendant. After appearance, a defendant or the defendant's attorney
is entitled to notice of all subsequent proceedings of which notice
is required to be given. Where a defendant has not appeared, service
of notice or papers need not be made upon the defendant.

From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Subject: Slaybaugh v. Superior Court :: :: California Court of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
To: Kelley Lynch <>

This appellate decision sets for the test for when a defendant has made a general appearance - read it carefully. 

You may or may not have made a general appearance by filing a motion to dismiss premised in part on alleged "perjury" - because the grounds were not strictly ‎limited to "jurisdiction" of the court over you.

The REAL issue it seems to me is, did you make a general appearance BEFORE the Court entered judgment against you‎ in May of 2006?

If not, the court lacked jurisdiction over you to enter the judgment in the first instance - let alone "renew" it. 

In any event, that is the argument I would make in opposition to Cohen's waiver through a general appearance argument.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Subject: Your September 24, 2015 blog post at 12:34 PM

Now you know who the “mastermind” is. For all of it.

I mean, she says she has a “170 IQ”. Which has got to be a genius record for a lawyer.  

Friday, September 25, 2015

The Ongoing Criminal Harassment; Leonard Cohen's Lawyer's Inconceivably Vile Arrogance, & The Fact That Scott Edelman Was Served (Kory & Rice Were Not Attorneys Of Record); Insurance Fraud; Etc.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Proper credit in the renewed judgment amount for the "policy limit" settlement contribution on behalf of defendant Richard Westin; BC338322

Ms. Lynch,

You are entitled to a “credit” against the judgment amount for the amounts contributed by Richard Westin’s insurance carrier toward Plaintiff’s damages, and amount that Michelle Rice has characterized in writing as a “policy limit” settlement. (See attached email.)

There is case law holding that the judgment debtor is entitled to object to the renewal of a judgment on this basis (i.e. that the renewed judgment amount does not reflect proper credits due). However, given your attitude I am not inclined to spend the time finding the citation for you.

Very truly yours,

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


From: Michelle Rice To: "" Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Stephen: I attach the civil case document image from LASC online services which shows that KL filed the motion on Friday 8/9. We have not been served on LC's behalf. It takes several days to update the public database. Her filings should show up by the end of the week there. LOL - "Gibson Dumb and Dumber" as KL calls them. We will NOT have Edelman or GDC anywhere near this response. I researched and wrote the complaint against KL and Richard Westin as a 2nd year lawyer. Edelman and GDC were essentially a "filing service" for our firm. Every essential "victory" against KL was masterminded, researched and instituted by me and LC knows this - the Writ of Possession getting LC's docs and personal effects back from KL's house on Mandeville Canyon Rd, the LA restraining order in Oct. 2005 (wrote LC's dec), the Colorado permanent restraining order in 2008 (I drafted LC's declaration and hired Harvey Steinberg, CO counsel), the mediation against Richard Westin (wrote LC's brief and attended mediation with Justice Stone of JAMS), etc., etc. Edelman sat there during the JAMS mediation and did not have a command of any of the facts. Edelman was also convinced that KL "cut off the chain of causation" against Richard Westin and that LC could not recover anything against Westin for KL's acts as the insurance carrier vehemently argued. The call to Lloyd's of London (the reinsurer for Westin's malpractice policy) for the policy limit payout at the end of the day which was based on my tort argument in the mediation brief convinced Edelman otherwise. Seriously, he did not do anything in helping get the default judgment against KL - his firm "fronted" the litigation, but by and large all of the hard, heavy duty thinking came from me and Robert. Michelle L. Rice, Esq. Kory & Rice LLP 9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 285-1633 Fax: (310) 278-7641 NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Straw Sage: The Shtickless Shtick & Perception Management of Leonard Cohen

Straw Sage: The Shtickless Shtick & Perception Management of Leonard Cohen

“When I was a young man my friends and I thought we were famous and believed that every time we met for a beer it was a historical event. I grew up before television so it was easier to create one’s own mythology, but we truly believed that Montreal was a holy city, all of us were sainted, gifted beings, our love affairs were important, our songs immortal, our poems deathless, and we would lead lives of delicious self-sacrifice to art of God.” ~ Leonard Cohen, 1988
“War is wonderful. They’ll never stamp it out.” ~ Leonard Cohen, 1974
“I’d say it’s all from real situations. The experience is real but one tries to treat the experience imaginatively.” ~ Leonard Cohen, 1973, on his song-writing.
Today parts 3 & 4 of my discussion with Ann Diamond go up, plus a fifth mp3 with the stuff that didn’t make it to the final cut, for those completionists out there (in my opinion it’s all worth your time, of course, but I know many people aren’t as interested in dismantling the wall of cultural illusion brick by brick as I am).
In the third audio, Guerrilla in the Room, Ann talks about the art scene in Montreal in the 1960s and 70s and how closely tied it appears to have been to McGill and the MKUltra program, making it clear that Leonard Cohen was part of a much larger social phenomenon which has been mostly forgotten or buried since that time. But if you take a cultural figure out of the context from which they emerged, what you end up with is something very far removed from the actual truth.
Since recording these podcasts, I’ve been reading a large book collection of Cohen interviews called Leonard Cohen on Leonard Cohen. That  sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
Pop history is written by the winners.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom 
For trying to change the system from within 
I’m coming now, I’m coming to reward them 
As I already knew, Leonard Cohen is capable of a degree of apparent wisdom that’s rare in the entertainment field. There were times when I found myself wondering how it was possible, in the face of such seeming depth and insight, that Cohen could really be involved in the sort of CIA-mafia-pedocratic shenanigans which Ann Diamond’s testimony so compellingly unveiled. Of course, this idea—that apparent depth and wisdom, even kindness and humility—cannot co-exist with (or be a front for) sociopathic behaviors is really no more solid than the one about great art showing the soul of the artist and therefore being “all we need to know” about any given social mover and shaker. (Hitler was a lousy artist. There you go!)
I fought in the old revolution 
on the side of the ghost and the King. 
Of course I was very young 
and I thought that we were winning; 
I can’t pretend I still feel very much like singing 
as they carry the bodies away.
The facts have to speak for themselves, however, and for me they do just that. Not that together they make up a fully coherent counter-narrative to the official LC story; it’s too soon for that. But they do prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that many aspects of Cohen’s life, personality, and actions have been covered up. This strongly suggests that the accepted version of Leonard Cohen is not to be trusted, and therefore, that neither is Leonard Cohen.
I said this can’t be me, must be my double.
For me, there is an almost irresistible attraction, once the buried Plutonium starts to seep through the disturbed earth, to dig deeper and find the evidence that will do away with the cover-story for good. And so here we are again.
When they poured across the border
I was cautioned to surrender,
this I could not do;
I took my gun and vanished.
While reading the interviews, I found myself less and less impressed by Cohen’s apparent wisdom and aplomb, and more and more turned off by what I began to see as a subtle kind of condescension, self-importance, and messianic proselytizing posing as humility and self-effacement. In a way, the proof for me was in how adoring the pieces written around these interviews invariably were. Almost every last one of them (I am up to part IV, page 439) introduces the conversation with commentary about how gracious, kind, humble, and beguiling a man Cohen is, and how excited and honored the interviewer is to be meeting him. Time after time, the pieces stress his legendary status and how, as an artist, he is just a feather or two away from incarnated divinity.
By his fruit shall ye know him, the fruit here not being the many (and increasingly bloated) songs, but the abject adoration which they have invoked in (alleged) music critics and biographers. Interesting to note, in this regard, that Cohen himself and many of the writers all refer to his songs as “prayers” (even Bob Dylan did). Which begs the question, prayers for what?
The holy man praying for that special sort of humility that inspires worship?
Who is it whom I address, 
who takes down what I confess?
Another thing I noticed was how frequently Cohen used the same terms, phrases, descriptions, sometimes verbatim, making his sage-like persona look increasingly like just that: a mask, a routine, a shtick. This is one thing if you’re Mick Jagger, whom no one is going to mistake for a saint. Another when it’s a man supposed to be beyond all that. So is Cohen’s master-shtick appearing to be a man without a shtick?
If you want a lover 
I’ll do anything you ask me to 
And if you want another kind of love 
I’ll wear a mask for you
There is one interview towards the end of Part III which is a marked exception. It’s with Richard Guilliat for the SundayTimes, dated December 12th 1993. In it Cohen is obviously drunk and talks more like a sexual predator than a holy man. As well as recording, without judgment, Cohen’s drunken crassness, Guilliatt writes this:
Unlike many Canadians, Cohen is a passionate defender of the American ideal, but the solutions he sees to the country’s problems are surprisingly authoritarian—more police on the streets, the censoring of violent television, the application of force. “At certain times of crisis, like in every other society, extraordinary and emergency measures have to be invoked . . . The fact is that the predators—on all levels, whether it’s Wall Street of the streets—are about to take over.”
A moment when the mask slips? In vino, veritas. (Another thing to note: Cohen’s unaddressed alcoholism bleeds through the pages of this book. How holy is that?)
Of course, this is all observation and not evidence. If it were presented as evidence, it would more likely be interpreted as my own prejudice against Cohen, now that I have begun to adopt an alternate version of “the Man.” But from my point of view, it is an essential part of the reassessment process. Evidence causes a shifts in perception, and shifts in perception allow for previously unseen evidence to be recognized.
When I hear Ann Diamond’s experiences of Cohen, or read about Kelley Lynch’s side of the story, and place Cohen’s public persona in the context of those testimonies, what I start to see, or imagine I see, is less the charming raconteur or droll connoisseur of love and life, and more the clever dissembler, manipulator of information, and manager of perception.
So you can stick your little pins in that voodoo doll 
I’m very sorry, baby, doesn’t look like me at all 
I’m standing by the window where the light is strong 
Ah they don’t let a woman kill you 
Not in the Tower of Song
Another thing about those “prayers”: so much of what Cohen says, particularly in the latter part of his career (the post-Prozac years, from 1990 to date) is devoutly religious both in tone and terms, even if it doesn’t pay lip service to any specific religion or deity. Cohen is downright pious, let’s face it, and yet somehow he gets away with it. But how often has religious rhetoric and sentiment been a cover for a legion of sins? Often enough for us to smell a rat when we hear it? Don’t we know the signs by now, or that only the worst of sinners prays so goddamn much? Apparently not.
Give me back my broken night 
my mirrored room, my secret life 
it’s lonely here, 
there’s no one left to torture 
Give me absolute control 
over every living soul 
And lie beside me, baby, 
That’s an order!
In an unrecorded conversation with Ann Diamond, we talked about how the desire to get to the truth of Cohen wasn’t primarily a desire to expose him as a liar and a thief (and possibly much worse). It was out of a need to identify a false representation of reality for what it was, allowing us to take steps towards a truer one.
The saintly sage Cohen whom so many admire, revere, and even worship, is, in my view, a counterfeit of the real thing. Granted, he is a very good counterfeit. The MKUltra team didn’t mess around. Cohen may just be their proudest accomplishment, from that period at least, and in terms of a successfully engineered “lifetime actor” with an extremely high public profile. As such, he is an almost flawless representation of the good (and successful!) poetic soul, the man of high art and sensual lusts who is both a worldly success and a spiritual servant. Holy mount Zion! In the halls of rock n’ roll, he’s practically the Messiah. (Sorry, Bob.)
You don’t know me from the wind 
you never will, you never did 
I’m the little jew 
who wrote the Bible
Yet all the while working for the Man?
Perhaps this is the most important job a socially engineered cultural icon such as Cohen (if such he is) can do for the System? By presenting a counterfeit spiritual and artistic currency, he helps ensure we won’t look for the real thing. And even if we happen to stumble on it, we are unlikely to recognize it because it won’t match the sort of style and grace that we have been conditioned, by straw sages like Cohen, to expect.
He will speak these words of wisdom
Like a sage, a man of vision
Though he knows he’s really nothing
But the brief elaboration of a tube
All I know for sure (as with Strieber, John de Ruiter, my brother) is that Cohen is not what he seems. To find out more about the man behind the seeming means going into the margins where the small shrill voices of possible truth can be heard. It means moving away from the machine-like howling of Hype that is doing its utmost to drown those small voices out, and when it can’t drown them out, to pathologize, criminalize, and institutionalize them, as appears to be the case with Kelley Lynch.
One good thing about that: in the process, both the Bitch Goddess of Culture and her cold-cutting servants start to show their true colors.
The war was lost
The treaty signed
I was not caught
I crossed the line
I was not caught
Though many tried
I live among you
Well disguised
I had to leave
My life behind
I dug some graves
You’ll never find
The story’s told
With facts and lies
I had a name
But never mind 
“Forgive me for asking…” it may have seemed a significant question made banal, but it needed an answer, “what are you trying to achieve in your songs; what is your ambition?”
“To create a vapor and a mist,” Cohen responded, “to make oneself attractive, to master it . . . Really, it’s all an alibi for something nobody’s ever been able to talk about.”
(“The Romantic in a Ragpicker’s Trade,” by Paul Williams)

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Kelley Lynch's Emails to IRS, FBI, DOJ & Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. Federal Tax Matters & The Ongoing Fraud Before LA Superior Court

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Kelley Lynch - Leonard Cohen: Federal Tax Matters, RICO, Etc.
To: Michelle Rice <>, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, 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 <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

I have very serious federal tax matter question for Cohen and his representatives.  The latest documents raise further issues related to alter ego, self dealing, Cohen's misappropriation, etc.  

I have forwarded you Gianelli's latest criminally harassing emails.  The cover your ass operation remains in full force and effect.

What was Kevin Prins thinking?  He met with my accountant; they discussed the corporate records and ownership interests; he confirmed he would review the federal tax returns; and was copied on Kory's January 2005 memorandum with former DA Ira Reiner.  This is not an accounting.  It is financial and accounting fraud.  There was and remains no delta of $5 million.  Cohen authorized the payment of his personal fees and they are not corporate expenses.  

The latest documents, filed before LA Superior Court, raise further false accusations and statements.  I will address them, vis a vis federal tax matters, after I prepare and file my Replies.  I will also prepare a declaration for IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office CONFRONTING the fraud in the latest documents.  Cohen and his representatives have a tactic:  they use INTRINSIC FRAUD to falsely accuse me and then argue that I am not permitted to confront it.  There are endless issues with SERVICE including the fact that I wasn't served the summons and complaint.  These people use tactics.  Cohen is now arguing that he is the alter ego who engaged in self-dealing and had a right to misappropriate corporate assets.  What's next - will they argue that he was entitled to money launder vis sham entitles?


On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Kelley Lynch wrote:

Michelle Rice,

I am reviewing your Opposition document (Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment) in light of IRS and federal tax matters.  I would like to know where the underlying dta is with respect to the fraudulent expense ledger.  Also, why are corporate books, records, stock certificates, irrevocable assignments to Blue Mist, federal tax returns, etc. being willfully disregarded?  Perhaps that works for LA Superior Court but this information was transmitted to IRS and it is evidence of fraud and perjury.

I have no details with respect to Cohen/Westin's alleged decision - made in hindsight and secretly - with respect to my ownership interest in Traditional Holdings, LLC and the "mistake' that was "rectified."  I did not prepare federal or state tax returns, K-1s, etc. and this information was transmitted to IRS.  I did not handle IRS, tax, accounting, corporate, financial and other matters.  I was clear about that in my February 2002 email that was transmitted (with my declaration and evidence) to IRS prior to being submitted to LA Superior Court.  An abundance of evidence was transmitted to IRS in 2005.  You should contact them for those details. I also authorized IRS to review all emails between me, Cohen, and his representatives.

With respect to Kory's memorandum (January 2005) with Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins copied in, how did Cohen arrive at the conclusions on the fraud expense ledger and in the complaint?  I have now submitted substantial evidence to LA Superior Court which does not support the judgment.

Your latest arguments conclude that Cohen (and his wholly owned LCI) is the alter ego who had a right to engage in self-dealing; misappropriate royalties re. assets owned by BMT; and does not have to repay his loans in the amount of approximately $6.7 million.  Robert Korys letter re. these problematic loans betrays that position.  That has been submitted to IRS as well.  

I have an ownership interest in these entities.  The evidence proves that.  Lying about my being a disgruntled lover with alleged substance abuse problems (which is Cohen's problem - not mine) does not change reality.  My ownership interest in these entities has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my fees for commissions as Cohen's PERSONAL MANAGER.  Everyone in the industry knows I was Cohen's personal and NOT BUSINESS manager.

Do you think the litigation privilege gives you the right to simply lie about these matters - replacing evidence with a fabricated narrative and false accusatory statements?  

Where is the 1099 Cohen owes me for 2004.  That was due the first quarter of 2005?  Cohen testified that his lawyer handled the corporate records and accountings.  I most certainly did not.  Where is the IRS required corporate tax and financial information?  A fraudulent summary analysis of checks/deposits is NOT an accounting.  It is most certainly not a corporate accounting.  

You have once again confirmed that I have no interest in LCI but Cohen transmitted illegal K-1s to State of Kentucky and IRS indicating that I am a partner with $0 income although the ledger, for the same periods, confirms that I had income.  How do you reconcile these two positions?  LCI was created for the CAK bond deal.  See Cohen's declaration in that matter.  It's publicly available through the SDNY and the docket proves these documents are not sealed.  You failed to confirm this for the Court.  Why does Cohen refuse to rescind the K-1s that so interested in the City Attorney?  Why did the City Attorney lie to the jurors that i am in possession of IRS required tax information when I am not?  How does a fraud ledger, and false language in a judgment, subvert IRS reporting and filing requirements?  IRS continues to advise me (as has FTB) that Cohen is obligated and required to provide this information to me.  Gianelli's blatant lies in his harassing emails will not create a fraudulent IRS determination that doesn't exist.  I believe the Cover Your Ass Operation is in full force and effect - and that includes his references to the way you look.  It's obscene, crass, sophomoric, and transparent.  Are you getting rich encouraging a criminal (who targets my sons, witnesses, etc.) to provoke and harass me?  

I would like answers to these questions.  These matters relate to federal tax matters and that includes the K-1s that were transmitted to IRS re. LCI, TH, etc.  I was included in the TH federal tax returns.  I paid taxes.  Why?  

It is my personal opinion, and the evidence supports this fact, that Cohen retaliated after I went to IRS re. the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud and had to confront Greenberg's lawsuit and the allegations of a legal conspiracy, extortion, bribery, witness tampering, witness intimidation, organized crime, etc.  

I was not served this lawsuit and it, as well as the fraud ledger and default, should be totally disregarded by IRS.  I am aware that you use the judgment to argue preclusion, res judicata, etc.  The judgment is void and I have not submitted to the jurisdiction of this court and have been clear about that in my documents - including those addressing fraud upon the court, perjury, fraudulent misrepresentations, Cohen's theft from me via default, etc.

Leonard Cohen is the individual with the publicly documented history of drugs and alcohol abuse - not I.  This information was transmitted to the City Attorney, LAPD's TMU, IRS, and others.  I believe that goes to MOTIVE.

Why was phantom income shifted to me but not distributed?  I have not recharacterized Cohen's claims (all fraudulent).  Cohen attempted to recharacterize everything .  That was the point, no?  Realizing I wasn't served, he filed and amended his tax returns; applied for an received fraudulent tax refunds; and then used the judgment (after discovering that Agent Sopko and I met and I was advised to contact Agent Tejeda and provide him with evidence) used this information - all fraud - to defend Cohen with IRS.

As I've advised Tax Court and IRS Chief Trial Counsel's office, I believe this was pre-meditated when Sony issued the inadvertent $1 million and $7 million 1099s and IRS inquired and determined that Cohen received income in 1999.  Traditional Holdings should have received that income.  All income collected by LC, TH, LCI should have been documented and paid through to BMT.  

As for Greenberg.  Cohen authorized the "transaction fees."  He authorized them in writing at the time and signed the document.  Checks attached to the ledger were authorized - by Cohen who signed it.  That would include the two checks in 1998 and 1999.  Cohen should think long and hard about the facts behind that issue because I have the evidence and so does Greenberg.  

Kelley Lynch


Does Kelley Lynch have an “equity interest” in Leonard Cohen i.e., anything he has created?  Is that “equity claim” continuing as to assets or rights sold after termination? 

Which company owns what assets?  

Were any asset transfers valid and enforceable under applicable corporate law?  If so, which one(s)?  

How were assets sold by Traditional Holdings to Sony?  Is Lynch asserting transaction invalid and should be rescinded?  

What are Kelley Lynch compensation rights, if any, under LC Investments and ongoing writer’s royalties?  

How does Lynch right in 15% commission paid at closing reconcile with other rights to ongoing compensation?  

Does payment of commission on closing satisfy 15% commission rights as to all revenues from those assets?  

What is Kelley Lynch due under the Management Agreement?  

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

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).  

Kelley Lynch Asks IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office Why Leonard Cohen Sees Her Son Copied In On Emails Requesting IRS Required Tax Information

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: The Ongoing Criminal Harassment: Attempts To Elicit Information: Obsession With My Son, Etc.
To:, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, 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 <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,
Cc: Michelle Rice <>, STEPHEN GIANELLI <>

Mr. Fabian,

Here is Cohen's email where he sees "Rutger" copied in.  He evidently wasn't interested in my request for IRS required tax information.  That would include, but is not limited to, IRS required 1099 for the year 2004 that Cohen was obligated to provide me by the first quarter of 2005.  The City Attorney's office also saw Rutger and Ray copied in and decided to target them.  That included eliciting testimony whereby Cohen lied that I accused him of ripping Rutger's fingers off.  No such evidence exists but Leonard Cohen will say and do anything, regardless of how evil or unconscionable it is, to further his nefarious and self-serving goals.  This criminal, Gianelli, relentlessly targeted my sons (and it continues) for over six straight years.  My younger son advised him and Cohen's fan that their emails made him physically ill.  Did that put an end to it?  Hell no.  Ray was also clear that Rice was copied on some of these criminally harassing emails.

Part of the problem here is that LA Superior Court condones the use of fraud and perjury to obtain verdicts, orders, judgments, and decisions.  Rice is also clear that she and her client can include arguments related to "intrinsic fraud" because California doesn't follow Hazel Atlas.  I disagree.  The judgment is evidence of THEFT.  Cohen is now attempting to embezzle millions from me.  He ha used the Complaint to file tax returns, obtain illegal tax refunds, and defend himself with Agent Tejeda.  There is no evidence that Agent Tejeda "exonerated" Cohen although Gianelli has publicly proclaimed this many times.  I believe Gianelli actually phone Agent Tejeda.  The man is dangerously unstable.  The City Attorney evidently worked with this criminal to have me falsely arrested on two occasions and one of those occasions involved blatant retaliation - after Gianelli began emailing my prosecutor.  How did he obtain her email address?  There is no disputing the fact that the woman lied throughout my trial.  She lied about federal tax and IRS matters and the jurors wanted to hear from IRS.  

The use of fraud and perjury continues.  Fortunately, federal courts do follow Hazel Atlas and I intend to address that fact in the RICO suit I intend to file following the October 6, 2015 hearings with Hess.  Let me know how you think Hess can support the default based on Cohen's testimony that I never stole from him - just his peace of mind.  One lie follows another.  I would like you to understand that the State of Kentucky (in March of 2005) advised me that IRS should go back and audit Cohen from the moment he obtained a green card in 1970.  That might explain the lengths this man has gone to destroy my life, target my sons, perjure himself under oath, and behave in the most disgusting manner imaginable.  His lawyers are whores.  Feel free to quote me.


From: <>
Date: Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:35 PM
Subject: from LC -Re: Kelley Lynch - 2004 and 2005 Federal and State Tax Returns

i see Rutger is copied in


I, Ray Charles Lindsey, declare as follows:

1.    I am over the age of eighteen.  The following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2.    I am a resident of California.

3.    Since approximately 2009, I have been receiving emails from Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh (Leonard Cohen’s fan), and others.  Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice, was copied in on some of these emails..  Apart from Leonard Cohen, I do not know these people and have never met them.  These individuals were also posting on the internet about my mother.  Most of the emails related to matters involving Leonard Cohen, IRS, and Phil Spector. 
4.    My mother was Leonard Cohen’s personal manager for approximately 17 years.  They had a falling out in the fall of 2004 to my knowledge. My mother is also a friend of Phil Spector. 

5.    On or around May 6, 2013, Ray Lawrence began privately emailing me.  I don’t not know him and have never met him.  He made serious accusations about my mother and was angry with my Aunt Karen.  Karen is my mother’s sister.

6.    While Ray Lawrence was in Minnesota, my mother lived with his roommate, Michael Ingrassia.  My mother moved out of their house on June 4, 2013 and shortly thereafter I began receiving an onslaught of emails from him, Stephen Gianelli, and Susanne Walsh.  My mother was the target of those emails.  Ray Lawrence accused my mother of many things, including stealing Michael Ingrassia’s computer.  My mother then sent out an email from Michael Ingrassia confirming that he had given her the computer. 
The accusations were confusing and disturbing.  Whenever one of these individuals accused my mother of something in their mass emails, she would refute them, asked Gianelli, Walsh, Lawrence, and others, to stop emailing her, asked them to stop contacting her sons, family members, and friends, and/or advised them to cease and desist.

7.    On or around June 18, 2013, I wrote Stephen Gianelli, Susanne Walsh, and Ray Lawrence advising them to stop contacting me and my immediate family because their emails were making me ill.  See Exhibit A.

8.    On June 21, 2013, my brother, Rutger Penick, responded to these emails and addressed the fact that he felt Stephen Gianelli was picking on my mother because she is poor.  He sent a copy of that email to Ray Lawrence and Susanne Walsh.  My mother and I were copied in as well.  See Exhibit B.

9.    At some point, Ray Lawrence’s emails made demands on my mother about property and evidence she left at his house with his permission.. He began threatening to destroy them, sell them, or provide her documents to Leonard Çohen’s lawyer, Michelle Rice.  Gianelli and Walsh also sent emails advising Lawrence to send my mother’s evidence and paperwork to Michelle Rice.  This was upsetting to my mother and she emailed the recipients of the emails the agreement she and Lawrence had entered into permitting her to store her belongings at his house.

9.    The emails from Ray Lawrence were extremely slanderous and accusatory with respect to my mother and were upsetting and confusing.  For the time being, they seem to have stopped.

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

Executed on July 17, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.

Ray Charles Lindsey 


From: Ray Lindsey
Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Subject: I'm getting physically ill
To: Susanne Walsh <>
Cc: Ray Lawrence <>, "STEPHEN R. GIANELLI" <>

Please discontinue contacting anyone in my immediate family. This is causing me to become ill as a result of the consistent bullshit. I just want everything to stop. I know I've added my share to the pool, but this is getting too much for me. I'm getting in over my head and it's hurting my heart to have to see my mother go through as a result of her own actions and the actions of others.

Can't we all just practice compassion for one moment, please.

From: Rutger Penick
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: I'm getting physically ill
Cc: Kelley Lynch <>, Ray Lawrence <>, Susanne Walsh <>

Stephen shut up already. Live the rest of your worthless life without picking on the poor. I am sure that makes you feel superior.


Rutger Penick | MCTS:Windows 7

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office Re. Leonard Cohen, the Ongoing Criminal Harassment, An Obvious Legal Conspiracy, & the Targeting Of Her Sons & Others

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Subject: The Ongoing Criminal Harassment: Attempts To Elicit Information: Obsession With My Son, Etc.
To:, "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, 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 <>, Mike Feuer <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,
Cc: Michelle Rice <>, STEPHEN GIANELLI <>

Mr. Fabian,

I would like to ask you to review the harassing emails I continue to receive from Stephen Gianelli.  I do not know this individual and has has not entered a formal appearance on behalf of Leonard Cohen.  I, for one, am not falling for the moronic cover-your-ass campaign that involves absolutely crass emails between Rice and Gianelli.  I have advised both of these individuals to cease and desist.

As you know, I have three hearings on October 6, 2015 related to Leonard Cohen's illegal default judgment and attempt to extort $14 million from me.  I have submitted substantial evidence to LA Superior Court and the perjury, fraud, and contradictory statements are excessive, outrageous, and inconceivable.  In any event, once these hearings are held, I will move onto federal court.  The wrongful sealing of evidence (including publicly available documents) and the Court's denial of my motion re. fraud upon the court are under appeal.  I intend to file a notice of appeal with respect to the fraudulent domestic violence order.  Restraining orders are simply a tactic Leonard Cohen and his representatives have employed and the Colorado order was issued without findings.

I am well aware of the fact that opposing counsel failed to have the Court sign an Order following the January 2014 hearing.  I have documented that matter for IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others.  Gianelli's attempts to appear "helpful" are merely an attempt to elicit information.  Rice has actively encouraged this criminal to provoke and incite me and targeting my sons appears to have been their preferred method.  

I believe that Michelle Rice has spent the past 10 years targeting me, lying about me, and doing anything it takes for her client.  She evidently is also into cash.  

However, the point I want to bring to your attention is this criminal's obsession with my son, Rutger.  Leonard Cohen sent me an email in 2011 wherein he stated that he saw "Rutger" copied in.  That email was not presented as evidence during my trial although the subject line (that interested my "prosecutor") clearly stated 2004 and 2005 federal tax matters or something to that effect.  That is due to the fact that in September 2004, the FTB advised me to go get the tax information Cohen is obligated and required to provide me.  He steadfastly refuses to provide this information to me and believes he has a legal right to subvert IRS filing and reporting requirements.  Does Rutger think I'm smart?  That line is meant to upset and provoke me.  These people belong in prison.  I am very clear about that fact.  One of Gianelli's roles involves criminally harassing, threatening, insulting, stalking, slandering, and intimidating witnesses.  People have contacted law enforcement, attorneys, submitted declarations, etc.  Noting deters this criminal.  

I have forwarded you the documents Cohen has now filed in response to my Motion to vacate the Renewal of Judgment and Motion to Tax Costs.  The fraud in those documents is extensive.  Some of these issues relate to the matter before Tax Court.  They're all intertwined because this situation with Leonard Cohen is nothing other than a criminal tax fraud matter and attempt to obstruct justice.  That would explain the lengths this unconscionable man has gone to destroy my life, lie throughout every legal proceeding, and target my sons and others.  I would like you to be clear about the fact that I believe Leonard Cohen and his lawyers are capable of just about anything.  

All the best,

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)
To: Kelley Lynch <>

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

From: Kelley Lynch []
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:14 PM
To: Michelle Rice; STEPHEN GIANELLI; *IRS.Commisioner; 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; Mike Feuer; mayor.garcetti; Opla-pd-los-occ; Whistleblower; Attacheottawa;
Subject: Kelley Lynch vs. Leonard Cohen, et al. (RICO)

Michelle Rice and Stephen Gianelli,

I view this ongoing harassment, in great part, as your Cover Your Ass Operation.  I am aware of the legal issues the Criminal Stalker (Gianelli) is harassing me over.  I raised this issue with Hess at the June 2015 hearing.  The transcript is evidence of that fact.

Cease and desist.

Kelley Lynch

From: Stephen Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM
Subject: Pending motion
To: Kelley Lynch <>
Ms. Lynch,

Don't be so obtuse.

Your pending motion to vacate will not turn on "the existence of a legal conspiracy".

You already knew that Judge Hess never SIGNED a written order that he directed in the 1/17/2014 minute order, AND that fact means there was no prior determination off service in this case?

Fine. But I don't think so. 

You already knew that a minute order that directs the preparation of a written order is NOT a final, appealable order? Again, I don't think so. 

This area of the law is complex and some lawyers and judges don't even understand it. I learned these things the hard way, by having an appeal dismissed and working like hell to get it reinstated. 

Try to keep your eye on the ball.

You may not think I am trying to "help" you but I assure you MR feels differently. And she is seething. 

Just read the pinpoint materials I sent you and consider my bullet points and then do what you have to do.  

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:25 AM
One final point re the argument that service has “already been litigated”.

I have already given you the authority for the fact that because no final appealable order was signed there is no res judicata.

In addition, Judge Hess refused to consider your moving declaration at the January 17, 2014 hearing because it was unsigned. Therefore, the motion was denied for reasons OTHER than whether you were served.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:40 AM
California law is settled that pending appeal a trial court judgment is not final and will not be given res judicata effect (Code Civ. Proc.§ 1049). It therefore follows that an unsigned minute order that is not yet appealable because it directs a written order that has not yet been signed will not be given res judicata effect either. (See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13, comment b (the "finality" requirement for purposes of claim preclusion resembles the concept of finality for purposes of appellate review).

Therefore, there is no res judicata as to the January 17, 2014 ruling.

From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Subject: Pending motion to vacate; reply memorandum
Ms. Lynch,

The minute order issued by Judge Hess on January 17, 2014 expressly directs the preparation of a written order. (See attached minute order stating, in relevant part: “Plaintiff is to submit an order”.)

As such it was not an appealable orderIn re Marriage of Lechowick (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1410 [minute order that directs preparation of written order not final, appealable order]; in accord In re Marriage of Dupre (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1517  (rev. denied 7/13/05) (citing Lechowick on this point.)

Plaintiff’s counsel prepared a proposed written order as directed, but instead of submitting the proposed order to Judge Hess’ chambers for signature, and then following up to insure that it had been signed, filed and entered, and then serving you with a notice of entry of same – counsel simply attached the proposed order to a pleading styled “Notice of Lodging Court Order…” and FILED it, where is sat (and sits) through today. (See attached, endorsed filed “Notice of Lodging Court Order…”. Therefore, whoever was “lead counsel” in the matter committed a serious procedural error by not making sure that the order was submitted to Judge Hess for signature and by not following up periodically to insure its entry.
Because you COULD NOT have appealed the January 17 minute order as Judge Hess stated on June 23, 2015, and the minute order – that directs the preparation of a written order – is neither final nor binding. (See attached transcript, page 3 lines 26-28.)

Very truly yours,

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