Saturday, November 19, 2016

Leonard Cohen, Israeli Leaders & IDF, & Mel Brooks' Springtime for Hitler

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:27 PM
To: Dennis <>, bruce <>, "*irs. commissioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, ": Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, MollyHale <>, 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 <>,, alan hootnick <>

Mr. Riordan and Mr. Cutler,

This is Paulette's response to Israeli leaders and IDF paying tribute to Leonard Cohen after he gave the Sieg Heil onstage in Germany.  A truly mind-boggling situation.  


Springtime for Hitler- Mel Brooks

Israeli Leaders Pay Tribute to Leonard Cohen, Who Played for IDF Troops During Yom Kippur War

Israel’s top leaders offered tributes to the legendary Canadian singer Leonard Cohen, who passed away Thursday at the age of 82.
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin shared on Facebook how Cohen’s music affected him and his wife Nechama. “This morning we looked at each other and thought the same thoughts: ‘Dance Me to the End of Love’ was the soundtrack to so many moments in our life as a couple and as a family,” he wrote. “It added, like so many of his songs, a spirit and depth of emotion into our everyday lives.”
“How sad to part from this man whose voice and face accompanied us for so many years,” he added. “A giant of a creator, open to all people, who also knew how to accompany the State of Israel in the fields of battle and in times of growth.”
Rivlin was referring to Cohen’s 1973 visit to Israel, during the Yom Kippur War. As The New Yorker recounted in a recent profile, “Cohen showed up in Israel, hoping to replace someone who had been drafted. ‘I am committed to the survival of the Jewish people,’ he told an interviewer at the time. He ended up performing, often many times a day, for the troops on the front.”
In a 2013 article in Yisrael Hayom, Neta Bar-Yosef recounted Cohen’s tour:
The fact that there were no decent conditions to hold a show in — certainly not the kind Cohen was used to — did not bother him. He went up on stage with a classical guitar and no amplification but a single microphone that a soldier volunteered to hold for him.
While quite a few of the soldiers didn’t know who Cohen was, others identified his songs and his voice, and were very touched that Cohen had come to Israel to be with them during those difficult times. For those who knew Cohen, his show was an extraordinary event. After all, it was not every day that they got to be present at a private, intimate performance just for them. It was a musical escape from hell. During one show, before Cohen sang “So Long, Marianne,” he told the soldiers: This song should be listened to at home, with a drink in one hand and your other arm around a woman you love. I hope you’ll have that soon.
Everyone who met Cohen and spoke with him during his stay in Israel describes him as modest and gentle man who wanted to connect to and feel the audience he sang for. “On some of the bases we went to, I tried to get him preferential treatment, a room to sleep in, decent food instead of army rations. But he wouldn’t allow it,” [singer and friend Oshik] Levi says with a smile. “The three of us slept in sleeping bags in the canteen or anywhere else we could sleep. He never complained about anything, not even once.”
(Future Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is standing to Cohen’s right in the above photo).
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who served in the 1973 war, also recalled Cohen’s performances. “I will never forget how he came during the Yom Kippur War to sing for our soldiers because he felt he was a partner,” Netanyahu tweeted. The prime minister described Cohen as “a talented artist and warm[hearted] Jew who loved the people of Israel and the state of Israel.”
Cohen, who was described by The New York Times as one of the “foremost songwriters of the contemporary era,” frequently wrote songs that touched on his Jewish faith. He is best known for his song “Hallelujah.” The song, which was originally rejected by his record company in 1984 for having insufficient commercial appeal, didn’t gain an audience until recorded by Jeff Buckley a decade later. Since then the song has been recorded by over 200 artists, including Bob Dylan and Justin Timberlake.
Cohen was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2008 and received a Lifetime Achievement award from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, the organization that runs the Grammys, in 2010.
At the end of his final concert in Israel, in 2009, Cohen recited the Jewish priestly blessing:

Friday, November 18, 2016

Kelley Lynch's Letter to LA Superior Court Re. Jury Duty, Grievances, Leonard Cohen, Phil Spector, & Related Matters

Kelley Lynch

Los Angeles Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California  90012

Re:  Jury Duty & Grievances

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in response to a message I received regarding jury duty.  The message begins by informing me that my initial request, dated September 28, 2016, asking to be excused from jury duty was denied and a response was sent.  I never received any such response.  In the alternative, I received a new jury duty notice.  I therefore responded by once again requesting an excuse.  In response to the second request, I received a message informing me that it is a citizens civil obligation to perform jury duty and an excuse for “bias” or “prejudice” cannot be granted.  I have not requested to be excused from jury duty based upon “bias” and/or “prejudice,” as these terms are defined below.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I presently do not believe it is acceptable for Los Angeles Superior Court to ask me to participate in jury duty.  My request is based upon the egregious violations of due process I have personally witnessed and been victimized by.  I would like to go through this very generally on a case by case basis and do wonder if a reasonably intelligent person would find the totality of circumstances to be truly random or a pattern and practice on the part of Los Angeles Superior Court. 

Please feel free to read this factually accurate article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch” for a general summary of events.  There are a few relevant mistakes in this article.  For example, I was not Leonard Cohen’s lover (although the news media has repeated this allegation ad nauseum).  I believe Leonard Cohen and/or his representatives changed the address where I received my mail to Leonard Cohen’s home address.  And, I was not Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s personal assistant.  I was Kusum Lingpa Rinpoche’s personal assistant and remain his lineage holder.

Message Detail
RE: Excuse

Our records show your request being received and processed on 9/28/16. A response was sent to you. Your request was denied and your service was rescheduled to the week of 10/31/16.

On 10/14/16 you requested a 2nd excuse via the automated telephone system. Once again your request is being denied and your service is now rescheduled to the week of 1/02/16. A notice informing you of this will be sent to you.

It is a Citizens civil obligation to perform Jury Service. An excuse for being bias or prejudice can not be granted. During your service week, if and when you are asked to report, you will need to speak with the Judge regarding your circumstances. Only he/she may excuse you from the service.

Thank you.

On 11/17/2016 2:43:02 PM You wrote:

To Whom It May Concern,

I wrote some time ago and requested to be excused from Jury Duty. I have heard nothing back and inexplicably received a new notice. I was clear in my original communication: I refuse to serve Jury Duty. I have witnessed people perjuring themselves on the witness stand, prosecutors lying and concealing evidence, and do not believe this is an actual court system. Since the Court condones the use of fraud and perjury to obtain judgments, orders, and verdicts, it is my position that demanding that people participate in jury service is unconstitutional. This is a formal grievance and I await your response.

Kelley Lynch

I have listed below the Los Angeles Superior Court cases that involve me.  I will now take the opportunity to generally summarize these cases, the due process violations involving each and every one of them, prosecutorial misconduct, use of fraud and perjury with respect to them, and the complete and absolute lack of anything that remotely resembles a remedy.

Los Angeles Superior Court Cases

Custody matter of Ray Charles Lindsey (Case No. SF0 000 150)

On or about May 25, 2005, I kept my younger son, Ray Charles Lindsey, home from school.  This led to a SWAT incident that evidently involved a call to 911.  My older son, John Rutger Penick, has described what he personally witnessed in a declaration submitted to LA Superior Court.  That declaration can be viewed at the following link.

A Los Angeles Superior Court custody matter was coordinated with the insane SWAT/King Drew incident.  It was based on fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured declarations, a fraudulent domestic violence order (which I was not served), and unconscionable governmental conduct.  That would include a man with a history of domestic violence being granted custody of my son.  There is a Child Protection Services file related to at least one incident where the investigator was informed, by numerous parties, that Steven Clark Lindsey was abusive, hit me and my sons, and the investigator informed us that she felt Lindsey was harassing me, would be charged, and possibly sent to anger management.  No evidence was submitted to LA Superior Court in support of the highly salacious, slanderous legal pleadings.  The entire King Drew file is evidence of fraud.  The information contained therein, including all identifying information and medical data does not belong to me.  I was questioned about Phil Spector and a gun incident en route.  Leonard Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, submitted an entirely perjured declaration in support of this coordinated custody matter.  This case resulted in an LA Superior Court default judgment.  My son’s father and lawyer were in contempt of court for approximately five years.  For the entire five years, contrary to a court order, Steve Lindsey did not have my son phone me and Daniel Bergman, who would ultimately end up representing Leonard Cohen, refused to communicate with me.  This is an ongoing situation with respect to most lawyers I have dealt with, including prosecutors at the City Attorney’s office, in almost every matter before LA Superior Court.  Both of my sons’ lives were destroyed over this situation. 

From approximately May of 2009, both of my sons have been exposed to unconscionable criminal harassment, stalking, and outrageous conduct on the part of Bay Area lawyer, Stephen Gianelli, and others.  This is what this court system has exposed my sons to.  I have a difficult time, if not impossible, believing that any reasonable parent would conclude that I am simply “biased” and/or “prejudiced” against this Court. 

Automobile Accident (Case No.  SC093188)

Case Number:  SC093188
Filing Date:  03/19/2007
Case Type:  Motor Vehicle - PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 01/22/2008

On June 13, 2005, I was rear-ended and nearly killed on Mandeville Canyon Road in Brentwood, California.  I was knocked out cold, suffered head trauma, broke my nose, and my dog slammed into the console and later died.  This led to a very interesting response on the part of LAPD.  It may very well be that LAPD responds in a positive manner to wealthy individuals such as Thomas Bradshaw who pulled out of his driveway and slammed into approximately two driveways later.  That would merely indicate that I was not speeding.  Not all that long ago, I was informed that a default judgment was entered, the insurance company is attempting to extort $80,000 from me, and LA Superior Court transmitted fraud to the DMV resulting in the suspension of my driver’s license.  I intend to address the issues in this case in due course.  I am now spending my entire days dealing with the aftermath of Los Angeles Superior Court’s fraudulent default judgments, orders and decisions obtained by fraud and perjury, and so forth.  This case also would involves fraud with respect to service of process issues.  This one may very well take the cake.  The process server, in or around the fall of 2007, served some documents (I have no idea what) on His Eminence Yongzin Rinpoche.  The proof of service clearly states that Clea Surkhang, Rinpoche’s wife, was served and notes that I was a co-occupant and her cousin.  I was neither.  In any event, the insurance company’s lawyer phoned my son and informed him that Thomas Bradshaw lied to law enforcement about this incident and asked if I would be a witness against their insured.  This case was filed in March 2007.  I have no idea where any documents were served as I will address in my motion to vacate.  I have asked opposing counsel to provide me with all documents, including the proof of service and Thomas Bradshaw’s declaration, which he has refused to do. 

First Restraining Order – Civil Harassment (BS099650)

Case Number:  BS099650
Filing Date:  10/14/2005
Case Type:  Civil Harassment (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Judgment by Court-Petition Granted 11/03/2005

On October 14, 2005, after willfully and knowingly failing to serve me a retaliatory, baseless, sham lawsuit, LA Superior Court Case No. BC338322, Cohen obtained a “civil harassment” order against me.  I have no idea what the basis for this order is.  However, based upon Leonard Cohen’s testimony before LA Superior Court, it seems to involve the SWAT/King Drew incident.  The King Drew file does not relate to me. I was questioned about Phil Spector en route to King Drew.  I didn’t raise the topic.  I have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate this matter.  I was unable to attend the hearing as I didn’t have a car, Leonard Cohen willfully bankrupted me, and I had been seriously injured in an automobile accident.  As of November 3, 2005, as I would ultimately discover, Leonard Cohen and his lawyers contacted Beverly Hills PD.  This is on the same date that this so-called restraining order was granted to Leonard Cohen.  Beverly Hills PD would in turn contact the District Attorney’s office of Los Angeles.  This is another matter I have asked IRS, FBI, and DOJ to investigate.  I am unclear at this time if that incident involves former DA Steve Cooley, former DDA Pat Dixon, or former DDA Alan Jackson, individuals involved in the Phil Spector murder trial.  Rather than serving me the summons and complaint, in Case No. BC338322, Leonard Cohen and his lawyers refused to communicate with me, hung up on me, obtained a fraudulent restraining order, and used the LA Superior Court Complaint to file/amend Cohen’s tax returns, apply for/obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and defend Leonard Cohen with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud. 

In June 2005, six months prior to Cohen obtaining his first fraud restraining order (based upon fraud and perjury), Neal Greenberg , U.S. District Court Colorado Case No. Civil Action No. 05-CV-01233-LTB-MJW, (Cohen’s financial and investment adviser) filed a lawsuit in against Cohen and his lawyer, Robert Kory, which contained the following statements.  This would clearly go to motive.

145. When these tactics to draw Lynch into his extortion scheme proved futile, Cohen and Kory – according to Lynch – turned to far more aggressive means to obtain her cooperation.  Indeed, as heard by other witnesses, Cohen and Kory vowed to "crush her," and planned to use restraining orders and other means to prevent her from serving as a credible witness regarding both Cohen's affairs and in regard to the scheme into which they had tried without success to draw her.

In an order, replete with fraudulent misrepresentations, Judge Lewis Babcock wondered if the “thuggery” had worked against me.  Since the allegations in the complaint are entirely fraudulent, I do question why any Court would be permitted to rely on them.  I intend to address all fraudulent and/or perjured legal pleadings, submitted to the U.S. District Court, in a declaration I am preparing.  That will include the fraudulent default judgment (Case No. BC338322) Cohen obtained and then transmitted to that Court. 

 Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory, Mr. Cohen's personal attorney and a California resident, allegedly conspired to extort the lost sums [including, Lynch assumes, the nearly $6.7 million in loans and/or advances Cohen personally took from Traditional Holdings, LLC] from the plaintiffs by tarnishing the plaintiffs’ reputation, asserting spurious claims, and coercing a settlement from the plaintiffs' insurance carrier. This they intended to accomplish by using Mr. Cohen's fame as a prominent recording artist to publish defamatory statements about the plaintiffs to the press. They tried to compel Ms. Lynch to participate in their project by, among other tactics, having her arrested on false pretenses and initiating proceedings to deprive her of her children. The Amended Complaint does not indicate that this purported thuggery was effective.” 

Leonard Cohen Lawsuit (BC338322)

Case Number:  BC338322
Filing Date:  08/15/2005
Case Type:  Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006

On August 15, 2005, in response to the Natural Wealth lawsuit (Colorado), and with the full understanding that I reported allegations of Cohen’s criminal tax fraud to IRS, Leonard Cohen retaliated against me.  I was never served this lawsuit.  The proof of service related to the summons and complaint is evidence of extrinsic fraud.  This matter led to a fraudulent default judgment which I also was not notified of.  At that time, I was homeless in Los Angeles and, although Cohen’s lawyers understood this and may have emailed me, there was no agreement to serve anything by email, I was not in a position to open attachments, download documents, print them out, and/or review them.  Anyone who believes otherwise is totally out of touch with reality.  The fraudulent misrepresentations and perjured statements, in the legal pleadings submitted to LA Superior Court, were transmitted to Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board.  They were used to file/amend Leonard Cohen’s personal tax returns, apply for and obtain fraudulent tax refunds, and further used to defend Leonard Cohen with an IRS fraud group in Los Angeles with respect to the allegations that he committed criminal tax fraud.  As a journalist recently noted, this case is nothing other than a tax deduction for Leonard Cohen.  There are now fabricated damages totaling $5 million and fraudulent financial interest totaling approximately $9 million.  I am reviewing all legal pleadings in this case with the Internal Revenue Service, Franchise Tax Board, Senate Judiciary Finance Committee, and others. 

This default judgment is evidence of theft, involves the transfer of assets belonging to me and corporations that were suspended at the time, never revived, suspended at the time the judgment was renewed, and is evidence of extortion, embezzlement, money laundering, tax fraud, and implicates egregious federal and tax controversies.  LA Superior Court failed to obtain jurisdiction over me as well as all corporations inserted into the default judgment.

Writ of Possession (BC341120)

Case Number:  BC341120
Filing Date:  10/11/2005
Case Type:  Injunct Relief-not Dom/Harrassmt (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Default Judgment Pursuant to Decl. 05/09/2006

In or around April 2010, after discovering unauthenticated documents (Case No. BC338322) online, I contacted Judge Ken Freeman’s courtroom.  I received a call back from his court reporter.  At that time, Melissa brought this particular case to my attention.  Not only was I not served anything related to this case, I was unaware of the case itself.  This is yet another Los Angeles Superior Court default judgment.  This case, which does not extend to corporations I had a legal interest in, permitted the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to wrongfully seize corporate records, property that belonged to me, and property belonging to Phil Spector, Machat & Machat, and others.  The Court had no jurisdiction over the corporate entities.  Furthermore, Cohen’s attorneys were copied on my emails to the IRS Commissioner’s Staff informing them that I intended to ship this evidence to the IRS in Washington, DC.  This evidently led to the filing of this case.  Neal Greenberg’s attorney attempted to intervene, noted that the evidence related to the case before the U.S. Court in Colorado, and LA Superior Court refused to preserve the evidence.  Cohen and his lawyers refuse to provide me with the proof of service and other documents filed in this case so I have been unable to file a motion to vacate as of this date.

Domestic Violence Order (BQ033717)

Case Number:  BQ033717
Filing Date:  05/25/2011
Case Type:  Civil Petition - TRO/Dom Violence (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending

On or about August 19, 2008, after threatening journalist Ann Diamond over her article “Whatever Happened to Kelley Lynch,” Leonard Cohen made an extraordinary flight into Boulder, Colorado – in the midst of his European tour – to obtain a fraudulent civil harassment order.  There was no legal basis for the temporary restraining order issued at an ex parte hearing I was not a party to.  On or about September 2, 2008, after I informed the Court that I thought Leonard Cohen and his lawyers were “insane,” and expressed grave concerns about the use of fraud and perjury to obtain the temporary order, I agreed that the Court could make the order “permanent.”  At that time, I assumed that – as with LA Superior Court’s “permanent” orders - it was granted for a period of two to three years.  The Colorado order was used to discredit me, entrap me, and to prevent me from requesting or obtaining IRS required tax and corporate information in the form of 1099s, K-1s, corporate accountings and financial documents (including balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and so forth), as well as further preventing me from asking Leonard Cohen (as IRS instructed me to do) to rescind unlawful K-1s his wholly owned, LC Investments, LLC, transmitted to IRS and State Kentucky for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 indicating that I am a partner on this entity who received $0 income for these periods.  This is contradicted by the fraudulent financial ledger, which in no resembles an accounting, used – together with perjured declarations – to obtain the default judgment in Case No. BC338322.  This order was not a domestic violence order.  Leonard Cohen and I were never in a “dating” or “engagement” relationship.  LA Superior Court has merely assigned me a dating relationship although for years Leonard Cohen sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and exposed his penis to me.  This conduct evidently annoyed him.  Please see my declaration which will be submitted to LA Superior Court in connection with my motions to terminate certain “domestic violence” related orders as Leonard Cohen passed away on or around November 7, 2016.  I find it impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent individual would view this conduct as a brief, intimate, statutory required “dating” relationship.  Nevertheless, on or around May 25, 2011, Leonard Cohen fraudulently registered the Colorado order as a domestic violence order.  This order was granted on May 25, 2011 and a fraudulent domestic violence order was provided to Leonard Cohen.  I was not served and/or notified of this order which was also transmitted into numerous state and federal databases and/or information systems. 

In or around April 2014, I finally received confirmation from the Boulder Combined Court that the original order was not a domestic violence order.  I then filed a motion to vacate with Los Angeles Superior Court and was absurdly advised that I should have litigated these issues during my 2012 trial (Case No. 2CA04539-01) without knowledge or awareness of them.  Leonard Cohen did present perjured testimony about the nature of our relationship to the Court during my trial but that was not in response to any type of accusation related to “domestic violence.”  It related to testimony during a March 2012 hearing where Leonard Cohen personally testified that I never stole from him – just his peace of mind – and we were in a purely business relationship.  This testimony undermines the fraudulent default judgment and fraudulently obtained domestic violence order.  I have asked IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Senate Judiciary to investigate this situation and that would include the attendant VAWA funding fraud and transmittal of fraudulent information into state and federal databases. 

Trial & Probation

Case Number:
Defendant Name:
Violation Date:  
February 1, 2011
Filing Date:
January 25, 2012
Central Arraignment Courts

On or around March 1, 2012, I was arrested in Berkeley, California for violating the fraudulent domestic violence order.  At that time, I was unaware that the California domestic violence order existed and had been advised that the Boulder, Colorado permanent order expired.  Therefore, I knowingly and willfully violated nothing.  From approximately January 2010, Boulder Combined Court informed me that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  The reason for this, and they provided me with the information from their database in April 2014 as well, was due to the fact that the employees of this Court reviewed the database information and concluded as follows:  the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008, the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009, and my motion to dismiss was entered on January 12, 2009.  I assumed, as I had left the jurisdiction, that I was not served certain documents.  The Boulder Combined Court advised me, and others, of these facts from approximately January 2010 through April 2014.  In January 2010, I contacted an old friend of mine, a federal court practitioner and injunction expert, for advice about vacating an order that is a wrongful restraint issued without findings.  As it would turn out, the Boulder Combined Court employees should have read the information as follows:  while the temporary order was vacated on September 2, 2008, it expired on February 15, 2009.  Obviously, anyone could understand why this might cause confusion.  The Boulder Combined Court judge informed me that I agreed to entry of the permanent order, after I filed a motion to quash addressing the fraud and perjury, but at no time did I agree to the entry of any order based upon fraud and/or perjury.  This order was issued without findings and the Court had no jurisdiction with respect to subject matter related to domestic violence.  The Boulder Combined Court maintained exclusive modification jurisdiction.  Leonard Cohen would later testify that he was concerned I might attend his concert schedule for nearly a year later.  There was and remains no evidence that I would attend a Leonard Cohen concert and I most certainly would not.  LA Superior Court constantly permits testimony and the submission of legal pleadings without any type of evidence whatsoever to support the fabricated and/or false statements. 

 LAPD’s report confirmed that my alleged emails, which I agreed to review against the originals (since evidence can easily be tampered with and the voice mail messages were in fact altered), were generally requests for tax information.  It is impossible to conclude that LA Superior Court, or prosecutors in Los Angeles, are unaware of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and have taken it upon themselves to interfere with and lie about federal tax matters, federal tax controversies, inform jurors that I am in receipt of federal documents that I am not, and generally argue that Leonard Cohen’s personal conduct annoys him but I should be prosecuted over it.  That would include, but is not limited to, his exposing his penis to me, his testimony that I have stated that he ripped my sons fingers off (which I did not), and so forth.  As the entire trial record is replete with fraud, perjured statements, false statements presented to the jurors, and involves egregious prosecutorial misconduct, I have asked IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others to investigate the trial.  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 who relied on the prosecutor’s false statements that Cohen’s retirement account – actually a corporate account – only had $150,000 in assets.  That is blatantly false and corporate property is not Leonard Cohen’s personal property in any event.  Leonard Cohen personally borrowed approximately $7 million or more from that account.  That is a corporate asset.  My appellate attorney concluded that the trial was an IRS matter that demanded an IRS investigation. I attempted to abandon my appeal in this case, due to prosecutorial misconduct and retaliation (that involved a criminal stalking me repeatedly writing my prosecutor, lying about me, and copying in my sons, family members, friends, government agencies, etc.), but the Appellate Court refused. I refused to further appeal this case because it is replete with false statements, including with respect to federal tax matters and a tax controversy, and have asked IRS to investigate.  The jurors would ultimately advise my lawyers that they wanted to hear from the IRS.  I issued a subpoena to IRS Agent Luis Tejeda, head of a fraud group in Los Angeles, but Judge Robert Vanderet refused to permit him to testify.  Evidently people are not entitled to call witnesses or confront their accusers before LA Superior Court. 

This case also involves retaliation related to probation.  The probation requirements involved fraud related to domestic violence, domestic violence programs, and domestic violence fines and fees.  The prosecutor used a domestic violence counselor as an expert.  This individual, whose organization informed me and others that she does not “diagnose” people without seeing them, was evidently provided five emails that I have been unable to obtain.  Sandra Baca is a domestic violence counselor.  Sandra Baca evidently serves as a professional expert witness for prosecutors in Los Angeles.  Sandra Jo Streeter works in the Family Violence Unit.  There was and remains no domestic violence. 

Sandra Baca

Dr. Sandra Baca was the next witness for the prosecution. Immediately prior to Dr. Baca's taking the stand, appellant did not object that she was not qualified to testify as an expert, or offer any other objections to her testimony.

Dr. Baca testified that she was a clinical director of the About Face Domestic Violence Intervention Project. As the clinical director, her responsibilities included conducting individual and group therapy, supervising and training a staff of 15 people, and writing reports to the court. About Face was formed in 1986 and, among other things, provided services for perpetrators and victims of domestic violence, and their children. Dr. Baca stated that she came in direct contact with approximately 250 victims of domestic violence annually.

As for her educational background, Dr. Baca testified that she had a doctorate in psychology with a focus on family psychology and individual psychology. As regards her domestic violence experience, besides writing her doctoral dissertation on a family that suffered from domestic violence, she was in the process of conducting research that entailed administering a personality test on battered women and comparing their profiles. In addition, Dr. Baca was involved with four organizations related to domestic violence, including the Los Angeles Domestic Violence Council and California Alliance of Domestic Violence, and had trained police detectives on investigating reports of domestic violence. She stated she had testified in court for both the prosecution and defense in over 100 cases.

Dr. Baca discussed the “cycle of violence” associated with battered woman syndrome and the common behavioral characteristics of victims experiencing the syndrome. This cycle consists of three phases: (1) tension phase-common stress; (2) acute battery-emotional and physical abuse; and (3) honeymoon/contrition-relationship is once again fixed and victim decides to remain in the relationship. The cycle then repeats itself over and over, with the abusive period becoming longer and longer, as well as increasing in severity, and the honeymoon period shorter and shorter. After explaining this phenomenon, Dr. Baca testified that in her experience, she has witnessed a battered woman minimize and even recant a version of events in order to help her cope with the abusive relationship. When this happens, she stated it is common for a victim of spousal abuse to protect the abuser by completely denying the incident and being reluctant to testify in court.
On cross-examination, Dr. Baca testified that although she was a licensed marriage and family counselor, she was not a licensed clinical psychologist. She stated that had taken the written exam as the first step to become licensed as a clinical psychologist, but she did not pass.

Appellant's counsel made only a few objections during Dr. Baca's testimony. When asked by the prosecutor whether, based on her training and experience, she had been able to determine certain characteristics of victims as a class with regard to domestic violence, appellant objected on the grounds of foundation. This objection was overruled. The next objection occurred after the prosecutor asked the witness to assume the following facts: “You have a couple for whom there's been a history of domestic violence, and an incident occurs where the perpetrator makes a threat upon that person and then destroys some of his or her property. [¶] Assume the fact that at some point the victim in this case changes her mind, minimizes or recants some, if not all, of the facts. [¶] Assume for a moment that the victim takes every possible step at some point after the incident to make sure that either the charges are dropped or that nothing happened and that it was all that person's fault. [¶] Assume also from this set of facts that these people are not back together.” Appellant's objections of “compound, lengthy, confusing, unintelligible” were overruled. Dr. Baca then was asked if these facts were consistent with someone who was battered and suffered the effects of battering, and consistent with a victim in a cycle of violence. She answered each question in the affirmative.

Dr. Baca was the final prosecution witness in its case-in-chief. The People rested.

With respect to the probation retaliation matter, that involved Stephen Gianelli, prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter evidently feared for her life because I sent an email to the DOJ and FBI informing them that parties in Los Angeles use false threat scams to set up innocent people and included a P.S. referring to Streeter.  This email was sent to DOJ and FBI on Valentine’s Day, was obviously directed to them, and Streeter apparently concluded that she is a terrorist, on CIA’s alleged disposition matrix, and an enemy of the United States.  I asked Detective Viramontes, LAPD’s TMU, if he believes this woman has psychiatric problems and the actual threat here relates to my request that IRS, FBI, and DOJ investigate the entire trial. 

Karina Von Watteville Defamation Case (BC614279)

Case Number:  BC614279
Filing Date:  03/17/2016
Case Type:  Defamation (Slander/Libel) (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending

Karina Von Watteville is a former roommate of Paulette Brandt.  Ms. Brandt is an old friend of mine, dated Phil Spector for years, and worked as Phil Spector’s personal assistant numerous times over a period of thirty years.  The last time was from approximately 1991, after the death of Phillip Spector’s son until approximately 2002.  I worked as an assistant to Mr. Spector from approximately 1988 through sometime immediately following Phillip Jr’s death.  I personally believe it is relevant to note that Paulette Brandt and I have been quite public about our views that Phil Spector is innocent.  In fact, we have given interviews about this fact.  Stephen Gianelli, whose job appears to involve slandering us, descended on that site and immediately began slandering me, Paulette Brandt, and Ann Diamond.

Truth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial)

Truth Sentinel Episode 39 (Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK Ultra)

Karina Von Watteville, according to information I have been privy to and documents submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court, promised to pay Ms. Brandt rent.  This was addressed in a Small Claims case filed with LA Superior Court.  Von Watteville’s refusal to pay the outstanding rental arrears led to Ms. Brandt issuing a rental arrears demand letter to Karina Fimbel Von Watteville.  In response to that letter, Karina Von Watteville phoned Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, Robert Kory, who advised her to sue me.  At issue, according to statements Von Watteville made to the Small Claims mediator in my present, were my alleged emails to certain federal agencies such as IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and ICE.  Since approximately late spring of 2005, I have been documenting everything that unfolded, since reporting the allegations that Leonard Cohen committed criminal tax fraud, for IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, FTB, Senate Judiciary, and others. 

Once Von Watteville received the rental arrears letter, which Paulette Brandt asked me to serve electronically upon her, she began slandering me, informed certain parties that she intended to get me in “trouble” and have me “investigated.”  The gossip and slander continued, was repeated to me by numerous individuals, and I informed her on numerous occasions to cease and desist.  A cease and desist letter is sent in anticipation of litigation and asks someone to stop engaging in the conduct they are presently engaged in.  Karina Von Watteville would end up represented by Bay Area lawyer Stephen Gianelli who has harassed and stalked me, Paulette Brandt, and many Los Angeles residents for over seven straight years.  He has terrorized my sons.  Stephen Gianelli is clearly an unofficial member of Leonard Cohen’s legal team, argues and defends Leonard Cohen, attempts to elicit information, and serves as an agent provocateur, infiltrator, and “fixer.”  He also may very well be affiliated with Spector’s prosecutors.  Ann Diamond, Leonard Cohen’s former lover, has also been stalked, harassed, and slandered by Stephen Gianelli.  Her piece on him summarizes his conduct, personality, and probable relationship with Leonard Cohen perfectly.  Karina Von Watteville is a litigious individual who informed me and others that she has received property from the estate of at least one elderly man, sued the estate of another elderly man, received a slip and fall settlement, and has assisted Thomas Slater in suing his son, Christian Slater, and mother, Mary Jo Slater for $20 million.  She is now evidently the co-producer, star, and cinematographer of a documentary called Slater v. Slater.  Ms. Von Watteville has filed an entirely baseless, sham lawsuit against me, Paulette Brandt, and our former roommate who – together with Gianelli – Von Watteville terrorized over a declaration Linda Carol was preparing.  As of this date, there are already problems with fraudulent misrepresentations, lies transmitted directly to the Court in my presence, and service issues.  I have informed IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others of the fact that I believe her call to Robert Kory, and subsequent representation by Gianelli (which led to her having the Small Claims award to Paulette Brandt overturned), as well as her conduct and this sham lawsuit, should be investigated. 

Phil Spector Case

Case Number:
Defendant Name:
Violation Date:  
February 3, 2003
Filing Date:
September 20, 2004
Central District

During my 2012 trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony about Phil Spector.  This was accomplished when Sandra Jo Streeter asked Leonard Cohen to review an April 18, 2011 email I sent to Dennis Riordan.  In that email, I informed Mr. Riordan and for approximately 20 years, Leonard Cohen advised me that Phil Spector never held a gun on him and his stories were merely good rock ‘n roll stories.  After reviewing the email to Dennis Riordan, Leonard Cohen testified that he was a recipient.  On cross-examination, Leonard Cohen confirmed that he was not a recipient.  Nevertheless, this led to testimony about Phil Spector and a gun.  There are now three versions of Leonard Cohen’s gun story about Phil Spector before LA Superior Court.  One involves his testimony during my trial (an automatic held to his head), another involves an email Cohen wrote my so-called prosecutor at the start of the trial (a weapon held to the neck), and a third involves a version used in the Spector case.  That third version appears in motions submitted to the Court in the Spector case including a motion in limine that addressed prior bad acts.  In that particular version, a semi-automatic weapon was held to Cohen’s chest.  These three versions now involve a semi-automatic weapon or an automatic weapon, and a gun being held to Cohen’s head, neck, or chest.  Other versions involve a cross-bow, bottle of wine, and inane statements that Phil Spector informed Leonard Cohen that he loved him.  Phil Spector does not love Leonard Cohen.  I was on trial because Mick Brown, UK Telegraph, informed me that Leonard Cohen’s statements and/or testimony was presented to the Phil Spector Grand Jury.  That Grand Jury transcript was unsealed by Judge Larry Fidler.  Therefore, the portion of that transcript that relates to Leonard Cohen’s gun incident should have been provided to my public defenders as Brady material.  I personally have no idea which version the government believes. The Grand Jury Legal Adviser was unaware of what witness presented this testimony (or statements) to the Grand Jury and advised me to contact Phil Spector’s appellate attorney.  She also advised me to contact the DA and/or Judge Larry Fidler. I contacted Phil Spector’s attorneys and have brought this to the attention of IRS, FBI, DOJ, and others.  Former DA Steve Cooley publicly aligned himself with Leonard Cohen, elected not to prosecute him for fraud and other unlawful activity I brought to the DA’s attention when I filed my Complaint with the Major Fraud Unit, joined Cohen in targeting me, and there may very well have been a quid pro quo that led to Cohen’s testimony about Phil Spector and a gun during my trial and during the DA’s re-election campaign which followed David Mamet’s public statements that he felt Phil Spector had been railroaded.  There are other issues with the Spector case, and witnesses who may have perjured themselves, that Paulette Brandt and I have privately addressed directly with Phil Spector’s attorneys, IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and others. 

This letter is a grievance to the government with respect to the above referenced cases.  It does not involve my personal bias or prejudice.  It involves a pattern and practice on the part of LA Superior Court that relates to the use of fraud, perjury, and misconduct to procure verdicts, judgments, orders and decisions.  I am therefore asking this Court to advise me how it intends to address and/or investigate these matters.  I am also asking that I be excused from jury duty because I have been continuously and routinely victimized by LA Superior Court.  Therefore, I do not believe it is acceptable – morally, ethically, or otherwise – to ask me to serve as a juror after what I have witnessed.  That includes, but is not limited to, a complete and utter lack of anything that remotely resembles due process or a remedy.  I am asking you to provide me with specific details as to any remedies, or redress this Court provides, in connection with my formal grievances and complaints. 

Clearly, this is a simple summary of events.  It does not constitute an actual legal and/or factual summary of these cases.  I reserve all my rights and remedies with respect to the matters I have addressed herein. 

I look forward to your response.

Very truly yours,

Kelley Lynch

cc:  IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, ICE, Senate Judiciary, FTB, Dennis Riordan, Esquire, and Bruce Cutler, Esquire



Inclination; bent; prepossession: a preconceived opinion; a predisposition to decide a cause or an issue in a certain way, which does not leave the mind perfectly open to conviction. Maddox v. State, 32 Ga. 5S7, 79 Am. Dec. 307; Pierson v. State, 18 Tex. App. 55S; Hinkle v. State, 94 Ga. 595, 21 S. E. 601. This term is not synonymous with “prejudice.” By the use of this word in a statute declaring disqualification of jurors, the legislature intended to describe another and somewhat different ground of disqualification. A man cannot be prejudiced against another without being biased against him ; but he may be biased without being prejudiced. Bias is “a particular influential power, which sways the judgment; the inclination of the mind towards a particular object.” It is not to be supposed that the legislature expected to secure in the juror a state of mind absolutely free from all inclination to one side or the other. The statute means that, although a juror has not formed a judgment for or against the prisoner, before the evidence is heard on the trial, yet, if he is under such an influence as so sways his mind to the one side or the other as to prevent his deciding the cause according to the evidence, he is incompetent. Willis v. State, 12 Ga. 444. Actual bias consists in the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror which satisfies the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, that the juror cannot try the issues impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging. State v. Chapman, 1 S. D. 414. 47 N. W. 411, 10 L. R. A. 432; People v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 284. 18 N. E. 150, 1 L. R. A. 273; People v. Wells, 100 Cal. 227, 34 Pac. 718.


A forejudgment; bias; preconceived opinion. A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other than a conviction of its justice. Willis v. State, 12 Ga. 449; Hungerford v. Cushing, 2 Wis. 405; SUite v. Anderson, 14 Mont. 541, 37 Pac. 1 ; Ilinkle v. State, 94 Ga. 595, 21 S. E. 595; Keen v. Brown, 40 Fla. 4S7, 35 South. 401. The word "prejudice" seemed to imply nearly the same thing as "opinion," a prejudgment of the case, aud not necessarily an enmiiy or ill will against either party. Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 297, 52 Am. Dec. 711. "Prejudice" also means injury, loss, or damnification. Thus, where an offer or ad- mission is made "without prejudice," or a motion is denied or a bill in equity dismissed "without prejudice," it is meant as a declaration that no rights or privileges of the party concerned are to be considered as thereby waived or lost, except in so far as may be expressly conceded or decided.


Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to withintent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. As distinguishedfrom negligence, it is always positive, intentional. Maher v. Hibernia Ins. Co.,67 N. Y. 292; Alexander v. Church, 53 Conn. 501, 4 Atl. 103; Studer v. Bleistein. 115 N.Y. 31G, 22 X. E. 243, 7 L. R. A. 702; Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. S. 122, 9 Sup. Ct. 447,32 L. Ed. 878; Fechheimer v. Baum (C. C.) 37 Fed. 167; U. S. v. Beach (D. C.) 71 Fed.160; Gardner v. Ileartt, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 232; Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, 108 Ga. 449, 34 S. E. 176.Fraud, as applied to contracts, is the cause of an error bearing on a material part ofthe contract, created or continued by artifice, with design to obtain some unjustadvantage to the one party, or to cause an inconvenience or loss to the other. CivilCode La. art. 1S47.Fraud, In the sense of a court of equity, properly Includes all acts, omissions, andconcealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidencejustly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientiousadvantage is taken of another. 1 Story, Eq. Jur.


In criminal law. The willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence, either upon oath or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, whether such evidence is given in open court, or in an affidavit, or otherwise, such assertion being known to such witness to be false, and being intended by him to mislead the court, jury, or person holding the proceeding. 2 Whart. Crim. Law.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

the term that is applied to the misconduct of a prosecutor who needs to use legitimate ways to obtain a conviction.

Due Process

This means in accordance with the fundamental principles of justice and is in conformity with the usual judicial proceedings.


The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or ad- mitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.

Service of Process

the term for the delivery of a summons, writ or subpoena to the opposing party in a law suit.


A legal notification or warning that is delivered in a written format or through a formal announcement. An individual or party is considered liable if the party (1) has knowledge of the the notice, (2) received the notice, (3) knows it through experience, (4) has knowledge with regards to an associate fact and (5) could have gained knowledge had an enquiry been undertaken.


In Law, this is (1) a complaint due to injury, injustice, or wrong. (2) The injustice itself.


Remedy is the means by which the violation of a right is prevented, redressed, or compensated. Remedies are of four kinds: (1) By act of the party injured, the principal of which are defense, recaption, distress, entry, abatement, aud seizure; (2) by operation of law, as in the case of retainer and remitter; (3) by agreement between the parties, e. g., by accord and satisfaction and arbitration; and (4) by judicial remedy, e. g., action or suit. Sweet. See Kuapp v. McCaffrey, 177 U. S. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. 824, 44 L. Ed. 921; Missionary Soc. v. Ely, 56 Ohio St. 405, 47 N. E. 537; U. S. v. Lyman, 20 Fed. Cas. 1,024 ; Frost v. Witter, 132 Cal. 421, 64 Pac. 705, 84 Am. St. Rep. 53. Also a certain allowance to the master of the mint, for deviation from the standard weight and fiueuess of coins. Enc. Lond.


a term that means to examine and to look at carefully, discover the factor make a legal inquiry.