Saturday, September 2, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Email to Internal Revenue Service re. the Criminal Operative & the Public Attack on Truth Sentinel

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 12:29 PM
Subject: The Criminal Operative
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, MollyHale <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, alan hootnick <>, 


I have posted Gianelli's latest threads, public attack on me at Truth Sentinel, obsession with witnesses, lies about many matters, arguments re. Cohen's default judgment, appeals, opposition to request for judicial notice, the issue with Kory and the Cohen Family Trust vis a vis the appeals, threats of jail related to compliance with federal tax laws, retaliation on the part of the City Attorney, outrageous government conduct, and so forth.  Gianelli clearly represents the legal interests of Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, and others.  I believe the IRS should carefully review these comments.  Agent Luis Tejeda and Agent Kelly Sopko are of interest to my criminal stalker.  The only reason this man is ever mentioned is due to the fact that he has relentlessly harassed, stalked, threatened, intimidated, slandered, and targeted me, my family, friends, and others for over eight straight years.  I remain convinced that Stephen Gianelli is somehow behind the fabricated evidence the City Attorney continues to introduce into evidence.  LAPD's TMU is evidently incapable of investigating this situation and has in fact exposed me and many other LA residents to endless criminal harassment.  Their 2011 report is replete with statements about federal tax matters, federal tax forms, federal tax returns, compliance with federal tax laws, and so forth.  I cannot imagine what authority LAPD has with respect to federal tax issues.  The City Attorney continues to lie, retaliate, and all charges against me are fraudulent.  Kory & Rice evidently do not want to be referred to as co-conspirators.  I personally believe that is an accurate description of them.  I have addressed that fact with LA Superior Court.  These people are not victims, they lie for a living, and all legal documents submitted to every court that involves me and Leonard Cohen is replete with lies, fraudulent misrepresentations, perjured statements, fabricated evidence, a fictitious course of conduct, and so forth.  The court system approves this type of conduct.  I have attempted to address [this] with the court ad nauseum.  I believe the posts on this site are self-explanatory.  


Truth Sentinel:

Friday, September 1, 2017

Kelley Lynch's Email to IRS, FBI & DOJ Re. Her Opposition to "Leonard Cohen's" Request for Judicial Notice>
Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:14 AM
Subject: KL Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice - Fraud DV Appeal
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, MollyHale <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,,

IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Here is the final version which will be filed with the Court of Appeals today.

I've reviewed the Minute Order from the August 1, 2017 hearing on my Outrageous Government Conduct motion.  Prior to that hearing, State Bar Complaints regarding all lawyers involved in this situation will be filed.  

Robert Kory has no standing whatsoever to pursue this appeal.  

I've attached a word doc.  

For the record, Stephen Gianelli continues with his public attack on Truth Sentinel and endless attempts to elicit information about IRS, who I have communicated with at IRS, etc.  I've sent all updated posts to IRS, FBI, and DOJ so as to memorialize them.  





Plaintiff and Respondent



Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from the Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number:  BQ033717
Honorable B. Silverman, Judge Presiding



Kelley Lynch
In Propria Persona
1754 N. Van Ness Avenue
Hollywood, California  90028


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………………………    3

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ………………………………………………….    6


DECLARATION OF KELLEY LYNCH ………………………………………………..  18

OF BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ……………………………………………………   43

PROOF OF SERVICE …………………………………………………………………...   44


            Appellant Kelley Lynch hereby opposes the Request of Respondent Robert Kory, Trustee for the Cohen Family Trust, that this Court take judicial notice of nine exhibits and the purported facts contained therein.  The request should be denied for the reasons set forth in this Opposition.  That would include, but is not limited to, the fact that the exhibits at issue bear no relevance to the Court’s review of the Trial Court’s decision, far exceed the bounds of the record, were not adjudicated and/or subjected to confrontation and cross-examination, are wholly in dispute, contain extensive inadmissible hearsay, are unduly prejudicial, and serve as nothing other than character assassination.  The central issue before this Court in this appeal has to do specifically with the Trial Court’s determination that the California domestic violence order is valid, legal, and constitutional. 
            This Court should not take judicial notice of exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.  In addition, should this Court find that judicial notice is inappropriate, Appellant respectfully asks this Court to strike the relevant portions of Respondent’s Reply Brief or, in the alternative, strike Respondent’s Reply Brief in its entirety and order that it be re-filed in compliance with California Rule of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).
On August 26, 2017, Respondent Robert Kory, Trustee for the Cohen Family Trust, filed a Reply Brief that relied extensively upon highly prejudicial, irrelevant and immaterial documents, introducing substantial hearsay and unsubstantiated purported facts into this appeal.  To support his argument and expansion of the ever-developing narrative, Respondent filed a Request for Judicial Notice informing this Court as follows:  “The documents included in this request for judicial notice are court records relevant to establish that KL has repeatedly violated the Permanent Protection Order, and that both the California and Colorado courts have already rejected the contentions the KL makes on appeal.”  Appellant is not on trial before this Court with respect to alleged violations f restraining orders in California and Colorado.  Any such violation should be heard by a panel of 12 jurors in the appropriate venue.  Furthermore, contrary to Respondent’s contentions, the Colorado Court has not addressed the legality and/or constitutionality of the California domestic violence order and/or alleged registration of that Court’s order with Los Angeles Superior Court.  This appeal was filed in response to the Trial Court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to vacate the California domestic violence order and challenged the Trial Court’s denial of same.
Appellant is therefore filing this Opposition to Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice and asks this Court to deny the request and strike the relevant portions of the Respondent’s Reply Brief supported by the exhibits at issue and/or order that it be re-filed with those portions removed.  With the exception of two exhibits, Exhibit 1[Certified copy of Colorado Permanent Civil Protection Order issued September 2, 2008] and Exhibit 11 [Certified copy of Register of Actions for case number 2008 C 000776, printed August 3, 2017], which Appellant has no objection to this Court taking judicial notice of, Respondent has failed to justify the request for judicial notice of the outside evidence, all in dispute and entirely non-confronted hearsay in nature for the most part, it extensively relies upon in its opening brief.
            Many attorneys apparently believe that every scrap of paper that is generated … constitutes the proper subject of judicial notice.   Kaufman & Broad CommunitiesInc. vPerformance Plastering, Inc.133 Cal.App.4th 26, 31 (2005).  Treating evidence admitted by judicial notice as conclusive raises important concerns because, while judicial notice promotes efficiency and reduces litigation costs, it can severely undermine a party’s ability to fairly contest a dispute.  Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.  Accordingly, though the Evidence Code permits courts to judicially notice the decisions and records of the courts of any state, judicial notice does not extend to the truth of hearsay statements contained in such documents.  Hearsay statements, including those in affidavits and declarations, are reasonably subject to dispute and as a result, not judicially noticeable.  Lockley, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 882.  The content of the exhibits at issue herein [Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10] are subject to interpretation, wholly in dispute, rely on extensive hearsay and fabrications, have not been litigated, were not subjected to confrontation and/or cross-examination, are irrelevant and immaterial to the appeal itself, and therefore are not properly subject to judicial notice.  The “underlying theory of judicial notice is that the matter being judicially noticed is a law or fact not reasonably subject to dispute.”  Lockley, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 882. 
The general rule that appellate review is limited by the record made in the court below and, with few exceptions, documents and other factual material that were not submitted to the court of original instance will not be considered on appeal.  It is only proper for a court to take judicial notice of the fact of the existence of a matter of public record, rather than the truth of the facts recited therein.  Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001).  Appellate review of facts developed outside the record undermines the most basic function of a trial by usurping the reliability of the fact finding process. Factual reliability and accuracy depend on procedures unique to the trial process. The trial is the central event because it uniquely requires fact finding from a 12 member jury, a unanimous verdict, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, application of the rules of evidence, and instructions on how to weigh and consider evidence.  See generally People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 448 citing Freytag v. Commissioner (1991) 501 U.S. 868, 895 (conc. Opn. of Scalia, J.) quoting Waingwright v. Sykes (1977) 433 U.S. 72, 90.) As such, both the Federal and California constitutions require trial procedures which ensure “reliability of the fact finding process.  People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 445 citing Ford v. Wainwright (1986) 477 U.S. 399, 411; People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 520; People v. Ramos (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268 [the California Constitution, Article 1, section 7 and 15, guarantee a “fundamentally fair decision-making process”]. As articulated in People v. Riser (1956) 47 Cal.2d 566, 586, the State has no interest in convicting an accused based on the “testimony of witnesses who have not been rigorously cross — examined and thoroughly impeached as the evidence permits.”  Colorado courts have their own set of appellate decisions with respect to judicial notice that would apply to all Colorado court documents submitted with the Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice. 
Here, Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were never subjected to the fact-finding mechanisms of a trial which are in place to ensure maximum fairness and reliability.  These exhibits are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues before this Court and that includes, but is not limited to, motions, pleadings, letters, affidavits and/or other documentation.  Respondent cannot now circumvent these fundamental constitutional safeguards in an attempt to try multi-jurisdictional issues at the appellate level free from the adversarial process. Respondent is not simply asking this Court to take judicial notice of one indisputable fact. Rather, Respondent has submitted, for the first time on appeal, a complex web of so-called facts – all contested and disputed by Appellant - consisting of approximately 122 pages of materials on issues of great controversy, and based upon egregious fraud upon numerous courts.  Moreover, this admissibility problem is compounded by the fact that none of the evidence at issue has ever been introduced at an actual trial and, thus, was never subject to confrontation and/or cross-examination.
The protected party, Leonard Cohen, passed away on November 7, 2016 and Kory & Rice, LLP were not parties to the original Colorado order.  The Boulder Combined Court order (Case No. C007 2009M-002691) – which Appellant maintains is an unconstitutional order - included a stay away provision specifically with respect to the former California premises of the former Law Office of Robert B. Kory, LLP.  The order does not extend to Kory & Rice, LLP and/or their current place of business.  On the other hand, the California domestic violence order (Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. BQ033717; 2CA04539; and 6CJ03685) contains no terms, conditions, additional stay away provisions with respect to any premise, and/or an expiration date. 
This situation has placed Appellant in the prejudicial position of having to rebut an extraordinary amount of evidence and/or information not before the Trial Court and which extends to matters in two jurisdictions.  Consequently, the exhibits being submitted for the first time on appeal compromise Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to due process, confront and cross-examine witnesses,  raise other serious constitutional issues, are irrelevant and in dispute, and contain considerable inadmissible hearsay.  Therefore, with the exception of Exhibits 1 and 11, this Court should decline to take judicial notice of those facts relied upon by Respondent that are outside the record on appeal.
The Appropriate Application of Judicial Notice
            Judicial notice is a doctrine of evidence which, when properly used, could help establish important facts beyond dispute.  The application of judicial notice can also be the subject of abuse and misuse.  In the instance case, there is not one fact that is not in dispute. 
A Brief History
            Judicial notice, one of the oldest doctrines in common law history, is based upon the ancient adage manifesta non indigent probatione, or “what is known need not be proved.”  Eventually, this loosely interpreted reference to issues of common knowledge to judges was enshrined in Federal Rule 201 and its state counterparts.  Judicial notice has developed into a tool to circumvent long and efficient procedural hurdles in all stages of litigation.  It is not meant to replace rules of evidence or trial procedures but to save time, work, and money.  As John Henry Witmore explained:
The object of this rule is to save time, labor, and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters which are not ordinary capable of dispute and are actually not bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which safely be assumed from the tribunal’s general knowledge or from slight research on its part … It thus becomes a useful expendient for speeding trials and curing informalities.  John Henry Wigmore, The Pocket Code of the Rules of Evidence in Trials at Law Section 2120 (1910).

            Wigmore identified three general classes of matters that were authorized to be judicially noticed:
a.       Matters which are necessary for exercising the judicial functions and are therefore likely to be already known to the judge by virtue of his office;

b.      Matters which are actually so notorious in the community that evidence would be unnecessary;

c.       Matters which are not either necessary for the judge to know nor actually notorious, but are capable of such positive and exact proof, if demanded, that no party would be like to impose upon the tribunal of a false statement in the presence of an intelligent adversary.  Id. at § 2130.

This meant a fact could be judicially noticed where it was:  (a) already known; (b) obvious; or (c) so easy to prove that no intelligent person would contradict it.  The United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Piper91 U.S. 37 (1875) is a good example of the early application of judicial notice to a case.  Relying on judicial notice, the U.S. Supreme Court held that evidence of what is old and in general use at the time of an alleged invention is admissible.  In the instant case, for example, it is generally a well accepted fact that sexual abuse, sexual assault, and indecent exposure are not “dating.”  It is also a generally accepted fact that the government does not merely assign its citizens relationships. 
Judicial Notice Should be Denied Because Respondent Has Provided No Information For the Court to Evaluate the Propriety of Judicial Notice

            Judicial notice should be denied because Respondent has provided no information to support its Request.  Section 453(b) of the California Evidence Code states that a court shall take judicial notice only when the requesting party “furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.”  (Cal. Evid. Code Section 453(b).)  A court may deny a request for judicial notice made without support.  Willis v. State of California (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 287, 291 [denying a request for judicial notice where request was made “without appending any information whatsoever”].
            Here Respondent’s Request includes no supporting information beyond a clumsy, cursory reference to alleged restraining order violations which have not been litigated and further cursory references to Evidence Code Sections 452 and 459.  Respondent provides no indication as to the nature and scope of judicial notice being requested.  As in Willis, Respondent’s request is so deficient in supporting information that it must be denied.  See Willis, supra 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 291.
Judicial Notice Should be Denied Because Proffered Documents Are Disputed & Constitute Inadmissible Hearsay

            Judicial notice should be denied because the proffered documents are disputed and constitute inadmissible hearsay.  “A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if the matter is reasonably beyond dispute.”  Freemont Indemnity Co. v. Freemont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.  Likewise, a “court cannot take judicial notice of hearsay allegations as being true, just because they are part of a court record or file.”  Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865; Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds (1994) Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [“While courts may notice official acts and public records, we do not take judicial notice of all matters stated therein.”]
            Here, because Respondent does not specify its purpose for the request, apart from self-serving statements that Appellant allegedly violated the California and/or Colorado restraining orders [an issue that remains in dispute including with respect to both the California and Colorado case], Appellant must assume that Respondent intends to use the exhibits as character assassination, to prejudice her with this Court, and to ask the Court to summarily determine, without adversarial proceedings, that she was in fact guilty of such violations.
            “Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable.”  Freemont Indemnity, supra 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 113.  Respondent has not even bothered to attempt to insinuate how these exhibits support his legal assertions.

 Judicial Notice of Truth of Facts in Court Records
“Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.” (2 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, Judicial Notice, § 47.1, at pp. 1064-1065.) The court may in its discretion take judicial notice of any court record in the United States. (Evid. Code, § 451.) This includes any orders, findings of facts and conclusions of law, and judgments within court records. (See, e.g., Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 457 [282 Cal. Rptr. 389]; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d. 904 [123 Cal. Rptr. 918].) However, while courts are free to take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, they may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files. (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 120, 130, fn. 7 [39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 658].) Courts may not take judicial notice of allegations in affidavits, declarations and probation reports in court records because such matters are reasonably subject to dispute and therefore require formal proof. (See, e.g., Magnolia Square Homeowners Assn. v. Safeco Ins. Co. (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 1049, 1056-1057 [271 Cal. Rptr. 1].)
The underlying theory of judicial notice is that the matter being judicially noticed is a law or fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute . (Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (f); Post v. Prati (1979) 90 Cal. App. 3d 626, 633 [153 Cal. Rptr. 511].) "By making an order establishing the law of the case, it seems that the facts are no longer in dispute and can therefore be considered true as set forth in an order, findings of fact, or conclusions of law." (2 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, Judicial Notice, § 47.12, at p. 1068.) Such facts would not be the proper subject of judicial notice. (Ibid.)
The appropriate setting for resolving facts reasonably subject to dispute is the adversary hearing. It is therefore improper for courts to take judicial notice of any facts that are not the product of an adversary hearing which involved the question of their existence or nonexistence. (2 Jefferson, Cal. Evidence Benchbook, supra, Judicial Notice, § 47.13, at p. 1069.) "A litigant should not be bound by the court's inclusion in a court order of an assertion of fact that the litigant has not had the opportunity to contest or dispute." (Ibid.)  See Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort.
In addition to Gilmore, there are a number of other California decisions which have categorically refused to take judicial notice of the truth asserted in court records. (See, e.g., Magnolia Square Homeowners Assn. v. Safeco Ins. Co., supra221 Cal. App. 3d 1049, 1056-1057 [truth of hearsay statements not proper subject of judicial notice simply because they are part of a court record]; Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal. App. 3d 17, 21-22 [221 Cal. Rptr. 349] [contents of deposition transcript not proper subject of judicial notice]; Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 904, 914 [123 Cal. Rptr. 918] [truth of allegations made in pleadings and affidavits may not be judicially noticed]; Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 873, 879 [138 Cal. Rptr. 426] [improper to take judicial notice of "facts" set forth in an arrest report contained in a municipal court file]; People v. Surety Ins. Co. (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 556, 564 [186 Cal. Rptr. 385] [judicial notice of truth of comments made at hearing by an attorney and a judge deemed improper]; People v. Rubio (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 757, 765-768 [139 Cal. Rptr. 750] disapproved on other grounds in People v. Freeman (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 434, 438-439 [149 Cal. Rptr. 396, 584 P.2d 533] [judicial notice taken of truth of minute order improper].)  See Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort.
Courts Do Not Take Judicial Notice of the Truth of Matters Stated in Public Records        
Lynch objects to this Court taking judicial notice of any fact in the documents at issue in this Opposition.  “Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.  While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein.  When judicial notice is taken of a document, . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.”  Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 (Herrera); see also In re Christian P. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1266, 1275, fn. 4 [judicial “notice [of court record] is limited to the existence of the documents and is not the same as taking notice of the truth of any matters or facts stated therein”].)
As stated in 2 Jefferson, California Evidence Benchbook (1982) Judicial Notice, section 47.2, at page 1757: "What is meant by taking judicial notice of court records? There exists a mistaken notice that this means taking judicial notice of the existence of facts asserted in every document of a court file, including pleadings and affidavits. However, a court cannot take judicial notice of hearsay allegations as being true, just because they are a part of a court record or file. A court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.”  See also In re Tanya F. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 436, 440 [168 Cal. Rptr. 713].
It Is Rarely Appropriate for an Appellate Court to Take Judicial Notice of Facts Not Before the Trial Court

Reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice of matters “if, upon examination of the entire record, it appears that the matter has not been presented to and considered by the trial court in the first instance.”  People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 493; see also Brosterhous v. State Bar of California (1995) 12 Cal.4th 315, 325-326 [refusing to notice materials not presented to the trial court].
 “It is rarely appropriate for an appellate court to take judicial notice of facts that were not before the district court.” Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386, 392 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000); Goelz, Watts & Batalden, Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Fed. Ninth Cir. Civ. App. Prac. § 4:221 at 4-33 (The Rutter Group 2014).  “Consideration of the documents . . . is best left to the district court, not to the court of appeals for initial analysis.” Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu, 455 F.3d 910, 918 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006).
Respondent’s Submissions to this Court Are Tantamount to Ongoing Personal Attacks on Appellant

            “It is vital to the integrity of our adversary legal process that attorneys strive to maintain the highest standards of ethics, civility, and professionalism in the practice of law.”  People v. Chong (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 232, 243.  “Indeed, unwarranted personal attacks on the character or motives of the opposing party, counsel or witnesses are inappropriate and may constitute misconduct.”  In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 412, citing Chong and Stone v. Foster (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 334, 355.)
Due Process
            Appellant contends that the taking of judicial notice would be a violation of due process, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, right to an adversarial proceeding, and other federal and state constitutional rights.  She is therefore raising the issue so that is not the subject of waiver or forfeiture at a later date.  Duncan v. Henry (1995) 513 U.S. 364, 365-66.  In Duncan v. Henrysupra, 513 U.S. 364 the Supreme Court summarily reversed a Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief.  The due process challenge to “other offenses” evidence was not exhausted where the argument in the California courts was framed only as a violation of Evidence Code section 352 and a “miscarriage of justice” under the California Constitution.  The erroneous admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence through judicial notice violates Appellant’s federal due process rights by making these proceedings fundamentally unfair.  Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 70; McKinney v. Rees (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1378.  With respect to documents submitted to this court, not subject of adversarial proceedings, “the Constitution does not trust judges to make determinations of criminal guilt.”  Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 32 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting).  Admitting the evidence would not be harmless error.

            Judicial Notice of Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be denied.  Respondent has failed to provide any information to support its Request as required by Section 453 of the Evidence Code.  Additionally, Respondent’s use of the material in its Request would be improper because the subject matter constitutes inadmissible hearsay and is disputed by the parties.  Basic considerations of fairness and orderly judicial functioning require that the request be denied.  Appellant further asks this Court to strike the relevant portions of the Respondent’s Reply Brief or order that it be re-filed with those portions removed. 

Dated:  1 September 2017                               Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        Kelley Lynch, in Propria Personal

Sunday, August 27, 2017

Kelley's Email to Internal Revenue Service, Gianelli's Attempt to Infiltrate A Tax Court Case, & Leonard Cohen's Ever Developing Fabricated Narrative - His Defense to Criminal Tax Fraud & the Tactics

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM
Subject: My Blog
To: "*IRS.Commisioner" <*>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, MollyHale <>, Dennis <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, Stan Garnett <>, "mayor.garcetti" <>, Opla-pd-los-occ <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, alan hootnick <>, bruce <>

Hello IRS,

I see you've been on my blog reviewing information.  I do believe Gianelli's contacts with Mr. Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office, prove that he attempts to infiltrate matters, argues Leonard Cohen's legal positions and defends him, is aligned with Kory & Rice, et al., and routinely attempts to insert the Phil Spector case, including Steve Cooley, into his insane dialogues.  Gianelli wanted Mr. Fabian to have the ever-developing fabricated narrative that is nothing other than Leonard Cohen's defense to criminal tax fraud and the tactics used against me.  That now includes the retaliation on the part of the City Attorney at this time as well as the recently filed Appellate Brief.  Robert Kory has no standing to pursue an appeal re. the fraudulent domestic violence order.  He is the trustee of the Cohen Family Trust.  

In any event, Gianelli is on the Truth Sentinel site lying so he can obtain information about Agent Tejeda, Agent Sopko, IRS, and IRS CID.  I've transmitted all his posts to you as they are posted, broadcast onto my computer screen, and emailed to me.

As Kory has now expressed his concerns, in a declaration submitted to LA Superior Court in the sham retaliatory proceedings, you can rest assured that his comments about his role in probable criminal tax fraud and theft of royalty income are serious issues in his mind.  The rest of the declaration supports the fabricated narrative/defense to criminal tax fraud.  


Kelley Lynch Email to Paulmikell Fabian, IRS Chief Trial Counsel's Office Re. The Criminal Stalker, Leonard Cohen, Tax Fraud, Etc.

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:13 AM
Subject: Fwd: Kelley Lynch email dated Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, the FSB ("russian intelligence") and others
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 <>,

Mr. Fabian,

My criminal harasser, Stephen Gianelli, has sent this email to a number of individuals.  Therefore, I am going to respond to the false accusations.  It is of interest to note that Gianelli has sent me documents he downloaded from Tax Court but would like me to believe that he contacted you for a copy of a document.  This man is an amateur agent provocateur/infiltrator who attempts to elicit information and infiltrate matters.  I have seen this time and time again.  

I don't have a 10 year history of making false reports to IRS, FBI, or DOJ about people who have wronged me.  In July 2004, April 2005, and at other times, I reported to IRS what I was told was criminal tax fraud on the part of Leonard Cohen.  I found this excerpt of Robert Kory's January 14, 2005 memorandum to my lawyers and accountant (with Ira Reiner and Kevin Prins) copied in disturbing.  It confirms that Cohen and his personal tax/corporate lawyer failed to report the income from the Sony sale.  The figure of $8 million is a gross figure.  Cohen personally received, as he confirmed for your office when he filed the Tax Court Petition in 2002, $1 million.  Other monies were reduced by recoupments to Cohen's personal account with Sony or not paid through until delivery requirements were met.  Cohen personally borrowed or caused to be expended approximately $6.7 million which he has concealed from numerous parties.  He signed the Annuity Agreement and was well aware of the fact that his loans/expenditures had to be repaid within 3 years with interest.  There is no delta of $5 million because these weren't corporate fees paid to third parties.  Cohen also has retainer agreements with many of these individuals.  Cohen's entirely fraudulent Complaint before LA Superior Court confirms that they also failed to file state tax returns.  I contacted the State of Kentucky Revenue Cabinet in 2005 prior to contacting IRS.  They felt IRS should go back and audit Cohen from 1970 (when he obtained his green card) until the present.  They also would like everything I've provided IRS including all emails between me, Cohen, and his representatives that I authorized IRS to review and use as they saw fit.

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).  

I didn't embezzle a penny from Leonard Cohen.  I am currently challenging his attempt to renew the judgment and am appealing the Court's the denial of my motion addressing egregious fraud (and perjury) upon the court.  I will pursue this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.  I am also appealing Cohen's attempt to obstruct justice using an LA Superior Court order to seal documents.  That would include my own personal K-1s and documents I purchased on Pacer or which are accessible through the SDNY, attached as evidence to Neal Greenberg's lawsuit, etc.

I didn't threaten to kill my so-called prosecutor who lied about federal tax matters.  I sent FBI and DOJ a Valentine Card.  Given the fact that the woman is a pathological liar, she saw it as an opportunity to retaliate.  My appellate attorney viewed her conduct with respect to this card as criminal obstruction of justice.  But it's given this Criminal a lot of ammunition which I believe was the point.  Neal Greenberg's lawsuit was very clear that Cohen and Kory's goal was to discredit me as a witness.  And there are witnesses other than myself who heard this information.  Here's the Valentine card sent to FBI and DOJ.  I'm not certain why Streeter believes she works at FBI or DOJ or whether she views herself as part of CIA's alleged database of terrorists and an enemy of the United States.  Perhaps she knows something about herself that we do not.


If I have sent 20K emails to Gianelli, they are all cease and desist emails advising the fraud to stop slandering me, harassing my sons, etc.  He could be a child molester for all I know and that concerned me when he was communicating privately with my then minor son.  

As for my trial and probation.  I am dealing with the fraud domestic violence order that LA Superior Court issued without jurisdiction to do so.  I willfully and knowingly violated nothing as the Boulder Combined Court informed me and Paulette Brandt many times that the permanent order expired on February 15, 2009.  

Stephen Gianelli has criminally harassed, threatened, intimidated, and stalked many people in my life since hearing from Leonard Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.  That includes my sons.  I am attaching a copy of Rutger's signed declaration explaining why he wrote Gianelli after receiving an outrageous email confirming that Gianelli had information from the City Attorney's office about their plans as of June 2013.  It's fascinating that the City Attorney would provide this criminal with information and instruct him to continue harassing me.  I have notified the City and County of Los Angeles that I intend to file federal lawsuits with respect to their actions.  That would include, but is not limited to, falsely advising my jurors that I was in receipt of IRS required tax and corporate information that I am not.  That led the jurors to believe that I was merely harassing Cohen for no legitimate reason whatsoever.  For some reason, legitimate in California relates solely to federal tax information.  I cannot imagine why and I cannot imagine why the City Attorney was arguing federal tax matters or lying about them.

Rutger didn't witness a mental breakdown.  Please review his declaration where he explains what he witnessed.  It also confirms that he was asked to go in and sign over/transfer my house to Cohen/Kory.  Killer King is not a psychiatric facility.  The federal government shut it down.  LAPD was quite clear with Rutger - they were there because my dog was my hostage and they were taking precautions.  There was no stand off.  LAPD never came to my door; never asked me to come out; etc.  Rutger also confirms that.

I am attaching the third party declarations together with the signature pages.  I have submitted the signature pages and limited powers of attorney granting me the authority to conform the signatures on these declarations to LA Superior Court.  I wasn't served Leonard Cohen's lawsuit and he and his lawyers continue to lie about this matter.

[Attached declarations and signature pages, etc.]

I didn't accuse you of misconduct.  I asked the Court to investigate the matter as this Criminal's activity should be addressed.  

If you're interested in knowing why I've copied CIA, NSA, and FSB on my emails, please let me know and I'll provide you with an explanation.  As Gianelli noted - this is all about "credibility" so please review Neal Greenberg's complaint with respect to that issue:  As you will be able to determine, this information was HEARD BY OTHER WITNESSES.  Gianelli lies about that also.

Have a nice day.

All the best,
Kelley Lynch

Kelley Lynch Motion for Terminating Sanctions & original Declarations submitted to LA Superior Court:

Kelley Lynch Petition - Tax Court:

Natural Wealth/Greenberg lawsuit:

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.



"[Kelley] Lynch's Press Release" leaves no doubt that the legally and factually frivolous 2015 Motion was a sham filing and was not meant to assert any legitimate legal claim or right."
Singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen & His Lawyers


Los Angeles Superior Court
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 N. Hill Street
Department 24
Los Angeles, California 90012
Hearing:  8:30 AM

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

Truth Sentinel Episode 40 (Phil Spector, truth, lies, guilt and innocence, murder trial) Leonard Cohen, truth, lies, guilt, innocence, law, MK ULTRA)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen R. Gianelli <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:35 PM

Subject: Kelley Lynch email dated Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM to Paulmikell.A.Fabian, the FSB ("russian intelligence") and others

Ms. Lynch,

What Mr. Fabian undoubtedly told you was that on July 30 I emailed him asking “Would it be possible  for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?” and he replied that, for technical reasons (the lack of an electronic copy, the inability to forward documents by email)  “Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case…”.

Aside from the subsequent exchange of “thank you’s” and “have a nice weekend’s” that was the entirety of the communication.

For you to try to spin this email string (copy attached) into something sinister or unethical is typical of the way you conduct yourself but disingenuous in the extreme. Nor is this communication properly characterized as a communication about the petition on file in the above matter.

What Mr. Fabian does not know is that you have a 10-year long history of making false and malicious reports of alleged criminality and other alleged misconduct to the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI,  the United States Department of Justice and other local, state and federal agencies,  against everyone whom you feel has wronged you including but by no means limited to every one of your former employers who fired you (including Leonard Cohen), a half dozen federal and state court judges who have ruled against you in two different states, your opposing counsel in civil harassment proceedings and other civil litigation (including Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC338322 where a $14 MILLION embezzlement based judgment was entered against you), and various prosecutors – two of whom you have also threatened to  either “kill” or “execute” – before and after your April 2012 Los Angeles County conviction for emailed death threats in violation of a restraining order registered in that county in 2011 and related 18-month jail sentence as well as your January 22, 2014 6-month remand for violating your probation by (among other things) emailing your trial prosecutor Sandra Jo Streeter to advise that she had made your “kill list”.

Additionally, Ms. Lynch, you have transmitted to me in excess of 20,000 emails since April of 2009 (when it became necessary to ban you as a commenter on my legal blog) – many of which emails contain both vile expletives and epithets directed at me and others as well as malicious and false accusations of criminality (e.g., you accused me of being a “child molester”, obstructing justice, witness tampering, subornation of perjury and more ) – all cc’d to hundreds of law enforcers and the media and then published on your various blogs.

You have also tried to inject your malicious, false claims against me into each of the many criminal and civil legal proceedings that you have been involved in since 2013, including unsuccessful civil “motions” and even as an unsuccessful defense to the January 22, 2014 revocation of your probation and remand following an evidentiary hearing wherein you called witnesses to the stand (including Paulette Brandt). Therefore, your most recent tax court filing (which you also republished in mass emails and on your blog) is a part of a pattern.

Your adult son Rutger Penick who witnessed your mental breakdown after you were caught embezzling millions from your then employer in 2004, were involved in a 4-hour stand-off with LAPD SWAT (resulting in your first of many involuntary psychiatric commitments), and later spiraled into homelessness and a lifestyle devoted to electronic revenge and harassment said it best in an email to me written on June 14, 2013:


Mr. Fabian is probably also unaware of your unique custom of signing third parties’ names to their “declarations” that are then court-filed by you as you were caught doing in Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC338322 earlier this year in support of your second attempt to obtain an order vacating the $14MILLION default judgment against you entered in May of 2006.

In addition, Ms. Lynch, by claiming that your opposing counsel engaged in an improper communication regarding taxpayer information and /or your pending petition, you are indeed “accusing Mr. Fabian of misconduct” since it takes at least two to engage in an (allegedly) improper communication.

Finally, perhaps you wish to explain to Mr. Fabian why you are copying your email communications to him not only to me, but to the FSB (the security service for the Russian Federation, formerly the KGB), the NSA and other persons and agencies who appear to have nothing to do with your pending tax court petition. Because on its face, these cc’s do not enhance your credibility.

Very Truly yours,

Stephen R. Gianelli
Attorney-at-Law (ret.)
Crete, Greece
From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your blog posted mass email dated September 8 referencing your latest tax court filing
To:, 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 <>, "Kelly.Sopko" <>, Whistleblower <>, Attacheottawa <>,, Michelle Rice <>

Mr. Fabian,

It was nice speaking with you this afternoon.  Thank you for clarifying that Stephen Gianelli contacted you by email with respect to the Tax Court matter and Petition I filed with respect to fraud upon the Tax Court.  This individual has criminally harassed me, my sons and sister, Paulette Brandt, and others since hearing from Leonard Cohen's lawyer, Michelle Rice, in 2009.  There have been no false allegations about this issue.  I have reported this conduct to IRS, FBI, and DOJ together with evidence.  My sons have also addressed the ongoing harassment in their declarations that have now been submitted to Tax Court.  I want you to be clear that Gianelli does not represent me and is not a party to this matter.  I was the Tax Matters partner on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 federal tax returns Cohen filed for Traditional Holdings, LLC.  Robert Kory's memorandum to my lawyers clearly states that the income from the Sony deal was not reported to IRS.  There is no delta of $5 million as Cohen's personal expenses and loans are not corporate expenses.  As of 2002, the Sony deal closed and the assets were owned by BMT.  Cohen and his lawyers are now attempting to conceal the corporate evidence submitted to LA Superior Court.  These matters are under appeal.  I would like you to understand that Stephen Gianelli's M.O. involves infiltrating or attempting to infiltrate.  His conduct is extreme and disturbing.  I have no idea who this man is and he targeted my younger son as a minor.  He could be, for all I know, a sexual predator.  He functions as a proxy of Leonard Cohen's and whether or not a cover-your-ass letter exists that is factual.  He harasses me with legal opinions, legal research, etc.

I have asked the Tax Court to investigate these communications because there are serious issues related to retaliation with respect to my April 15, 2005 report to IRS that Cohen committed criminal tax fraud.  My lawyers advised me that Cohen/TH failed to report the income in 2001; extinguished the promissory note in 2002; and extinguished the annuity itself in 2003.  Cohen's Complaint confirms that they also failed to file state tax returns.  I have spoken to the State of Kentucky about this matter.  

Paulette Brandt has asked me to inform you that Stephen Gianelli has worked under the direction of the City Attorney's office who instructed him to continue harassing me by emails.  The City Attorney's office advised the jurors that I am in possession of 1099s and K-1s from Cohen/corporations for 2004 and 2005.  I am not and have also asked Cohen to rescind the K-1s LCI transmitted to IRS for the years 2004 and 2005 showing $0 income.  Paulette Brandt has received harassing emails from this individual, Gianelli, for several years now.  She has been threatened in writing and she is a witness who has submitted declarations to LA Superior Court.

Kelley Lynch

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fabian Paulmikell A <>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:53 +0300
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

No problem, the name confusion is pretty common.  Thanks, you too.

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Fair enough.

Sorry about the first/last name confusion.

Have a good Friday.

From: Fabian Paulmikell A []
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Good morning Mr. Gianelli,

Our office must respectfully decline to send you a .pdf copy of the motion to dismiss in this case for a couple of reasons.  Our office is unable to forward attachments by e-mail outside of our organization for security reasons.  Also, Ms. Lynch is currently representing herself in this case.  Because she is pro se, any documents filed by my office would have been served on her by mail at her address of record, or electronically if she elected electronic service.


Paulmikell Fabian
IRS Office of Chief Counsel, SB/SE
300 N. Los Angeles St., Ste. 3018
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 10:27 PM
To: Fabian Paulmikell A
Subject: Tax Court Docket No. 017085-15; Petitioner Kelley Ann Lynch; PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS/LACK OF JURISDICTION

Dear Mr. Paulmikell,

Would it be possible  for you to send me a PDF copy of your motion to dismiss filed in the above matter?

Thank you,

Stephen R. Gianelli SBN-83476

Exit Time:
25 Aug 2017 11:05:09
IE 11.0
Total Visits:
United States FlagWashington, District of Columbia, United States
IP Address:
Internal Revenue Service ( Label IP Address
Search Referral: (Keywords Unavailable) 
Visit Page: