---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hello,
I didn't fail to establish anything. These were LA Superior Court appointed lawyers. I don't have a tax predicament. I am simply unable to file my returns and the IRS recently advised me to file fraud forms 3949a with respect to Cohen's fraudulent refund and the illegal K1s. I will do that as soon as my declaration is done so we can file the Motion to Vacate this appeal. Cohen came up with a carefully crafted comment that dazzled, no doubt, Sandra Jo Streeter. The requests were not hidden anywhere. I evidence is shabby, appears to have been altered, began in the middle of emails, statements were taken out of context and distorted, and I am dealing with liars. I do not have the 1099. He did not rescind the illegal K1s. The IRS just told me to call him and ask him to rescind them. I need the accounting with assets, liabilities, equity, corporate ownership interests, etc. to handle my tax returns. I have huge losses - two businesses, a huge theft loss related to my own home, and other matters. I've discussed this with the IRS and FTB. I also discussed this - I am surrounded by liars who will do anything and do not want o file a tax return that has mistakes. Furthermore, I can't correct the returns that Cohen and LA Superior Court wrongfully altered with the default that is evidence of theft, based on perjury, wilful disregard for corporate books and records, etc. I was told Agent Tejeda was ready to testify. The federal government has rules and he was meeting with IRS lawyers and there's number for the DOJ's legal department in my attorney notes. The judge refused to wait the mere two hours we needed to hear from Agent Tejeda at lunch. Also, I heard that Agent Tejeda said to call if we needed any other type of testimony involving other matters. He should have been at sentencing. I have known of Agent Tejeda since 2007. The judge is lying. The IRS THING is not tangential. That is what is going on here. I have no idea what the court did. I know what lawyers and people in reality think the court did. That's this paragraph. It seems like they are lying about Agent Tejeda.
All the best,
Kelley
Appellant fails to establish the court abused its discretion at bar. Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament. FN30 Cohen acknowledged appellant’s slight concern regarding her tax issue when he testified “hidden in the volume of emails there was a requirement for tax information which defendant already had.” (Emphasis added, RT 281.) Under these circumstances, Tejeda’s testimony was cumulative. Further, Tejeda was not available and ready to testify in the ordinary course of the trial. FN31 The court properly excluded Tejeda’s testimony on the basis the judge did not want to delay the trial when appellant had known of the witness long before trial and Tejeda was “quite tangencial of (sic) the merits of the IRS thing.” (RT 432) For this reason, the court properly exercised its discretion to exclude this evidence pursuant to its authority under Section 352.
FN 30 Appellant testified that she was working on paying her own taxes RT 463, had had her wa ges garnished by the state, and the state wanted her 3004 and 2005 tax returns, “as does teh IRS” 3RT 470, she was confused about how to file her tax returns, RT 470, that Doug Davis, a tax advocate assigned to her to remove a tax lien placed against her, had advised her to declare income in those years and that she was confused about what to call it RT 477, that she was trying to determine the total amount she was given as comomission in 2004. RT 478.
FN 31 Defense counsel said they wanted to “withhold” restinguntil the next day because they weren’t able to hear back Appellant fails to establish the court abused its discretion at bar. Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament. FN30 Cohen acknowledged appellant’s slight concern regarding her tax issue when he testified “hidden in the volume of emails there was a requirement for tax information which defendant already had.” (Emphasis added, RT 281.) Under these circumstances, Tejeda’s testimony was cumulative. Further, Tejeda was not available and ready to testify in the ordinary course of the trial. FN31 The court properly excluded Tejeda’s testimony on the basis the judge did not want to delay the trial when appellant had known of the witness long before trial and Tejeda was “quite tangential of (sic) the merits of the IRS thing.” (RT 432) For this reason, the court properly exercised its discretion to exclude this evidence pursuant to its authority under Section 352.
FN 30 Appellant testified that she was working on paying her own taxes RT 463, had had her wages garnished by the state, and the state wanted her 3004 and 2005 tax returns, “as does the IRS” 3RT 470, she was confused about how to file her tax returns, RT 470, that Doug Davis, a tax advocate assigned to her to remove a tax lien placed against her, had advised her to declare income in those years and that she was confused about what to call it RT 477, that she was trying to determine the total amount she was given as commission in 2004. RT 478.
FN 31 Defense counsel said they wanted to “withhold” resting until the next day because they weren’t able to hear back from Tejeda. RT528
From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Section F - Appeal Brief - Agent Tejeda
To: "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>
Hello,
I didn't fail to establish anything. These were LA Superior Court appointed lawyers. I don't have a tax predicament. I am simply unable to file my returns and the IRS recently advised me to file fraud forms 3949a with respect to Cohen's fraudulent refund and the illegal K1s. I will do that as soon as my declaration is done so we can file the Motion to Vacate this appeal. Cohen came up with a carefully crafted comment that dazzled, no doubt, Sandra Jo Streeter. The requests were not hidden anywhere. I evidence is shabby, appears to have been altered, began in the middle of emails, statements were taken out of context and distorted, and I am dealing with liars. I do not have the 1099. He did not rescind the illegal K1s. The IRS just told me to call him and ask him to rescind them. I need the accounting with assets, liabilities, equity, corporate ownership interests, etc. to handle my tax returns. I have huge losses - two businesses, a huge theft loss related to my own home, and other matters. I've discussed this with the IRS and FTB. I also discussed this - I am surrounded by liars who will do anything and do not want o file a tax return that has mistakes. Furthermore, I can't correct the returns that Cohen and LA Superior Court wrongfully altered with the default that is evidence of theft, based on perjury, wilful disregard for corporate books and records, etc. I was told Agent Tejeda was ready to testify. The federal government has rules and he was meeting with IRS lawyers and there's number for the DOJ's legal department in my attorney notes. The judge refused to wait the mere two hours we needed to hear from Agent Tejeda at lunch. Also, I heard that Agent Tejeda said to call if we needed any other type of testimony involving other matters. He should have been at sentencing. I have known of Agent Tejeda since 2007. The judge is lying. The IRS THING is not tangential. That is what is going on here. I have no idea what the court did. I know what lawyers and people in reality think the court did. That's this paragraph. It seems like they are lying about Agent Tejeda.
All the best,
Kelley
Appellant fails to establish the court abused its discretion at bar. Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament. FN30 Cohen acknowledged appellant’s slight concern regarding her tax issue when he testified “hidden in the volume of emails there was a requirement for tax information which defendant already had.” (Emphasis added, RT 281.) Under these circumstances, Tejeda’s testimony was cumulative. Further, Tejeda was not available and ready to testify in the ordinary course of the trial. FN31 The court properly excluded Tejeda’s testimony on the basis the judge did not want to delay the trial when appellant had known of the witness long before trial and Tejeda was “quite tangencial of (sic) the merits of the IRS thing.” (RT 432) For this reason, the court properly exercised its discretion to exclude this evidence pursuant to its authority under Section 352.
FN 30 Appellant testified that she was working on paying her own taxes RT 463, had had her wa ges garnished by the state, and the state wanted her 3004 and 2005 tax returns, “as does teh IRS” 3RT 470, she was confused about how to file her tax returns, RT 470, that Doug Davis, a tax advocate assigned to her to remove a tax lien placed against her, had advised her to declare income in those years and that she was confused about what to call it RT 477, that she was trying to determine the total amount she was given as comomission in 2004. RT 478.
FN 31 Defense counsel said they wanted to “withhold” restinguntil the next day because they weren’t able to hear back Appellant fails to establish the court abused its discretion at bar. Appellant testified extensively regarding her tax predicament. FN30 Cohen acknowledged appellant’s slight concern regarding her tax issue when he testified “hidden in the volume of emails there was a requirement for tax information which defendant already had.” (Emphasis added, RT 281.) Under these circumstances, Tejeda’s testimony was cumulative. Further, Tejeda was not available and ready to testify in the ordinary course of the trial. FN31 The court properly excluded Tejeda’s testimony on the basis the judge did not want to delay the trial when appellant had known of the witness long before trial and Tejeda was “quite tangential of (sic) the merits of the IRS thing.” (RT 432) For this reason, the court properly exercised its discretion to exclude this evidence pursuant to its authority under Section 352.
FN 30 Appellant testified that she was working on paying her own taxes RT 463, had had her wages garnished by the state, and the state wanted her 3004 and 2005 tax returns, “as does the IRS” 3RT 470, she was confused about how to file her tax returns, RT 470, that Doug Davis, a tax advocate assigned to her to remove a tax lien placed against her, had advised her to declare income in those years and that she was confused about what to call it RT 477, that she was trying to determine the total amount she was given as commission in 2004. RT 478.
FN 31 Defense counsel said they wanted to “withhold” resting until the next day because they weren’t able to hear back from Tejeda. RT528
--
The
Judge admonished the witness, “Do you understand that you have sworn to
tell the truth?” “I do.” “Do you understand what will happen if you are
not truthful?” “Sure,” said the witness. “My side will win.”
