From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Reply Brief
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Hello,
I am continuing to make my way through the Statement of the Facts which really gives new meaning to the word facts. Cohen was permitted to testify about my words, distort them, assign me sayings I never said - see His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, and speak of threats that were never made. He used words like violence to really impress the people involved with this trial. I personally happen to believe the man is completely insane. But, the City Attorney's office seems impressed and interested in covering for him. That's fine. The appeal process is being aborted; they will never hear from me; it is all written in stone; and they can have Cohen. Only a sycophant would think I want to contact this man, using the IRS as a ruse, for some unkknown reason. But, celebrity worship is a problem in La La Land.
All the best,
Kelley
P.S. This needs to be heavily edited. Aspects will appear in my declaration. I'm getting the facts straight and on paper.
CITY ATTORNEY’S FICTIONAL NARRATIVE CONTINUED
USING COHEN’S INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT I MAY HAVE WRITTEN IN A DOCUMENT AND ABSURD AND OUTRAGEOUS ACCUSATIONS OF VIOLENCE AND THREATS. THERE ARE NO THREATS AND THESE VOICE MAILS AND EMAILS ARE PURE SPEECH. THERE IS NO CONDUCT EXCEPT FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNCONSCIONABLE PEOPLE IN LOS ANGELES WHO HAVE DECIDED TO TARGET ME, LIE ABOUT ME, AND THEN RETALIATE AGAINST ME.
These emails and phone messages continued for about six years -- maybe 100 calls and thousands of emails. Sometimes appellant sent emails to over a hundred recipients. She commonly left voice and email messages one after another. Over the years, Cohen’s sense of alarm, menace discomfort and fear increased as the volume of emails and voice mails and violence and threats accelerated and intensified. At any given period, Cohen was more alarmed than before, particularly due to appellant’s declarations she would “never back down, never stop, never retreat.”
KELLEY LYNCH
NOTE: I see I am being quoted through Cohen’s words that I will never back down, never stop, never retreat. These are not quote’s of mine. This is how Cohen testified. It is outrageous that the trial judge World simple permit Cohen to distort what I said; the prosecutor to twist and distort evidence; and allow the use of words such as “violence” to describe comments such as “I will never back down.” Why should I? I Intend. To find justice somehow. That doesn’t exist in Los Angeles obviously. It may in federal court since this matter involves two separate jurisdictions - Colorado and California. And then, there is the Phil Spector matter which is a very serious matter that involves an Innocent man in prison. I Don't see tráete in any of the City Attorney’s fanciful quotes. I think, based on Kory’s letters to Agent Tejeda/IRS, that Cohen’s sense of alarm increased when I met with and received an email from Agent Sopko instructing me to report his tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS. After all, the State of Kentucky and I also discussed the fact that there was no business purpose for these entities and they felt the IRS should go back and audit. Cohen from the moment he received his first green card in or around 1967 OR 1970. That green card was then abandoned after Marty Machat’s death and Cohen re obtained a new green card, advising me that Canada Revenue asks where you paid your taxes the prior year while the IRS does not. Cohen, according to my former attorney brother-in-law has tax and residence problems in Canada also. That’s why Canada’s National Treasure can’t live in Canada.
Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory and fraudulent lawsuit against me in the summer of 2005. At that moment, his attorneys were legally obligated to communicate with me as I was representing myself, as they have testified to and generally acknowledged. These litigator matters - including the lawsuit Greenberg filed against Cohen [which involved me to a lesser extent] continued through approximately 2008. These lawsuits raise very serious issues and my corporate ownership interest in intellectual property, ownership interest, etc. Were distorted by saying they were all management fees - which they were not. That is absolute fraud and perjury. In any event, many recipients were copied in on the emails - including the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, Phil Spector’s attorneys, government agencies, and the news media. While this situation was unfolding with Cohen, the DA’s investigator stopped by my house unannounced. An anonymous tip about my friendship with Phil Spector had been Let. For the DA’s office, although they do appear to have caller ID. In any event, Investigator Brian Bennett and I had a discussion about Phil Spector, certain stories he had heard, and other matters. I also explained to him that I had met with Phillip alter the Clarkson incident. We had dinner in Beverly Hills together and he explained that this woman - drunk and high on vicodin - was dancing around in his foyer, waving a gun, singing his songs. Inexplicably, she put the gun in her mouth and it went off. Phillip rusel to her aid and asked his drive to phone 911. What resulted is utterly unconscionable - with Phillip [having asked the officers to come into his house] being tasered, knocked to the ground, rouge up, and ultimately arrested for the death of a woman who had just shot herself at his house. Knowing Phillip well, I remained convinced of his Innocent and understood that certain witnesses were lying about certain incidents - including some that involved me. At some point in 2005, Mick Brown, a journalist with the UK Telegraph, and I began communicating and planned to meet when he attended ONE of Phillip’s hearings in Los Angeles. Mick Brown was familiar with my teachers - the 17th Karmapa and the 14th Sharmapa - and had written a book on the Karmapa Controversy which is a high stakes wild romp through the Himalayas that involves political corruption, horrifying conduct on the part of religious figures, allegations of money laundering and a Chinese operative, that has now taken many twists and turns. Mick Brown advised me that he had the Grand Jury transcripts in Phil Spector’s matter. He informed me that Cohen testified. That is what I recall. As it turns out, Mick Brown confirmed - during my trial - that Cohen’s statements were presented to the Grand Jury. In the UK, statements are referred to as testimony apparently. This alarmed me. I was aware that Leonard Cohen met with detectives from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. After that meeting, he advised me that he explained that his comments were good rock and roll stories, had been highly embellished, and explained that they were surprised these stories were 30 years old and he and Phil Spector were not friends. For 20 years, Leonard Cohen told me Phillip never held a gun on him. I sat in on countless interviews, and heard Cohen embellishing the stories - telling different versions - for journalists. Most journalists were keenly interested in questioning Cohen on what it was like to work with Phil Spector. I think this definitely annoyed Cohen because he can’t tolerate being in anyone’s shadow and is an extremely arrogant man who does not like to give people the credit they are due, unless he can benefit from doing so. And so, by the end of 2005, I was dealing with the IRS and Cohen’s tax predicament/fraud, litigation issues had arisen, I was dragged into Phil Spector’s matter by the DA’s office [who frequently and repeatedly contacted me], and was attempting to prevent my home from gong into foreclosure as I raí sed two sons on my own. A custody matter was coordinated. A SWAT team rolled by. I was taken to Killer King, three hours from my home in traffic and questioned about Phil Spector en route. The entire Killer King file is falsified - it is my name but someone else’s SSN, date of birth, religion, Medical number, etc.
Leonard Cohen then decided to obtain his first fraudulent restraining order against me and also had the Sheriff’s Department roll by my house. I had, for years, store - as a courtesy for this man - many boxes of documents, etc. I also had a home office from which I frequently worked. Never once did Cohen contact me to make arrangements to pick up his boxes. The Sheriff’s Department took many boxes and many records that belong to me, including partnership and corporate records. They just felt that anything that had Leonard Cohen’s name on it - even if my name appeared as well - belonged to Leonard Cohen. That is a bold misunderstanding and a legal outrage. The initial 2005 OR 2006 restraining order, that I have no details regarding, seemed designed to prevent me from communicating with Leonard Cohen about litigation, tax, and business matters. I am aware that he filed a declaration with respect to that order that somehow seems to address the SWAT incident at my house on May 25, 2005 and may address the Killer King incident. Cohen testified at trial that he essentially relied on hearsay when addressing matters relating to me - and not him. A custody matter was coordínated and various parties submitted declarations. That World include Leonard Cohen and his lawyer Robert Kory. They were both mentioned in the declaration and it noted that they did not want to be identified as individuals encouraging my younger son’s father to take custody away from me. Of course, Steve Lindsey [my son’s father] had already advised me that Cohen and Kory who were meeting with him were encouraging him to take custody of Ray from me. All of this was highly and obviously coordinated. For reasons I cannot even imagine, Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory also met with Lindsey and advised him that Cohen had sex with me when I was with Lindsey [a bald faced lie], had sex with Oliver Stone, had sex with Cohen’s tax lawyer, etc. These are all lies and Oliver Stone was raí sed at the trial. The prosecutor evidently felt that when a man lies about a woman and who she has sex with, the man that lied should be annoyed. It does make one wonder about the City Attorney’s Family Violence Unit and why it’s even involved in this matter since Cohen and I had no “dating relationship” and the appellate court has addressed the definition of this relationship. Leonard Cohen and I never had any such relationship; a civil harassment order I requested was unlawfully registered in California as a domestic violence order, and I was neither notified or served the California May 25, 2011 order. The City Attorney fails to understand that a California Court cannot have jurisdiction over me when I am neither served or notified of an order registered fraudulently with them and unlawfully modified from the original Colorado order I requested - civil harassment.
Excerpts from Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397:
“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 273, 277. An equally basic rule of statutory construction is that courts are bound to give effect to statutes according to the usual [84 Cal. App. 4th 405] and ordinary meaning of the language employed in framing them. Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973)10 Cal. 3d 222. Where the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 692, 698.” O'Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 207, 211.”
“The DVPA was originally enacted in 1979. (Stats. 1979, ch. 795 § 10, pp. 2710-2711.) Originally, the DVPA did not protect persons in a "dating relationship." As first enacted, the DVPA applied only to family members and persons who regularly resided in the household and had sexual relations with another family or household member, or had so resided within the last six months. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subds. (b), (c); Stats. 1979, ch. 795, § 10, p. 2711.) The DVPA was soon amended to delete the requirement of a sexual relationship for persons regularly residing in the household (former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1980, ch. 1158, § 6, p. 3880), and subsequently amended to extend to abuse between parents of a minor child. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1984, ch. 1163, § 3, pp. 3995-3996.) Finally, as previously noted, the statute was amended to include the present "dating or engagement relationship" language. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (b)(1); Stats. 1990, ch. 752, § 2, p. 3409.)”
“The DVPA does not define the phrase "dating or engagement relationship," and the meaning of a "dating relationship" is not clear enough to delineate the particular meaning the Legislature had in mind when it used these words.”
“The failure of the Legislature to define the nature of the "dating relationship" it had in mind creates a daunting judicial problem.”
“Therefore, as no judicial attempt to compass the human mind can fully succeed, we can devise no completely satisfactory definition of the "dating relationship" the Legislature contemplate … we conclude that, for purposes of the Act, a "dating relationship" refers to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.”
Date: Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Reply Brief
To: Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>
Hello,
I am continuing to make my way through the Statement of the Facts which really gives new meaning to the word facts. Cohen was permitted to testify about my words, distort them, assign me sayings I never said - see His Holiness Kusum Lingpa, and speak of threats that were never made. He used words like violence to really impress the people involved with this trial. I personally happen to believe the man is completely insane. But, the City Attorney's office seems impressed and interested in covering for him. That's fine. The appeal process is being aborted; they will never hear from me; it is all written in stone; and they can have Cohen. Only a sycophant would think I want to contact this man, using the IRS as a ruse, for some unkknown reason. But, celebrity worship is a problem in La La Land.
All the best,
Kelley
P.S. This needs to be heavily edited. Aspects will appear in my declaration. I'm getting the facts straight and on paper.
CITY ATTORNEY’S FICTIONAL NARRATIVE CONTINUED
USING COHEN’S INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT I MAY HAVE WRITTEN IN A DOCUMENT AND ABSURD AND OUTRAGEOUS ACCUSATIONS OF VIOLENCE AND THREATS. THERE ARE NO THREATS AND THESE VOICE MAILS AND EMAILS ARE PURE SPEECH. THERE IS NO CONDUCT EXCEPT FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNCONSCIONABLE PEOPLE IN LOS ANGELES WHO HAVE DECIDED TO TARGET ME, LIE ABOUT ME, AND THEN RETALIATE AGAINST ME.
These emails and phone messages continued for about six years -- maybe 100 calls and thousands of emails. Sometimes appellant sent emails to over a hundred recipients. She commonly left voice and email messages one after another. Over the years, Cohen’s sense of alarm, menace discomfort and fear increased as the volume of emails and voice mails and violence and threats accelerated and intensified. At any given period, Cohen was more alarmed than before, particularly due to appellant’s declarations she would “never back down, never stop, never retreat.”
KELLEY LYNCH
NOTE: I see I am being quoted through Cohen’s words that I will never back down, never stop, never retreat. These are not quote’s of mine. This is how Cohen testified. It is outrageous that the trial judge World simple permit Cohen to distort what I said; the prosecutor to twist and distort evidence; and allow the use of words such as “violence” to describe comments such as “I will never back down.” Why should I? I Intend. To find justice somehow. That doesn’t exist in Los Angeles obviously. It may in federal court since this matter involves two separate jurisdictions - Colorado and California. And then, there is the Phil Spector matter which is a very serious matter that involves an Innocent man in prison. I Don't see tráete in any of the City Attorney’s fanciful quotes. I think, based on Kory’s letters to Agent Tejeda/IRS, that Cohen’s sense of alarm increased when I met with and received an email from Agent Sopko instructing me to report his tax fraud to Agent Luis Tejeda/IRS. After all, the State of Kentucky and I also discussed the fact that there was no business purpose for these entities and they felt the IRS should go back and audit. Cohen from the moment he received his first green card in or around 1967 OR 1970. That green card was then abandoned after Marty Machat’s death and Cohen re obtained a new green card, advising me that Canada Revenue asks where you paid your taxes the prior year while the IRS does not. Cohen, according to my former attorney brother-in-law has tax and residence problems in Canada also. That’s why Canada’s National Treasure can’t live in Canada.
Leonard Cohen filed a retaliatory and fraudulent lawsuit against me in the summer of 2005. At that moment, his attorneys were legally obligated to communicate with me as I was representing myself, as they have testified to and generally acknowledged. These litigator matters - including the lawsuit Greenberg filed against Cohen [which involved me to a lesser extent] continued through approximately 2008. These lawsuits raise very serious issues and my corporate ownership interest in intellectual property, ownership interest, etc. Were distorted by saying they were all management fees - which they were not. That is absolute fraud and perjury. In any event, many recipients were copied in on the emails - including the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, FTB, Phil Spector’s attorneys, government agencies, and the news media. While this situation was unfolding with Cohen, the DA’s investigator stopped by my house unannounced. An anonymous tip about my friendship with Phil Spector had been Let. For the DA’s office, although they do appear to have caller ID. In any event, Investigator Brian Bennett and I had a discussion about Phil Spector, certain stories he had heard, and other matters. I also explained to him that I had met with Phillip alter the Clarkson incident. We had dinner in Beverly Hills together and he explained that this woman - drunk and high on vicodin - was dancing around in his foyer, waving a gun, singing his songs. Inexplicably, she put the gun in her mouth and it went off. Phillip rusel to her aid and asked his drive to phone 911. What resulted is utterly unconscionable - with Phillip [having asked the officers to come into his house] being tasered, knocked to the ground, rouge up, and ultimately arrested for the death of a woman who had just shot herself at his house. Knowing Phillip well, I remained convinced of his Innocent and understood that certain witnesses were lying about certain incidents - including some that involved me. At some point in 2005, Mick Brown, a journalist with the UK Telegraph, and I began communicating and planned to meet when he attended ONE of Phillip’s hearings in Los Angeles. Mick Brown was familiar with my teachers - the 17th Karmapa and the 14th Sharmapa - and had written a book on the Karmapa Controversy which is a high stakes wild romp through the Himalayas that involves political corruption, horrifying conduct on the part of religious figures, allegations of money laundering and a Chinese operative, that has now taken many twists and turns. Mick Brown advised me that he had the Grand Jury transcripts in Phil Spector’s matter. He informed me that Cohen testified. That is what I recall. As it turns out, Mick Brown confirmed - during my trial - that Cohen’s statements were presented to the Grand Jury. In the UK, statements are referred to as testimony apparently. This alarmed me. I was aware that Leonard Cohen met with detectives from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. After that meeting, he advised me that he explained that his comments were good rock and roll stories, had been highly embellished, and explained that they were surprised these stories were 30 years old and he and Phil Spector were not friends. For 20 years, Leonard Cohen told me Phillip never held a gun on him. I sat in on countless interviews, and heard Cohen embellishing the stories - telling different versions - for journalists. Most journalists were keenly interested in questioning Cohen on what it was like to work with Phil Spector. I think this definitely annoyed Cohen because he can’t tolerate being in anyone’s shadow and is an extremely arrogant man who does not like to give people the credit they are due, unless he can benefit from doing so. And so, by the end of 2005, I was dealing with the IRS and Cohen’s tax predicament/fraud, litigation issues had arisen, I was dragged into Phil Spector’s matter by the DA’s office [who frequently and repeatedly contacted me], and was attempting to prevent my home from gong into foreclosure as I raí sed two sons on my own. A custody matter was coordinated. A SWAT team rolled by. I was taken to Killer King, three hours from my home in traffic and questioned about Phil Spector en route. The entire Killer King file is falsified - it is my name but someone else’s SSN, date of birth, religion, Medical number, etc.
Leonard Cohen then decided to obtain his first fraudulent restraining order against me and also had the Sheriff’s Department roll by my house. I had, for years, store - as a courtesy for this man - many boxes of documents, etc. I also had a home office from which I frequently worked. Never once did Cohen contact me to make arrangements to pick up his boxes. The Sheriff’s Department took many boxes and many records that belong to me, including partnership and corporate records. They just felt that anything that had Leonard Cohen’s name on it - even if my name appeared as well - belonged to Leonard Cohen. That is a bold misunderstanding and a legal outrage. The initial 2005 OR 2006 restraining order, that I have no details regarding, seemed designed to prevent me from communicating with Leonard Cohen about litigation, tax, and business matters. I am aware that he filed a declaration with respect to that order that somehow seems to address the SWAT incident at my house on May 25, 2005 and may address the Killer King incident. Cohen testified at trial that he essentially relied on hearsay when addressing matters relating to me - and not him. A custody matter was coordínated and various parties submitted declarations. That World include Leonard Cohen and his lawyer Robert Kory. They were both mentioned in the declaration and it noted that they did not want to be identified as individuals encouraging my younger son’s father to take custody away from me. Of course, Steve Lindsey [my son’s father] had already advised me that Cohen and Kory who were meeting with him were encouraging him to take custody of Ray from me. All of this was highly and obviously coordinated. For reasons I cannot even imagine, Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory also met with Lindsey and advised him that Cohen had sex with me when I was with Lindsey [a bald faced lie], had sex with Oliver Stone, had sex with Cohen’s tax lawyer, etc. These are all lies and Oliver Stone was raí sed at the trial. The prosecutor evidently felt that when a man lies about a woman and who she has sex with, the man that lied should be annoyed. It does make one wonder about the City Attorney’s Family Violence Unit and why it’s even involved in this matter since Cohen and I had no “dating relationship” and the appellate court has addressed the definition of this relationship. Leonard Cohen and I never had any such relationship; a civil harassment order I requested was unlawfully registered in California as a domestic violence order, and I was neither notified or served the California May 25, 2011 order. The City Attorney fails to understand that a California Court cannot have jurisdiction over me when I am neither served or notified of an order registered fraudulently with them and unlawfully modified from the original Colorado order I requested - civil harassment.
Excerpts from Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397:
“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 273, 277. An equally basic rule of statutory construction is that courts are bound to give effect to statutes according to the usual [84 Cal. App. 4th 405] and ordinary meaning of the language employed in framing them. Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973)10 Cal. 3d 222. Where the words of the statute are clear, the court should not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 692, 698.” O'Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 207, 211.”
“The DVPA was originally enacted in 1979. (Stats. 1979, ch. 795 § 10, pp. 2710-2711.) Originally, the DVPA did not protect persons in a "dating relationship." As first enacted, the DVPA applied only to family members and persons who regularly resided in the household and had sexual relations with another family or household member, or had so resided within the last six months. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subds. (b), (c); Stats. 1979, ch. 795, § 10, p. 2711.) The DVPA was soon amended to delete the requirement of a sexual relationship for persons regularly residing in the household (former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1980, ch. 1158, § 6, p. 3880), and subsequently amended to extend to abuse between parents of a minor child. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (c); Stats. 1984, ch. 1163, § 3, pp. 3995-3996.) Finally, as previously noted, the statute was amended to include the present "dating or engagement relationship" language. (Former Code Civ. Proc., § 542, subd. (b)(1); Stats. 1990, ch. 752, § 2, p. 3409.)”
“The DVPA does not define the phrase "dating or engagement relationship," and the meaning of a "dating relationship" is not clear enough to delineate the particular meaning the Legislature had in mind when it used these words.”
“The failure of the Legislature to define the nature of the "dating relationship" it had in mind creates a daunting judicial problem.”
“Therefore, as no judicial attempt to compass the human mind can fully succeed, we can devise no completely satisfactory definition of the "dating relationship" the Legislature contemplate … we conclude that, for purposes of the Act, a "dating relationship" refers to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be deemed to have been casual.”
--
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.”