The issue, Ms. Lynch is not whether the IRS has to date assessed unpaid taxes against you, the issue - which you fail to address - is whether all of the ADDITIONAL $7M deposited into your accounts (on top of your commission income) from 1998 to 2004 was reported as income on your forms 1040 for those tax years.
I just addressed more fraud on the expense ledger with Agent Tejeda. I didn't have an agreement with Cohen re. 10% commissions through 1998. See W2s his accountants prepared and transmitted to the IRS and me. The expense ledger is fraudulent as I continue to address with Agent Tejeda/IRS.
Since you have steadfastly denied receiving the ADDITIONAL cash detailed in the Prins Declaration + exhibits (instead claiming without elaboration that the declaration is "fraudulent"), I don't see that as very likely, but you did nor didn't.
I have stated that I have never received overpayments for my personal management commission. Gianelli's a bald faced liar with obvious motive.
The IRS will be looking at your 1998 to 2004 returns to make that determination in 12 to 24 months, no matter what you write on your silly blog so we shall see what happens.
The IRS can do whatever it wants, as I just advised Agent Tejeda. I don't owe taxes and want TH off of my tax reeturns.
Notes For Appellate Attorney Re: Respondent's Brief - posted on your blog
What is all this nonsense?
It just goes on and on and would take Mr. Suarez hours to read and to what end?
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.882 (a) (3) states:
"Any appellant's reply brief must be served and filed within 20 days after the respondent files its brief."
Respondent, the People of the State of California by and through the City Attorney, filed its Respondent's Brief on February 14, 2013.
Your last day to file a Reply Brief was March 6, 2013.
Instead of doing so, you filed a request to abandon (dismiss) your appeal.
Correct. The Respondent's Brief is filled with lies; the prosecutorial misconduct was and remains outrageous; Streeter attempted to retaliate against me during the appeal process; and we are challenging the appellate division's refusal to let me abandon this appeal. Exculpatory evidence is being concealed. This man actually thinks he's writing to me when I am represented. I have spoken to Francisco Suarez about all details re. this insane appeal and Gianelli's outrageous activity with respect to me.
That request was DENIED by the Appellate Department on March 13, 2013.
The time for your attorney to file a reply to the Respondent's brief has EXPIRED.
Even if Suarez had time to read you daily incessant comments on the City Attorney's brief, he could not do anything with those comments and he would not be paid by the County for any such time expended.
Well, Francisco Suarez is doing something with my comments and asked me to prepare those comments for him. He is reading them. I know. I know him.
Do you just want to PRETEND that you are continuing to work with Suarez on the very appeal you tried to abandon instead of timely filing a Reply Brief for the benifit of others who might not know any better or do you live in a dream world?
None of this is Gianelli's business but Francisco Suarez and I have addressed the NAMBLA comment and Gianelli's relentless targeting of my children, including my then minor son. The great news - people understand that Gianelli's sick and vile.
Since you have steadfastly denied receiving the ADDITIONAL cash detailed in the Prins Declaration + exhibits (instead claiming without elaboration that the declaration is "fraudulent"), I don't see that as very likely, but you did nor didn't.
The IRS will be looking at your 1998 to 2004 returns to make that determination in 12 to 24 months, no matter what you write on your silly blog so we shall see what happens.
What is all this nonsense?
It just goes on and on and would take Mr. Suarez hours to read and to what end?
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.882 (a) (3) states:
"Any appellant's reply brief must be served and filed within 20 days after the respondent files its brief."
Respondent, the People of the State of California by and through the City Attorney, filed its Respondent's Brief on February 14, 2013.
Your last day to file a Reply Brief was March 6, 2013.
Instead of doing so, you filed a request to abandon (dismiss) your appeal.
That request was DENIED by the Appellate Department on March 13, 2013.
The time for your attorney to file a reply to the Respondent's brief has EXPIRED.
Even if Suarez had time to read you daily incessant comments on the City Attorney's brief, he could not do anything with those comments and he would not be paid by the County for any such time expended.
Do you just want to PRETEND that you are continuing to work with Suarez on the very appeal you tried to abandon instead of timely filing a Reply Brief for the benifit of others who might not know any better or do you live in a dream world?