Los Angeles Superior Court And The Los Angeles City Attorney Have No Jurisdiction To Hold A Federal Tax Trial

ROUGH DRAFT EXCERPT - WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
 

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Subject: Writ - As It Relates To The IRS, FTB, Federal Tax Matters ...Rough Draft
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>, "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>

To the IRS Commissioner's Staff,

This is a very rough draft of a section of the Writ of Habeas Corpus that relates to the Motion for a New Trial that Judge Vanderet denied.  The man permitted testimony about federal tax matters and then deprived me of a defense.  I would like an IRS opinion on the evidence, new or otherwise, and what Agent Tejeda/IRS would have testified about.  This situation is sickening.  My position is this - the entire trial, including as it relates to the IRS, is illegal discovery.  I wasn't served the California order and obviously had to be.  The court had no jurisdiction without the proof of service.  It is very very disturbing and consuming a tremendous amount of my time, particularly as the appellate division refuses to permit me to abandon the appeal for the reasons I submitted to them.

Please review this and I will privately send you the Writ of Habeas Corpus draft that Francisco Suarez will review, edit, etc.   Kory's lying.  That is known as PERJURY.  The City Attorney is concealing evidence and eliciting perjured information.  The alleged emails and voice mails prove that fact - although they did indeed print out the same email over and over and over again, time after time.  The waste of taxpayer dollars - to help sabotage the IRS and FTB (who appear in the Motion for a New Trial) - is inconceivable.  Thank goodness an organization is demanding a Grand Jury Investigation into restraining order abuse celebrities, and the role of the City Attorney, law enforcement, celebrity hired law firms, and public corruption in Los Angeles.  Leonard Cohen should be part of what is presented to the Grand Jury and I intend to contact the investigator who is law enforcement.  As I've said, I have personally had no problems with TMU.  They have, fortunately, been entirely professional with me. 

All the best,
Kelley

The Trial Court also denied Petitioner’s Motion For A New Trial.  Due to the fact that the trial court refused to permit Petitioner to either wait a brief period of time for Agent Tejeda/IRS to meet with IRS or DOJ attorneys (as required by federal law) or permit Petitioner to obtain a declaration from Agent Tejeda/IRS or Doug Davis/FTB, she was denied her right to a fair trial and compulsory witnesses.  The trial court initially said he would not hold up the trial, giving the defense time to hear from Agent Tejeda/IRS (before the case was sent to the jury that would have been approximately two hours).  The court seems to have changed it’s own argument or logic in response to the Motion For A New Trial.  The issue then becomes one related to new evidence or the promise of new evidence.  The Trial Court uses the Petitioner herself to make his argument - that she (from a description not on the record) was clearly aware of all the facts laid out.  The IRS binder - discussed in sidebars and handed to the public defenders by the prosecution on April 9, 2012 - contained newly discovered evidence.  There is no discussion whatsoever about that evidence.  The Petitioner was unaware of the details of discussions at sidebars until she read the transcripts.  Petitioner heard testimony regarding an IRS position with respect to Leonard Cohen’s 2005 federal tax refund and their alleging holding with respect to Leonard Cohen’s May 2006 default in an unrelated case.  Lynch was not served the summons or complaint in that case; the proof of service is perjured - she had no female co-occupant named Jane Doe with two black eyes; and, she was not notified of or served the default judgment although Leonard Cohen and his lawyers were well aware that she was homeless in Santa Monica and had what they believed to be her email address.  They also understand - based on various declarations they have filed in courts - that she was frequently at the Apple Store in Santa Monica.  This case had nothing whatsoever to do with either a restraining order violation or any alleged attempt to annoy Leonard Cohen.  In any event, the Petitioner had no idea what the prosecution witnesses were talking about when it came to the IRS, an alleged refund, their alleged holding with respect to Cohen’s default judgment, or anything else having to do with federal tax matters.  That is until the public defenders (who hadn’t discussed this with Lynch), put the binder on the table and Petitioner began looking through the documents.  The Trial Court is well aware that Petitioner was not permitted to take documents with her and briefly looking at complex documents during a trial while attempting to listen to testimony, take shorthand notes, confer with my lawyers about what people might be talking about, is not an appropriate review of any type of evidence.  

However, the IRS binder contained documents from the IRS that Petitioner could not possibly have been aware of.  The IRS does not provide individuals to access other people’s tax information unless they have a Power of Attorney which Petitioner does not with respect to Leonard Cohen and specifically with respect to his tax matters.  In the IRS binder, among other documents Petitioner had never seen previously (including as it related to Leonard Cohen’s retaliatory lawsuit against her), there was evidence that would have impeached Leonard Cohen and Robert Kory’s testimony with respect to the IRS refund, an IRS holding with respect to the default judgment, and other testimony.  The Trial Court permitted testimony about federal tax forms - including W2, 1099, and K-1.  Petitioner cannot even imagine where the Trial Court obtained jurisdiction to hear any such matters.  The prosecutor and prosecution witnesses concealed the fact that Leonard Cohen’s 100% solely owned corporate entity - LC Investments, LLC -  issued Petitioner fraudulent K-1 forms related to that corporate entity.  That means that the IRS received partnership tax documents - related to Petitioner - with respect to Leonard Cohen’s corporate entity although she is not a partner on that entity.  Agent Tejeda/IRS could have testified that an individual who is not a partner on a corporate entity cannot receive a K-1.  In fact, that the IRS itself (since the trial) has advised Petitioner to file an IRS fraud form 3949(a) with respect to the 2004 and 2005 K-1s.  Robert Kory, Leonard Cohen’s lawyer, testified that he understood I was asking that these K-1s be withdrawn.  That is precisely what the IRS recently told Petitioner should be done.  In fact, the IRS advised Petitioner to contact Leonard Coihen to ask him to rescind these K-1s.  

Robert Kory Cross Examination:

We submitted the documents at length to Luis Tejeda, who is the head of Fraud for the Internal Revenue Service in the Western United States.  RT 422  In 2007, Ms. Lynch contacted in response to, I think, a general ad encouraging employees to turn in their employers if the employees knew about their employer’s tax fraud.  Ms. Lynch contacted a woman named -- an agent named Kelly Sopko.  Kelly Sopko referred the matter, also her allegations related to Mr. Cohen -- [to Agent Tejeda].  RT 422  But in any case, Mr. Tejeda got the entire file.  RT 422  She writes in her emails and she complains that the IRS and the FTB are pursuing her relentlessly.  So I don’t know the - -I suspect, but I don’t know the substance of why they’re pursuing her.  RT 423  What I saws is a request that we change the forensic accounting.  That we withdraw a K-1.  RT 426  Because she saw that we were reporting, that we had reported to the IRS that money that Mr. Cohen had paid taxes on he did not receive.  And therefore, Mr. Cohen -- when we reported that to the IRS we declared a theft loss.  Mr. Cohen got a tax refund.  RT 426  I was reading a formidable, intelligent person ... who had the forensic accounting and the K-1s and all the tax information in her possession, and she was requesting that we somehow modify what we had reported.  RT 426  It’s a zero sum game.  If somebody gets a tax refund, somebody has has to the taxes.  RT 427  But I always recall that those requests to him, as what I thought were part of a ruse.  RT 427  I directly gave documents -- I gave all the documents required for her tax information when she was fully represented in January, February, March, April 2005.  RT 428

It is now the year 2013.  The IRS has recently confirmed that they are not in possession of a Leonard Cohen 1099 for Petitioner Kelley Lynch for the year 2004.