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 raà 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 coordÃnated 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 raà 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.”
