From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:24 PM
Subject: Re:
To: IRS cc: Multiple Recipients
Hello IRS,
Hopefully, I will have a complete transcript for you today. I simply do not have time to scan the document but, as I am addressing the excessive perjury and fraud before the Court in Case No. BC338322, I want to carefully review this transcript. This testimony raises many many issues. I would like to point out that Streeter's objections, throughout the trial, are utterly revealing because they tend to prove that she knows precisely what information she wants concealed. Streeter knew precisely what she was doing. She's shrewd, deceitful, dishonest, and is a seasoned and professional liar from my perspective. Cohen testified that he sent every single alleged email and voice mail message to his attorneys but is now testifying that he did not bring my requests for tax information to their attention. Rice personally testified that my requests were for tax information but felt the fraud restraining order prevented Cohen or her from transmitting that information to me. She didn't have any problems emailing me and lying to me during the February 14, 2011 email thread. She also didn't have any problems transmitting at least one material lie to IRS, FBI, Treasury, Dennis Riordan, and Ron Burkle. However, these people will say and do anything.
I have not requested a K-1. Let me be clear about this situation. I continue to require IRS required form 1099 from Cohen for 2004; IRS, State of Kentucky and I received illegal K-1s from Cohen's wholly owned LCI for 2003-2004-2005 and I have (as IRS and others advised me) asked Cohen to rescind them; I have asked Cohen and his representatives to address the TH K-1s showing income to me and to explain my ownership interest noted on those documents; and, I have asked Cohen to advise me if he has taken the position that all federal tax returns, prepared by his representatives, were fraudulent. This is some of the information I have requested. I have also asked to inspect the corporate books, records, and tax returns with respect to numerous corporations formed in numerous jurisdictions. Instead of providing me with this information, Cohen brought the requests for tax information to the attention of LAPD. Does that make any sense at all?
Earlier, Cohen testified that 50% of the alleged emails were requests for tax information. Now, those requests are hidden. Would IRS agree with that assessment? Did LA Superior Court decide that money was taken from Leonard Cohen? Well, then that confirms that Leonard Cohen is the alter ego of these entities who engaged in self-dealing and has now stolen from both the corporate entities and me. The iRS did not accept the results of the default and there is no evidence proving that. Leonard Cohen applied for and received refunds at least six months prior to the entry of default in this matter. Those refunds and his personal 2003, 2004, and 2005 tax returns (that he confirmed were filed and amended) have now been challenged with IRS and FTB as fraud. What Court determined that Cohen does not have to provide me with IRS required tax documents or is permitted to transmit to the tax authorities fraudulent K-1s? I have not seen one court order confirming that but that's Cohen's testimony.
The alleged forensic report is a meaningless list of numbers. It is not an accounting; the corporate ownership interests are not addressed; and it is evidence of fraud. And no, I do not like fraud, theft, and these attempts to obstruct justice. I have addressed this ad nauseum.
I am waiting for an IRS Opinion regarding this entire situation, the default judgment, the alleged 2012 trial, LAPD's report regarding the emails being general requests for tax information, whether or not a fraud local/state order subverts federal tax and corporate requirements; and whether or not IRS views every single tax return filed with respect to Leonard Cohen's personal returns and these entities is fraudulent? Also, if IRS agrees with State of Kentucky that IRS should go back to when Cohen first obtained a green card (1970) and audit. Steven Machat was clear, after meeting Cohen, that the gardener (who he later felt was Kory) advised him that Cohen was "hedging" his bets.
All the best,
Kelley
PD: Okay. Now, you also mentioned, I believe it was Friday, that you don’t know about tax information, tax stuff, correct? Cohen: I don’t have a detailed grasp of the taxation situation, no I don’t. PD: Okay. Who handled your corporate books at the time, as of 2004? Cohen: Who was handling it? PD: Who handled your corporate accounting, your corporate books? Cohen: A number of people handled it under the direction of my – my lawyer. PD: Okay. And are you aware of who handled that information, that tax information for you now? Cohen: I’m not aware of all the people involved, no? PD: Okay. Now, you actually – you said that you were unfamiliar with what a K-1 was, correct? Cohen: Yes, Sir. PD: Okay. Now, do you know what a K-1 is now? Cohen: I have a perfect – A sense of what it is, but I wouldn’t be able to teach it. PD: Okay. And is it fair to say that you’ve gotten emails through the years referencing a K-1? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: And it was just two weeks ago that you actually went out to find out what a K-1 was, correct? Cohen: That’s correct. PD: Okay. And you said you don’t know what a W-2 is? Cohen: I’m not certain. PD: Okay. Do you know who handles that right now for you? Cohen: Yes. It’s handled by my accountants that are selected by my manager. PD: Now, since you’ve been receiving emails requesting tax information, have you called these people to say can you get me this tax information? Cohen: Who – I’m sorry. Who am I receiving request for tax information from? PD: Well, you’ve – you’ve listened to some of these phone calls, correct, these voice mails? Cohen: Yes, Sir. PD: And you’ve read some of these emails, correct? Cohen: Correct PD: And so it would be fair to say that there was tax information that was requested by Ms. Lynch, correct? Cohen: Hidden in the volume of the emails there was a request for tax information which Ms. Lynch already had. PD: Objection; lack of personal knowledge. Court: Overruled. PD: Okay. I’m asking you if you were – and if you could just try to limit your answer to the question – there was information – there were requests in those emails for tax information, correct? Cohen: Yes, Sir. PD: What did you do since you got those emails to give those documents to Ms. Lynch? I’m asking what you did. Cohen: I – I brought those emails to the attention of my lawyer and, eventually, to the police. PD: Okay. Did you ever bring that attention to whoever handled your taxes? Cohen: Yes, Sir. And it was determined by two courts of this country and the IRS that – PD: Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive. Cohen: No. It was determined, Sir, that I had no tax responsibility in regard to Ms. Lynch. The two courts had decided that money had been taken from me. PD: Objection, Your Honor, non-responsive. Court: Overruled. Cohen: Two courts had given me a default – or one court had given me a default judgment, the other court affirmed that default judgment. But, more significantly, the IRS accepted the results of the default judgment and awarded me a tax refund, so Ms. Lynch had no cause to ask me for any taxation information. The forensic report on which the default judgments were made were very specific and Ms. Lynch has read them. That is the forensic report that Ms. Lynch has been asking for. The only problem is she doesn’t like the results. PD: Okay. Do you remember what my question was? Streeter: Objection; argumentative, Your Honor. Court; Sustained. PD: I’m asking you if – Court; Why don’t you re-ask the question if you don’t think it’s been answered. PD: Did you talk to your manager who handles your tax to request those documents from 2001 to 2004? Cohen: No, Sir. PD: Okay. Did you go about seeing about the K-1 that was being requested; yes or no? Cohen: No, Sir. PD: Did you go and give them Ms. Lynch’s information for you to send that information to? Cohen: No, Sir. PD: And we’ll get back to that judgment at a later time. RT 279-283
