From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2013@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: Designated tax partner?
To: IRS cc: Multiple Recipients
Hello IRS,
I tend to doubt Korn will be able to say I am asking for legal advice or addressing extraneous matters. Here's the default judgment.
file:///C:/Users/Kelley/
I suppose the Court imposed a constructive trust on "money" and "property" but those two items are not defined. The judge (if the Proposed language is part of it which is unclear) states that I am not the rightful owner of assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC, Blue Mist Touring Company, Inc., or any other entity related to Cohen. I don't know how you can have that type of blanket statement. On top of that, Cohen doesn't want to pay commissions due me for services rendered so he has no obligations or responsibilities to me. Cohen testified that a Court held that he has no obligations to me re. tax matters. The Court could not take that position re. federal tax matters to me or the entities themselves. Is it the iRS position that the assets of the corporations are not property but I have an ownership interest? That's what the judgement seems to say. What does that mean? Cohen wanted to bankrupt me so he had to ensure that I couldn't borrow against my ownership interest in these entities. I didn't in Brentwood at the time, was not served, and - to answer Streeter's question - there was no forwarding address. I have the evidence of that from the District Court in Denver, Colorado. It's hard to forward mail to someone that's homeless. And, it's impossible to download and review documents when you don't have a computer and can simply check your emails quickly. It's impossible to print documents without money. According to Cohen's lawyers, I was simply busy. Who on earth would say that? This is the judgment evidently and therefore this is what it says. It says that I am not the rightful owner of "assets." It doesn't address my ownership interest and I would assume that's intentional. Judge Hess can clarify it.
As of now, I don't know how the assets were valued? What assets are owned by BMT and what assets are owned by Traditional Holdings, LLC. What other entities is the Court talking about? Does it have jurisdiciton over Cohen's wishful thinking also? This judgment looks unconstitutionally vague and most certainly cannot apply to federal tax matters because the value of a corporation is based on its assets and I appear to continue to have an ownership interest in the entities but not the assets. This sounds like a criminal enterprise aided and abetted by LA Superior Court. It's despicable.
All the best,
Kelley