Saturday, November 29, 2014

Kelley Lynch Email To Leonard Cohen's Lawyer Re. Her Appointment As Tax Matters Partner Re. LLC


From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Corporate Federal Tax Matters
To: Jeffrey Korn cc:  IRS & Multiple Parties

Jeffrey,

I was appointed Tax Matters Partner, by Richard Westin, with respect to Traditional Holdings, LLC.  That was addressed on the federal tax returns.  Did the LA Superior Court judgment change that fact?  Based on Leonard Cohen's legal theory that he is the Alter Ego of this entity, were the corporate tax returns amended to address the Tax Matters Partner issue or was this fraudulent information merely transmitted to IRS and left uncorrected?  Where are any potential or past tax notices to TH being sent?  Are they being sent c/o Richard Westin?

Kelley Lynch


 Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), 3
Pub. L. No. 97-248, sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. at 648, any partnership must designate
one of its partners as the tax matters partner (TMP) to handle its administrative
issues with the Commissioner and manage any resulting litigation. The purpose of
audits at the partnership level, and of requiring partnerships to have a TMP, is to
have a single point of adjustment for all partnership items at the partnership level.
Kligfeld Holdings v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 192, 200 (2007); see sec.
6231(a)(7); sec. 301.6231(a)(7)-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. 

8.19.1.6.5  (12-01-2006)
Tax Matters Partner (TMP)

  1. Under the TEFRA unified proceedings, a statutory representative acts as the liaison between the partners, the Service, and the courts. That person is referred to as the Tax Matters Partner (TMP) in the case of a TEFRA partnership .
  2. The TMP plays a pivotal role in any partnership proceeding for a specific tax year.

8.19.1.6.5.1  (10-01-2013)
Duties and Responsibilities of the TMP

  1. The TMP works with the Service and the courts during a unified proceeding. Failure of the TMP to fulfill responsibilities regarding notices or other acts does not affect the applicability of the proceeding or adjustment to any partner. See IRC 6230(f).
  2. These are the duties performed by the TMP.
    1. Furnishes to the Service the name, address, profits interest, and taxpayer identification number of each partner during the tax year for which a Notice of Beginning of Administrative Proceeding (NBAP) is issued and provides revisions and additional information as may be necessary. See IRC 6230(e).
    2. Sets the time and place for meetings with the Service regarding partnership matters. See Treas. Reg. 301.6224(a)-1.
    3. Executes a consent which extends the statute of limitations on the income tax returns of all of the partners. See IRC 6229(b).
    4. Binds non-notice partners to any settlement negotiated with the commissioner by stating the intention to bind non-notice partners in the executed agreement form, unless a non-notice partner has filed a statement in accordance with Treas. Reg. 301.6224(c)-1(c). See IRM 8.19.11.2 for language to be included on the settlement agreement.
    5. Chooses the forum in which the partnership adjustments will be litigated by petitioning the Tax Court, U. S. Court of Federal Claims, or a U. S. District Court within the first 90 days after the Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) is mailed. See IRC 6226(a).
    6. Intervenes in a court action brought by a partner other than the TMP. See IRC 6226(b)(6).
    7. Executes a stipulated decision under Tax Court Rule 248(a) that binds all parties to the action in a judicial proceeding before the Tax Court. See Tax Court Rule 248(a).
    8. Files an Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR) on behalf of the partnership and petitions the Tax Court, a U. S. District Court, or the U. S. Court of Federal Claims if the AAR is not allowed in whole or in part. See IRC 6227(c) and IRC 6228(a)(1).
    9. Executes a consent which extends the time for filing suit with regard to an AAR. See IRC 6228(a)(2)(D).
  3. The TMP, if he is a general partner of a pass-thru partner which is a TEFRA partnership, has the following additional duties:
    1. Binds unidentified indirect partners to any settlement agreement negotiated with the Commissioner. See Treas. Reg. 301.6224(c)-2.
    2. Forwards a copy of any notice or other information received regarding the partnership proceeding to the person(s) holding an interest through the pass-thru partner within 30 days of receipt. See Treas. Reg. 301.6223(h)-1.
  4. The Tax Court sets out certain additional TMP responsibilities on cases in its jurisdiction.
    1. Notifies partners of the filing of a petition by the TMP within 5 days of receiving the Notification of Receipt of Petition from the Court. Tax Court Rule 241(f)(1) sets out the items to be included in the notice.
    2. Provides partners a copy of the petition filed by the TMP or any other partner within 10 days of the receipt of a request from a partner. See Tax Court Rule 241(g).
    3. Provides all partners (except participating partners) with copies of the Commissioner's motion for entry of decision, the proposed decision, the certificate of date of filing, and a copy of Tax Court Rule 248 within 3 days of receipt of the Commissioner's certificate of service. See Tax Court Rule 248(b)(3).
    4. Provides all parties to the action with a copy of the statement from the Service disclosing a settlement agreement within 7 days of receipt of the statement from the Commissioner. See Tax Court Rule 248(c)(2).
  5. The TMP works with the partners during a unified proceeding.
    1. The TMP must provide all non-notice partners (other than indirect partners) with copies of any official IRS notice. The Notice of Beginning of Administrative Proceeding (NBAP) must be furnished to non-notice partners within 75 days of the date it was mailed by the Service. The Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) must be furnished to such partners within 60 days of the date it was mailed by the Service. See Treas. Reg. 301.6223(g)-1(a)(1) for NBAP, Treas. Reg. 301.6223(g)-1(a)(2) for FPAA, and Treas. Reg. 301.6223(g)-1(a)(3) for exceptions.
    2. The TMP is required to keep partners informed of all administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the adjustments at the partnership level of partnership items (IRC 6223(g)).
    3. The partners that the TMP must keep informed include all notice partners, notice group representatives, and all other partners (except those listed in Treas. Reg. 301.6223(g)-1) within 30 days of taking the action or receiving the information with respect to the matter.
  6. The information that the TMP should furnish to partners is described in Treas. Reg. 301.6223(g)-1(b).
    1. Closing conference with the examining agent.
    2. Proposed adjustments, appeal rights, and requirements for filing the protest.
    3. Time and place of any appeals conference.
    4. Acceptance by the Service of any settlement offer.
    5. Consent to the extension of the period of limitations with respect to all partners.
    6. Filing of an Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR) on behalf of the partnership.
    7. Filing of a petition for judicial review of an FPAA or AAR filed on behalf of the partnership.
    8. Filing of any appeal to any judicial determination of an FPAA or AAR filed on behalf of the partnership.
    9. Final judicial redetermination.
  7. The TMP does NOT have to inform the following:
    1. Partners whose partnership items became nonpartnership items before 30 days after taking the action or receiving the information.
    2. Any indirect partners who have not been identified to the TMP at least 30 days before the TMP is required to provide the information.
    3. Any spouse (other than one who is separately listed or has a separate interest in the partnership) who filed a joint return with a partner who received the notice/information.
    4. Members of a notice group which receive the notice on his/her behalf.
    5. Partners who have received the information from another person.

8.19.1.6.5.2  (10-01-2013)
Appointing an Attorney-in-Fact

  1. The TMP may appoint an attorney-in-fact by use of Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative).
  2. The following suggestions are recommended for completing Form 2848:
    1. The TMP should execute the form noting his status as the TMP.
    2. The name and address of the partnership should be clearly set forth.
    3. Section 3, Matters, under the heading, "Description of Matter," insert "TEFRA partnership proceedings."
    4. Section 3, Matters, under the heading, "Tax Form Number," insert "1065."
  3. It is recommended that the TMP, not a representative, sign legally significant documents, such as consents on behalf of the partnership. See Treas. Reg. 301.6229(b)-1 for conditions under which a consent may be signed by a person other than the TMP. Also see IRM 8.19.2.16.
  4. The TMP may not be able to delegate to a representative the authority to bind non-notice partners to a settlement agreement under IRC 6224, or, under certain circumstances, to bind all partners to a stipulated decision under Tax Court Rule 248.
  5. See Treas. Reg. 301.6223(c)-1(e) and IRM 8.19.6.5 for instructions regarding power of attorney designations by a partner.

8.19.1.6.5.3  (10-01-2013)
Designation of Partnership TMP

  1. The rules for the designation of the TMP of a partnership are set forth in Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1.

    Caution:

    If a petition has been filed with the Tax Court, only the court may appoint or remove the TMP (Tax Court Rule 250).
  2. A partnership may designate a general partner, but not a limited partner, as its TMP.
  3. If the partnership does not designate a TMP or if the prior designation of the TMP has been terminated without subsequent designation, the TMP will be determined according to Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(m) (largest profits interest rule) or selected by the Commissioner pursuant to Treasury Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(n) (selection where largest profits interest rule is impracticable). See IRM 8.19.1.6.5.3.5 for discussion of largest profits interest rule. See IRM 8.19.1.6.5.3.6 for discussion of selection by the Commissioner where the largest profits interest rule is impracticable.
  4. The TMP must be determined for each tax year.

8.19.1.6.5.3.1  (10-01-2013)
TMP - Limited Liability Company (LLC)

  1. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1 must be adapted for a LLC classified as a partnership because the LLC has members, not general or limited partners.
  2. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-2 treats member managers of an LLC as general partners solely for the purpose of the designation or selection of a TMP. For purposes of this section only:
    1. A member-manager means a member of the LLC who, alone or with others, is vested with the continuing exclusive authority to make the management decisions necessary to conduct the business for which the LLC was formed.
    2. If no member-managers have this authority, each member is treated as a member-manager (general partner).

8.19.1.6.5.3.2  (10-01-2013)
Who May Be a Partnership TMP

  1. The person or entity that is allowed to be the TMP depends on whether the partnership designates its TMP.
  2. If the partnership makes a designation, the person/entity eligible to become the TMP is either:
    1. a general partner in the partnership at some time during the tax year for which the designation is made, or
    2. a general partner in the partnership at the time the designation is made.

      Note:

      Commissioner consent is required to designate a non-US person as TMP, unless there is no eligible US person.
  3. If the partnership does NOT make a designation, the person/entity eligible under Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(m) (largest profits interest rule) must be a general partner at the close of the tax year. See IRM 8.19.1.6.5.3.5 for discussion of largest profits interest rule.

    Caution:

    A general partner whose designation as TMP was terminated as a result of its filing for bankruptcy cannot be reselected as TMP under the largest profits interest rule.
  4. If the partnership does NOT make a designation and it is impracticable to apply the largest profits interest rule, the eligible person/entity may be selected by the Commissioner under Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(n). A TMP selected by the Commissioner may be ANY partner during the tax year, including a limited partner or an indirect partner. Only the Service may select a limited partner or an indirect partner to be TMP. See IRM 8.19.1.6.5.3.6 for discussion of selection where largest profits interest rule is impracticable.

8.19.1.6.5.3.3  (10-01-2013)
Methods of Partnership Designation of TMP

  1. When the partnership return is filed, it may designate a TMP in accordance with the instructions on the form.
  2. A properly selected TMP may designate a successor by filing certification of the successor with the Campus with which the partnership return is filed. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(d) describes the information to be included in the certification.
  3. The general partners with over 50 percent of the aggregate interests in partnership profits held by all general partners as of the close of the tax year may designate the TMP by filing a statement with the Campus with which the partnership return was filed. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(e) describes the information to be included in the statement. For purposes of the designation, all limited partnership interests held by general partners are included in determining the aggregate interests held by all general partners.
  4. Under limited circumstances all partners (including limited partners) with over 50 percent of the aggregate interest in partnership profits held by the partners as of the close of the tax year may designate the TMP by filing a statement with the Campus with which the partnership return was filed. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(f) describes the information to be included in the statement. This method may only be used if each general partner meets at least one of the following four circumstances:
    1. The general partner is dead, or if the general partner is an entity, it has been liquidated or dissolved, or
    2. The general partner has been adjudicated incompetent, or
    3. The general partner’s partnership items have become nonpartnership items under IRC 6231(b), or
    4. The general partner is no longer a partner in the partnership.

    Caution:

    This provision does not permit the designation of a limited partner as TMP.

8.19.1.6.5.3.4  (10-01-2013)
Termination of TMP Designated by Partnership

  1. The designation of the TMP is terminated under the following conditions (Treas. Reg. 301.6231(a)(7)-1(l)):
    1. The TMP dies
    2. The TMP is declared legally incompetent
    3. The TMP is liquidated or dissolved (if it is an entity)
    4. The TMP’s partnership items become nonpartnership items under IRC 6231(c) (relating to special enforcement areas - including bankruptcy). See Note below.
    5. A new TMP is designated by the partnership.
    6. The TMP resigns.
    7. A TMP designation by the partnership is revoked.

    Note:

    Regarding IRM 8.19.1.6.5.3.4 (1)d, see IRC 6231(c) and Treas. Reg. 301.6231(c)-4, 301.6231(c)-5, 301.6231(c)-6, 301.6231(c)-7, and 301.6231(c)-8 for a description of the special enforcement areas and the timing of a conversion.

    Also see Transpac Drilling Venture 1982-12 v. Commissioner, 147 F.3d 221 (2nd Cir. 1998). The court determined that a TMP under investigation for income tax crimes had a conflict of interest that automatically disqualified him from acting as the tax matters partner, even though the government had not sent the letter required by Temp. Treas. Reg. 301.6231(c)-5T.

    A different conclusion was reached in Phillips v. Commissioner, 114 TC 115 (2000), aff’d 9th Cir. 2002, 272 F.3d 1172. The court determined that Treas. Reg. 301.6231(c)-5 was a valid regulation. The court found that the criminal investigation did not create a disabling conflict of interest that would require the Service to notify the TMP that his partnership items would be treated as nonpartnership items. See also Martinez, 564 F.3d 719, 752 (5th Cir. 2009).

at

Kelley Lynch Emails To IRS & Leonard Cohen's Lawyer: Would LAPD's TMU Be Willing To Assist With A Corporate Record & Tax Return Inspection?


From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Corporate Federal Tax Matters
To: IRS cc:  Jeffrey Korn & Multiple Recipients


Hi IRS,

I'm clear about this:  Dissolution under state law or lack thereof will not be controlling for federal tax purposes. Intent coupled with actual distributions to the shareholders are the usual determining elements.

I'm not clear about the dissolution or liquidation of these entities.  I thought perhaps Cohen might want to involve LAPD's TMU.

All the best,
Kelley

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

Jeffrey,

I have provided you with a formal corporate records inspection request.  That request involved inspecting tax returns.  I do not know if the corporate entities (BMT, TH, and Old Ideas, LLC) were dissolved or liquidated by LA Superior Court's order.  Dissolution under state law is not controlling for federal tax purposes.  It seems impossible that a Court ruled that Cohen has no tax obligations or responsibilities.  When did these entities cease to exist; how did LA Superior Court envision unwinding them and who was to file final federal and state tax returns; how did the Court value the intellectual property assets owned by BMT and Old Ideas; how did the Court value the commissions due me for services rendered; and where are those corporate stock valuations?  Did the Court take a legal position with respect to the previously filed federal tax returns?  Why does Ken Freeman believe I was included on federal tax returns prepared by your client's representatives.  As your client should know (and I put this in writing and Westin confirmed it), I did not handle IRS matters, corporate matters, accounting matters, loan documents, etc.  

I didn't receive a 1099 or K-1 from these entities for the year 2005 or onward.  I have illegal K-1s from LCI for 2003, 2004, and 2005.  Did LA Superior Court assign me an ownership interest in LCI that I am unaware of?  Is something that Richard Westin rectified?  These documents were transmitted to IRS and State of Kentucky showing $0 income for 2003, 2004, and 2005 while the fraud ledger shows income.

Has Cohen now changed his mind re. the emails in my possession confirming a commission I allegedly received in 2004 re. royalties deposited into his personal account (assets owned by BMT)?  Has he decided that compensating me was also embezzlement?  Does your client's definition of theft involve paying his representatives?  Is that where the disconnect might lie?  What is your client's position re. all corporate books, records, stock units, notarized agreements and other understandings, and the federal tax returns?  Was it all one mistake and the only real understanding was that he would receive an annuity?  He received in excess of nearly $2 million (above the annuity obligation).  I do not see TH corporate tax returns addressing Cohen's approximately $6.7 million in loans and the interest of approximately $4 million due at this time.  I didn't handle tax matters, IRS matters, or loans/documents and was very clear about that fact in my January 2002 email to Cohen and Westin.  Westin confirmed the content of that email and we both felt Cohen should replace his accountant.  It was not an attack.  

I would like answers to these questions.  If Cohen would prefer, I can phone Jeff Dunn of LAPD's TMU and ask if we can meet in their offices or if he can join me in inspecting the books, records, and tax returns.  Perhaps Jeff Dunn can figure out where the assets have gone and explain why a fraud restraining order prohibits me from requesting and receiving federal tax and corporate information?  He should read the Supremacy Clause first and understand that state law doesn't control federal tax matters.  Let me know if LAPD's celebrity unit can be of assistance here.  I know Cohen's able to summon them and come up with a garbage story about a disgruntled woman who wants to attend his concert.  That's a misogynist's theory.

Kelley Lynch

4.11.7.4  (12-01-2004)
Definition of "Complete Liquidation"

  1. "Complete liquidation" is a term not defined by the Code. The regulations under IRC section 332 suggest that the status of liquidation exists when the corporation ceases to be a going concern and its activities are merely for the purpose of winding up its affairs, paying its debts, and distributing any remaining balance to its shareholders. The Tax Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether a complete liquidation has taken place (see Joseph Olmstead v. Commissioner T.C. Memo 1984-381): 
    • Was there a manifest intent to liquidate?
    • Was there a continuing purpose to terminate corporate affairs and dissolve?
    • Were the corporate activities directed and confined to that purpose? 
  1. Dissolution under state law or lack thereof will not be controlling for federal tax purposes. Intent coupled with actual distributions to the shareholders are the usual determining elements. 
  1. IRC section 346(a) allows for a series of distributions pursuant to a plan of liquidation to be treated as being part of a complete liquidation. If the plan is not formal or is ambiguous, there may be uncertainty as to which distributions are made pursuant to the plan. Distributions made before there is evidence to support an intention to liquidate should be taxable as dividends (ordinary income to a shareholder). 
  1. The U.S. Tax Court's decision in Pittsburgh Realty Investment Trust v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 260, 1976, shed some light on a corporate liquidation. The Court stated that:
    1. The determination as to whether and/or when a corporation has liquidated is a question of fact. Proof of a distribution in complete liquidation not only depends on an intent to liquidate but also requires acts which demonstrate and effect that intent. 
    1. A corporation in existence during any portion of a taxable year is required to make a return. If a corporation was not in existence throughout an annual accounting period (either calendar year or fiscal year), the corporation is required to make a return for that fractional part of a year during which it was in existence. A corporation is not in existence after it ceases business and dissolves, retaining no assets, whether or not under State law it may thereafter be treated as continuing as a corporation for certain limited purposes connected with winding up its affairs, such as for the purposes of suing and being sued. If the corporation has valuable claims for which it will bring suit during this period, it has retained assets and therefore continues to exist. A corporation does not go out of existence if it is turned over to receivers or trustees who continue to operate it.
at

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Happy Thanksgiving


at

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Kelley Lynch Email To IRS, FBI & DOJ Re: Why She Believes Michelle Rice & Other Lawyers Should Be Disbarred


From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Michelle Rice
To: IRS, FBI & DOJ cc:  California State Bar


Hi IRS, FBI, and DOJ,

Rice's testimony is transparent.  She has lied to me.  She lied about a material fact.  She has lied on the stand.  And, the State Bar should investigate.  It doesn't matter how she lies or fabricates information.  She lied about a material fact; feels completely comfortable violating a restraining order and writing me; being copied on in criminally harassing emails; conjuring up fantasies about what a judge may have said privately; and has made partner.  She's also quite proud of that fact.  I believe that goes to motive.  Providing me with tax information is evidently, according to these liars, a violation of a restraining order.  She's a lawyer?  Did she research that issue?  I did.  She's a bald faced liar and so is Kory and he put that in writing to IRS.  I believe these people should be prosecuted and disbarred.  And now, Michelle Rice serves as a paid lawyer.  Do you see any problems with that?  Cohen confessed to perjury on the stand.  Rice admitted lying to me about a material fact in her email (even if she has a lame excuse since it takes 1 minute to google), etc.  Why didn't the judge refer Cohen for a perjury prosecution and Rice to the State Bar?  I don't think it could be more blatant.

All the best,
Kelley

PD:  Now I’d like you to review what has been previously marked as Defense B, which is the four-page document, the California registration of the Colorado order.  Can you please review that document and let me know where it shows that Mr. Kory is a named person, a named – Rice:  Well, he’s not named, but our office is actually on the exclusion order, 5300 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California, which is a law office, is on the stay away order.  PD:  And isn’t is also true that your law office’s address is only included under places of exclusion; isn’t that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  RT 359

PD:  Now, that email that you sent to Ms. Lynch on February 14th, you said that you replied to all, to everybody that she had also included in that order; is that correct?  I mean on the email.  Rice:  Well, she had been emailing Mr. Cohen in January of 2011, and I just used her distribution list.  I just copied and just sent it to her distribution list.  I don’t know all of the people that are copied in.  PD:  That’s understandable.  But why did you cc all those other people in the emails that you sent to Ms. Lynch?  Rice:  I basically – I also had verbiage in the letter that said, you know, harassment through third parties was also prohibited contact under the restraining order.  RT 360-361  PD:  So are you saying that in seven years that you’ve been employed as Mr. Cohen’s counsel, you’ve never contacted Ms. Lynch and provided her any documentation that she’s requested.  Rice:  Well, I’m not Ms. Lynch’s attorney, so it would be improper for me to provide her with any information.  I’m Mr. Cohen’s attorney.  And to the extent that she’s asking for tax information, we don’t have that information.  PD:  Okay.  So you have never sent her any of the information she’s asked for?  Rice:  I’m not under any obligation to.  PD:  I understand you’re not under any obligation.  Have you or have you not sent that?  Rice:  I have not sent Ms. Lynch anything … PD:  To your knowledge, has Mr. Cohen ever directly sent Ms. Lynch any documentation?  Rice:  It would be a violation of the restraining order.  PD:  Is that your understanding, that if he sent her documents, he would be violating the restraining order?  Rice:  It is my understanding.  RT 361-362

Review January 2011 emails.  There does not appear to be any evidence submitted to court regarding January 2011 emails allegedly sent to Leonard Cohen so nothing supports this testimony.

PD:  And did you bill your time for that?  [collecting emails; binders; etc.]  Rice:  Yes, we do time slips and I do bill time.  PD:  Are you billing your time for appearing in court today?  Rice:  Of course.  PD:  Okay.  And you’ve been here throughout every stage of the proceedings, voir dire, opening statement?  You’ve been outside in the hallway,; is that correct?  Rice:  Pretty much, yeah.  PD:  Are you billing your time for that as well?  Rice:  Yes … PD:  Do yu know if he’s [Kory] billing his time for that as well?  Rice:  I would assume so.  RT 365

MICHELLE RICE REDIRECT
Streeter:  Ms. Rice, did we have a discussion about whether or not you were going to be necessary to testify in this case, the People thought it was necessary for you to testify in this case?  Rice:  Yes.  Streeter:  Okay.  And did I, the People’s representative, make it clear to you that you must come to this courtroom and testify?  Rice:  Yes.  Streeter:  Thank you.  Nothing further.

Another Sidebar, without Court Reporter was held.  RT 366

MICHELLE RICE RECROSS EXAMINATION

PD:  Ms. Rice, were you present when there was an incident that occurred at Ms. Lynch’s home where the SWAT team went to her house, were you present there on that day?  Rice:  No.  PD:  You weren’t present in 2005 on that day?  Rice:  No.  If you are referring to the incident in May of 2005.  PD:  Were you?  Rice:  No.  I was not present.  PD:  Okay.  But you know about that incident?  Rice:  Through Ms. Lynch’s emails, yes.  RT 367  PD:  Now in that February 14th, 2011 email that you wrote to Ms. Lynch where you told her that the order had been filed when it had not, did you know she was represented by counsel?  Rice:  No, I did not.  PD:  Did you make any attempt to find out if she was represented by counsel at that time?  Streeter:  Objection; relevance.  Court: Overruled.  Rice:  I believe – I believe I actually did follow up with an email to Ms. Lynch, and I may have asked her if she’s represented by counsel, please let us know.  I’m not sure.  Again, this was last year.  PD:  So you followed up after you sent the initial email, that you may have done that?  Rice:  I believe so.  PD:  Okay.  Now – Rice:  If I may, if I may.  In her voice mail she says, you know, I’m not represented by counsel, she’s – you know, she’s always saying – sometimes I may have read it in her emails.  PD:  But you believe she wasn’t represented by counsel?  Rice:  That’s correct.  I would not have contacted someone who I knew to be represented.  That’s correct.  RT 367-368  Rice:  She seems to say in her voice mails that she’s representing herself and, you know, who else is she going to go to get tax information from and that sort of thing, whatnot.  RT 368-369  PD:  But even though you felt you were a protected person, you directly contacted Ms. Lynch and you gave her misinformation that you had filed an order on February 14th; is that correct? … Let me rephrase it for your clarification.  Even though you believed you were a protected person on that restraining order from Colorado, you still contacted Ms. Lynch; is that correct?  Rice:  I did so in the capacity of Mr. Cohen’s attorney … RT 370  PD:  You still contacted Ms. Lynch; is that correct?  And you provided false information to her, that you had registered an order out of state in the State of California?  Rice:  It is not false information.  I was writing that because we had intended to file it, but we were still researching.  It’s quite – let me.  RT 370-371  Rice:  There is a complicated procedure when you get an out-of-state order from another state.  This is a Colorado order.  We had to go to the Court to actually get that.  This portion right here, this attestation, the California Court would not accept it without the order being verified by the Court Clerk in Colorado.  So I had a copy that was not attested to.  RT 371 PD:   You write to Ms. Lynch that you had already filed the order in the State of California.  RT 371

MICHELLE RICE
FURTHER REDIRECT

Streeter:  Do you remember everything that the court [Boulder] said to Ms. Lynch in reference to contacting Mr. Cohen’s Colorado attorney?  Rice:  No, because there’s stuff—things that could have been said off the record that didn’t get – you know, he could have chatted with the judge.  I don’t know.  RT 373-374

Exhibit 26 – Transcript – Colorado hearing  RT 375

Another sidebar is held without court reporter.  RT 375


The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land."  Therefore, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be followed.
The Supremacy Clause states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
According to U.S. law treaties are those international agreements that receive the advice and consent of the Senate. (Article II, section 2,clause 2 of the Constitution). A treaty to which United States is a party is given status equal to that of a federal legislation and therefore forms a part of the Supreme law of the land.
This concept of federal supremacy was first developed by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Md., 17 U.S. 316, 406 (U.S. 1819), where the court held that the State of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of United States, a branch of the National Bank. It was concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
In Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 632 (U.S. 1982) it was held that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Similarly in Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme. State policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees."
In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
1.    Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible
2.    "State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress"

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.
The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Similarities exist between the Supremacy Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The difference between the two is that while the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.

In the case of California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989), the Supreme Court held that if Congress expressly intended to act in an area, this would trigger the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause, and hence nullify the state action. The Supreme Court further found in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363(2000), that even when a state law is not in direct conflict with a federal law, the state law could still be found unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause if the "state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress's full purposes and objectives".[4] Congress need not expressly assert any preemption over state laws either, because Congress may implicitly assume this preemption under the Constitution.

The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), formally the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is the domestic portion of federal statutory tax law in the United States, published in various volumes of the United States Statutes at Large, and separately as Title 26 of theUnited States Code (USC).[1] It is organized topically, into subtitles and sections, covering income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and excise taxes; as well as procedure and administration. Its implementing agency is the Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Code includes most but not all federal tax statutes. Some tax statutes are found in other provisions of the United States Code including title 11 (related to bankruptcy) and title 28 (related to the judiciary). Further, some tax statutes are not codified at all (for example, the provisions of tax statutes that list the effective dates of Internal Revenue Code amendments).

In its role in administering the tax laws enacted by the Congress, the IRS must take the specifics of these laws and translate them into detailed regulations, rules and procedures. 

So where was the State Bar Court during the ten-year period examined by the Van de Kamp commission? In a follow-up hearing on the commission's research, State Bar Chief Trial Counsel Scott J. Drexel testified that after reviewing half of the 53 misconduct cases that led to reversals of conviction, he had yet to find a single instance where a judge reported the misconduct to the bar—despite a mandate to do so (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6086.7(a)(2)). Drexel told the commission that the State Bar sends out a letter each year reminding judges of the statutory requirements. 

See more at: http://www.callawyer.com/clstory.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=903325&evid=1#sthash.4lcIscTw.dpuf
at

Kelley Lynch Email To DOJ Re: Leonard Cohen's Lawyer's Perjured Testimony, Etc.


From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:49 PM
Subject: Michelle Rice
To: DOJ cc:  Multiple Recipients


Hello DOJ,

The criminal harassment over IRS required 1099, etc. continues.  This is a portion of Michelle Rice's testimony.  This woman is a liar and her testimony is perjured.  There are problems with the chain of evidence.  Evidently, LA Superior Court has no rules regarding these types of matters which is shocking.  I've included Rice's February 14, 2011 emails and one of my replies.  She is lying in those emails.  She didn't register the order and it takes 1 minute to research how to register a foreign order.  Try it your self.  Google:  "How do I register a foreign restraining order in California?"  You'll get your answer within 1 minute.  That does not explain why this order transformed into a "domestic violence" order; why I was prosecuted for violating a domestic violence order; convicted; sentenced and received probation requirements re. domestic violence; victimized in an extortion attempt over domestic violence fines and fees; or explain what the City Attorney's Family Violence Unit was doing in this matter.  It also does not explain why this is being heard by Family Court at all.  The Colorado order, I requested, was a civil harassment order and the basis of that relationship was a business relationship.  Modifying the order in a foreign court would not provide that order with Full Faith & Credit.

Furthermore, there was no evidentiary hearing and Rice is clear about that.  I waived no rights and was unaware of Cohen's perjured declaration at the time of the hearing.  I addressed that in my Motion to Quash.

Rice perjured herself over at least one material issue in this trial.  She testified that as of September 2, 2008, there were no outstanding litigation matter involving me and Cohen.  Judge Babcock didn't provide his order in the Colorado District Court matter until September 5, 2008 so she lied about that and she was the attorney of record.  The issues re. conspiracy and extortion have not been litigated.  The California judgment is void and Judge Babcock should not have relied on it.  I was not served and LA Superior Court does not have jurisdiction over me.  They just continue to lie, behave unconscionably, and they condone perjury and fraud.  I'm very clear about that.  

My email to Rice on February 14, 2011 (to which Steven Machat responded re the transcript of our conversation) addresses federal tax and corporate matters.  I would like a formal opinion on these issues.  I intend to file State Bar Complaints once I file the two motions addressing the perjury and fraud in the motion to vacate response documents and the fraud domestic violence order.  I was prosecuted under the domestic violence statutes so that's fraud.  The Proxy Stalker continues to criminally harass me over these issues and he's on someone's payroll.  Let me assure you of this - these motions will be filed; State Bar Complaints will be filed; and federal lawsuits will be filed.
All the best,
Kelley

PD:  You stated that you collected these emails … you went to the police; is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  And who went to the police?  Rice:  It was Mr. Kory and myself.  PD:  And you came – did you come with that binder or a similar copy of that binder that you sent Ms. Streeter?  Rice:  No.  PD:  You just came with the CDs.  Rice:  We didn’t come with any evidence.  We just filled out a police report.  RT 346-347

More problems with chain of evidence.

PD:  You testified that you filed a Colorado permanent restraining order in the State of California; is that correct?  Rice:  Correct.  I was the attorney of record, correct.  PD:  And you actually had supervision, or you actually filed that document in Superior Court?  Rice:  I did.  RT 347  Court:  Is that the Colorado order?  PD:  Yes, Your Honor.  RT 347

Defense Exhibit B – 4-page out-of-state restraining order.

PD:  What is that document?  Rice:  It’s form DV-600, registered out-of-state restraining order in the matter of Leonard Norman Cohen.  And it’s stamped police copy at the top, and it shows that it was filed – it looks like May 25th, 2011, with the Los Angeles Superior Court.  PD:  Is that when you filed that document, to your recollection?  Rice:  Yes.  PD:  And attached to that California order is a three-page attachment.  What is that document?  Rice:  That’s actually a verified copy of California – I’m sorry, Colorado permanent civil protection order issued pursuant to Section 13-14102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.  PD:  To your knowledge, when was that order issued by the Colorado Civil Court?  Rice:  That one was issued on September 2nd, 2008.  PD:  So you filed this restraining order in California three days before you and Mr. Kory went to the police; is that correct?  Rice:  Not three days.  It was about five days.  PD:  Five days before?  Rice:  Yes.  RT 348-349

A “police copy” would not be the certified original and the Colorado order is not four pages.  That would be the California registration of the order.  This must have come from the police.  Which police?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/111041974/California-Registration-of-Leonard-Cohen-s-Restraining-Order-Against-Kelley-Lynch-Filed-May-2-2011

PD:  Now, you also testified as to sending Ms. Lynch an email on February 14th, 2011, in which you told her to cease and desist contacting Mr. Kory and Mr. Cohen; is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  And you sent this in direct response to the email that you received directly or was it one that was forwarded to you?  Rice:  Well, Mr. Cohen had been forwarding me a group of emails

Throughout the period of January that he received January of 2011, and he kept telling me, you know, basically she’s emailing me directly.  And he did not seen me on the distribution list, so he would forward me the emails, so I was getting them from both parties because they did not see me, my email address on Ms. Lynch’s emails.  PD:  And you wrote approximately, would you say about a page of emails to Ms. Lynch, explaining her conduct and why you felt her conduct was inappropriate and illegal.   Rice:  Correct.  PD:  And you used your professional legal judgment in drafting this email?  Rice:  Yes.  PD:  Your Honor, I’m holding a three-page document.  It’s an email dated 2/14.  I’d like to mark it as Defense C for identification only.  RT 349-350 

Defense Exhibit C – Three page email dated 2/14. 

PD:  Now, Ms. Rice, I’m going to show you this email.  Do you recognize this as the same email that you sent to Ms. Lynch?  Rice: Yes.  PD:  And the portion of the email – I believe there’s some extraneous forwards in that – Rice:  Uh huh.  PD:  -- to Ms. Streeter, and Mr. Streeter sent that to me.  But in the portion that you drafted to Ms. Lynch, do you see a bracketed portion that I’ve highlighted?  Rice:  I do.  PD:  Could you read that portion out loud, please?  Rice:  It says, “Through the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, protect orders issued by a sister state, in this case Colorado, are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States.  Mr. Cohen’s protective order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement.  I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the Court from which it was issued.” PD:  Thank you, Ms. Rice.  Now, again, you sent this email on February 14th; is that correct?  Rice:  Correct.  PD:  Okay.  And you didn’t actually file the Colorado order in California until May 25th, which is approximately three months later; is that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  So you told Ms. Lynch that you had filed it when in fact you hadn’t at that point.  Rice:  Well, at that point we were actually doing research, legal research regarding how to file it in the State of California.  And I was actively involved in the research portion, and we were going to file that you know, around the time that we said that we were going to file it in the date of that email, February 14, 2011, because it was.  PD:  Thank you.  So you were doing research, you said, but you had not actually filed it yet?  Rice:  That is technically correct, yes.  PD:  And you didn’t actually file it until approximately three months later in Superior Court?  Rice:  That is correct.  PD:  Now I want to take you back to the actual permanent restraining order hearing in Colorado.  You said you were present during that hearing; is that correct?  Rice:  I was.  PD:  And Mr. Cohen was also present during that hearing?  Rice:  Mr. Cohen was not at the permanent restraining order hearing.  He appeared and testified for the preliminary hearing which was August 15th.  PD:  Okay.  Were you there on that hearing?  Rice:  I was.  PD:  Now, for that permanent hearing, were you the only other person present as a witness?  Rice:  No.  Mr. Kory was there as well.  PD:  You and Mr. Kory together, and another attorney, Mr. Steinberg; is that correct?  Rice:  Harvey Steinberg was the Colorado counsel.  I’m not admitted in Colorado, so we had to retain local counsel.  PD:  Now, you observed this entire proceeding as it occurred?  Rice:  Yes.  PD:  And Ms. Lynch was also present.  Rice:  She was.  PD:  Okay.  Now, is this the first time you’ve met Ms. Lynch?  Rice:  No.  PD:  When was the first time you met her?  Rice:  She came to our office a couple of times [one time – perjury].  PD:  When did she come to your office?  Rice:  I believe it was probably Spring of 2005.  PD:  And both occurrences were in Spring of 2005 that she came to your office?  Rice:  One may have been in the summer of 2005.  PD:  So both in 2005?  Rice:  Well, there was a third one, yet another proceeding that, yes, I had occasion to interact with Ms. Lynch, yes. During 2005 … PD:  And even though you were there to testify at this permanent hearing and evidentiary hearing, it didn’t actually take place; isn’t that correct?  Rice:  That is correct.  And it was at Ms. Lynch’s insistence that the evidentiary hearing not proceed.  RT 351-354  PD:  But isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch, during that proceeding, asked the judge if she could attack this restraining order at a later date and he told her he couldn’t give her legal advice; isn’t that correct?  Rice:  Correct.  It was actually a female judge.  It was Carolyn Enichen.  RT 355  PD:  Isn’t it also true that Ms. Lynch asked the Court, in open Court, whether or not or whom she could direct inquiries regarding any ongoing litigation because Mr. Cohen and her were in litigation at that point?  Rice:  That is incorrect.  There was no ongoing litigation at that point.  By the point when we had the 2008 permanent restraining order haring, the default judgment had been rendered by the LA Superior Court in May of 2006.  Perjured Testimony – Judge Babcock’s Opinion in the Colorado matter was not rendered until September 5, 2008.  This hearing was September 2, 2008.  This is a very serious material lie.  There are also very serious federal tax and corporate matters outstanding.  PD:  Okay.  Was there also a case in – in Federal District of Colorado between Mr. Neal Greenberg against both your client, Leonard Cohen, and also naming Ms. Lynch as a defendant regarding the same issues that surrounded the end of their business relationship?  Rice;  I believe that the Federal District Court action was also concluded by the time the permanent restraining order, but I – again, I’d have to look there.  But we filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Mr. Cohen in May of 2008.  The September 2008 hearing was sixth months later.  PD:  So there was litigation in 2008 where Ms. Lynch was a party, Mr. Cohen was also a party and it was in the State of Colorado; it that correct?  Rice:  In 2008, correct.  But by the time the permanent restraining order hearing concluded, that action had concluded with regard to Mr. Cohen.  RT 355-357  PD:  And you were an attorney of record in the federal case?  Rice:  I was.  RT 357  PD:  So you were familiar with the pleadings of that case and the procedural posture of that case?  Rice:  It is to the best of my recollection that Ms. Lynch never made an appearance in that lawsuit. She never answered any complaint that Mr. Greenberg filed.  She – you know, this was a multiyear litigation matter that I only became attorney of record for Mr. Cohen in the later stages of that.  Prior to that, he had Colorado counsel, Jay Horowitz.  PD:  But indeed the nature of the allegation in that lawsuit involved very heavily the relationship between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Cohen; is that correct?  Rice:  No.  I would characterize the litigation in that way.  RT 357  PD:  How would you characterize it?  Rice:  I – I mean, basically, the investment firm sued Mr. Cohen first, and I believe Ms. Lynch was only made a party later in the proceeding.  So I would characterize it as basically primarily between the investment adviser and Mr. Chen in the beginning stages.  He also sued Mr. Kory.  PD:  But isn’t it also true that in that allegation of that lawsuit that Ms. Lynch, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Kory were engaged in civil extortion and fraud against the Plaintiff in that case, Mr. Greenberg?  Rice:  That is what they can state in the Complaint.  But, as you know, you can make any kind of allegations in a Complaint … PD:  And they named Ms. Lynch as one of the conspirators in that civil conspiracy; is that also correct?  Rice:  I don’t believe Ms. Lynch was named as a co-conspirator.  RT 358

JUDGE BABCOCK SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, D. COLORADO.

NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE

·         Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB. (D. Colo. Sep 05, 2008)

·         Decided September 5, 2008
NATURAL WEALTH REAL ESTATE, INC., a/k/a Greenberg Associates, Inc., d/b/a Agile Advisors, Inc. a Colorado corporation; TACTICAL ALLOCATION SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Agile Allocation Services, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; AGILE GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; GREENBERG ASSOCIATES SECURITIES, INC., d/b/a Agile Group, a Colorado corporation; and NEAL R. GREENBERG, a Colorado resident, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California; KELLEY LYNCH, a United States citizen residing in California; and JOHN DOE, Numbers 1-25, Defendants, and, LEONARD COHEN, a Canadian citizen residing in California, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY BARNETT, a Colorado citizen, Counterclaim Defendant.
Civil Case No. 05-cv-01233-LTB.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
September 5, 2008
size=0 width="100%" align=center>

ORDER

LEWIS BABCOCK, Chief District Judge
This matter is before me on Defendant, Leonard Cohen's, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader[Docket # 185], Plaintiffs' response [Docket # 196], and Cohen's reply[Docket # 210]. Oral arguments would not materially assist *22 the determination of this motion.
The allegations in this case are adequately noted in prior orders of this Court, and I need not repeat them here. After several years of litigation, each claim and counterclaim in this case — with the exception of Plaintiffs' interpleader claim now at issue — has been dismissed. Plaintiffs' interpleader claim concerns approximately $154,000 in funds ("the funds") belonging to Traditional Holdings LLC, an investment entity created by Cohen and Defendant Lynch for purposes of managing Cohen's assets. Plaintiffs disavowed any interest in the funds, but requested interpleader for purposes of settling the conflicting positions of Cohen and Lynch regarding ownership of the funds. Plaintiffs paid the funds into the Registry of the Court pending resolution of this issue.
On May 12, 2006, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, ruled on the issue of ownership of the funds, and entered default judgment in favor of Cohen and against Lynch in the amount of $7.3 million in damages and interest. See Judgment, Cohen v. Lynch, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 338322 (May 12, 2006) [Docket # 186-16]. In rendering judgment, the California court declared Lynch was "not the owner of any assets in Traditional Holdings, LLC" and any interest Lynch had in "any other entity related to Cohen . . . she [held] as trustee for Cohen's equitable title." The California court enjoined Lynch from interfering with Cohen's right to receive any such funds or property or in any other way exercising control over any funds or property related to Cohen. The California court ruling was not appealed and is now final. *33
The final judgment of the California court settles the dispute between Lynch and Cohen over ownership of the interpleaded funds. As Plaintiffs are no longer exposed to multiple liability, Plaintiffs' interpleader claim is now moot.See FED. R. CIV. P.22(a)(1). When the dispute underlying an interpleader claim is mooted, the interpleader claim should be dismissed. See Oldcastle Materials, Inc. v. Rohlin, 343 F. Supp. 2d 762, 787 (N.D. Iowa 2004);Burningtree v. Holland, 760 F. Supp. 118, 119 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader is DISMISSED;
2. Defendant Cohen's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief for Interpleader [Docket # 185] is DENIED AS MOOT;
3. The interpleaded funds currently in the Registry of the Court — including any accrued interest, less the Court Registry handling fee — shall be disbursed to Defendant Cohen within ten days of the date of this Order;
4. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs related to this motion.


Googled this “research” question in one minute:  how do i file a foreign restraining order in california court?  The answer: 

DV-600 Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court ... 

www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv600.pdf
I am protected by the attached protective/restraining order. ... I ask that the attached order be registered with this court for entry into the California Law ... This form sets forth the procedure to register a foreign protection order under Family Code ...

Enforce a Restraining Order - California Courts 

www.courts.ca.gov › ... › Abuse & Harassment  › Domestic Violence 

Enforcing Out-of-State Restraining Orders

If you have a restraining order from another state, that order is valid in California. Law enforcement must enforce it as long as it is a valid order.

If you want your out-of-state restraining order to be entered into California’s restraining order computer system, you can register your order in California. Once your order is in the computer system, it is available to law enforcement all over California so police officers across the state can find out about your order in case you need to call them.

 To register your order with the court:

  1. Fill out Order to Register Out-of-State or Tribal Court Protective/Restraining Order (CLETS) (Form DV-600).
  2. Take your Form DV-600 with a certified copy of your restraining order to your local courthouse.
  3. Once your court registers your order in California, ask the clerk if your court will send your order to the state computer system. If not, take a copy of the order to your local police department.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/1266.htm

On Mon, 2/14/11, Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Notice of Violations of Permanent Restraining Order - Cease and Desist
To: "Michelle Rice" <mrice@koryrice.com>
Cc: smachat@gmail.com, Dennis@riordan-horgan.com,
 *IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov, rbyucaipa@yahoo.com, robert.macmillan@gmail.com, moseszzz@mztv.com, anderson.cooper@cnn.com, wennermedia@gmail.com, rand.hoffman@umusic.com, woodwardb@washpost.com, harriet.ryan@latimes.com, ajackson@da.lacounty.gov, Truc.Do@mto.com, wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov, jthompson@da.lacounty.gov, Teresa teresa.low@doj.ca.gov, oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org, anndiamond2002@yahoo.ca
Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:28 PM

Rice,

I have been legally advised that I am permitted to ask for all information necessary to prepare and/or amend my 2001-2010 tax returns.  That includes, but is not limited to, the complete forensic accounting, an explanation for the illegal and criminal K1s issued by LC Investments, LLC to me (see Cohen's declaration); a retraction of the fraud and perjured lawsuit that wrongfully and illegally converted my property to Cohen (willfully overlooking all evidence); an accounting of all commissions due and owing me; etc.

I am well aware of who was present in Boulder, Colorado and have brought this to the attention of the IRS, FBI, DOJ, and Treasury - as well as others, including Phil Spector's legal team.  That entire proceeding was fraudulent on Cohen's part.

Everything between me and Cohen relates to Cohen's criminal tax fraud that I reported to the IRS.  I was NOT served Cohen's lawsuit and the proof of service is fraudulent.  There is no judgment but there is concealment of deadly serious issues.  I have been legally advised otherwise:  that I am permitted to request the tax and financial data I have requested.  To say otherwise is a bald faced lie and Carolyn Enichen does NOT have jurisdiction over my federal tax returns.  LA Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to alter my federal tax returns and that is criminal.  I have also been legally advised that I may request general information I requested.  In fact, I was legally advised that it was shocking that a TRO was granted at all.

You're threatening me with arrest are you?  Well, you've notified the IRS, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and Dennis Riordan of that matter.  You cannot threaten me with arrest for requesting information with respect to my tax returns or advising Cohen to cease slandering me.  Furthermore, I represent myself and therefore I am opposing counsel.  The State Bar advised me that opposing counsel MUST communicate with me.

I believe the FBI should arrest Cohen, you, Kory, and others.  Be governed by that opinion.

Kelley Lynch


On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Lynch:

As you know, our office represents Mr. Leonard Cohen.  As you also know, Mr. Cohen obtained a permanent Restraining Order (the "No Contact Order" or simply, the "Order") against you in legal proceedings brought in Boulder, Colorado in September 2008.  During those legal proceedings on September 2, 2008, you personally appeared in court before Judge Carolyn Enichen.  Mr. Robert Kory, Mr. Harvey Steinberg and I were also present as the legal representatives of Mr. Cohen.  In open court before Judge Enichen, you acknowledged your receipt of service of the No Contact Order.  When read the specific terms of the Order by Judge Enichen, you acknowledged that you understood that under the Order's terms you were thereafter prohibited from attempting to contact Mr. Cohen in any manner.

I have attached a copy of the permanent No Contact Order issued by Judge Enichen to this e-mail for your future reference as well as the reference of those recipients on your recent e-mails who may not understand that your continued direct harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory or attempted or actual indirect harassment through third parties is illegal behavior under the No Contact Order.  Your illegal behavior in violation of the court's Order will not be tolerated.

I again refer your attention to the provisions contained in Paragraph 5 of the Order which specifically prohibits you from contacting Mr. Cohen by "phone, mail, e-mail, text message or through third parties." Judge Enichen emphasized during the restraining order proceedings that the "through third parties" language was to be liberally interpreted.

I understand that despite your receipt and acknowledgement of the terms of the No Contact Order, you have resumed your harassment of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory.  Those prohibited contacts include repeatedly calling Mr. Cohen at his home residence and Mr. Kory at our offices in Beverly Hills from pre-paid Verizon telephones with California (310) area codes as well as sending dozens of e-mails addressed directly to Mr. Cohen.  Each of these prohibited contacts constitutes a separate violation of the No Contact Order and given that the prohibited contacts are repeated and willful, are punishable by arrest and incarceration.

Through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, Protective Orders issued by a sister state - in this case, Colorado - are recognized and fully enforceable in any jurisdiction in the United States.  Mr. Cohen's Protective Order is registered in the State of California and will be fully recognized and enforced by California law enforcement.  I want to take this opportunity to remind you that the Colorado Order never expires and can only be canceled or modified by the court from which it was issued.

I strongly urge you to cease and desist your violations of the No Contact Order.  This is the only warning you will receive before legal enforcement proceedings will commence.  Again, I strongly urge you to govern your behavior accordingly.

Sincerely,

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee.  If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above.  Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Michelle Rice <mrice@koryrice.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: Notice of Violations of Permanent Restraining Order - Cease and Desist
To: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Cc: smachat@gmail.com, Dennis@riordan-horgan.com, *IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov, rbyucaipa@yahoo.com, robert.macmillan@gmail.com, moseszzz@mztv.com, anderson.cooper@cnn.com, wennermedia@gmail.com, rand.hoffman@umusic.com, woodwardb@washpost.com, harriet.ryan@latimes.com, ajackson@da.lacounty.gov, Truc.Do@mto.com, wfrayeh@da.lacounty.gov, jthompson@da.lacounty.gov, "Teresa teresa.low"@doj.ca.gov, oigcompl@lapd.lacity.org, anndiamond2002@yahoo.ca


Ms. Lynch: 

While I do not desire at this juncture to engage in an extended back and forth communication with you by e-mail or otherwise regarding legal issues that have long since been resolved through several court cases from years ago, since you have taken the time to compose a reply to my previous e-mail, I will take this present opportunity to address the issues you raised in your initial e-mail response.  I note that since sending your first e-mail reply, you have subsequently sent out more than two dozen e-mails, some publicly impugning my integrity and calling me everything from a liar to a thug.  It was this very same type of menacing, threatening and uncivilized behavior, along with most alarmingly, threats of physical violence towards me, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Kory that prompted Mr. Cohen to first seek a restraining order against you in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) as early as October 2005.  Despite being prohibited by the LASC from continuing to harass Mr. Cohen, you moved to Boulder, Colorado shortly thereafter - conveniently out of reach of Los Angeles law enforcement - and continued your vicious harassment long distance necessitating our seeking permanent redress from your behavior in a Colorado state court.  That you now deny that Judge Enichen had personal jurisdiction over you or the issues that were raised in that proceeding is utterly ridiculous given the fact that you personally appeared in court before the judge and signed the restraining order and assented to its terms in open court before many witnesses. 
 
While I do not represent you and what follows should not be in any way construed as offering any kind of legal advice - I assume you have consulted your own independent legal counsel and discussed these issues at length.  What follows is my response to the issues you have raised.

First of all, let's assume, arguendo, that you are representing yourself and desire now to be cognizant of and abide by federal law, California state law and the State Bar rules governing the conduct of attorneys and counsel: 

1.  Mr. Cohen is a represented party and has legal representation. As such, even if there were no permanent Restraining Order in place which prohibited you from contacting Mr. Cohen directly, which there clearly is - he is a 'represented party' and the California State Bar rules prohibit the knowing direct contact of a represented party.

Therefore, as so-called "opposing counsel", please cease and desist contacting Mr. Cohen directly.  Thank you for providing another, yet independent legal reason in addition to the Permanent Order of Protection issued by the Colorado court for you to cease and desist your harassment of Mr. Cohen. 

2.  As for the prohibition from contacting me or Mr. Kory currently to request information regarding Mr. Cohen: this issue was specifically discussed in the restraining order proceedings before Judge Enichen in Colorado and I will happily provide a transcript of those proceedings to refresh your memory regarding the rationale behind the Court's order prohibiting you from contacting our law office regarding Mr. Cohen.  The reason the Order of Protection includes a no-contact Order protecting our office (please see Paragraph 2 of the Order) is because there are no current legal proceedings open between you and Mr. Cohen and as such, you have no right to randomly and repeatedly contact our office and demand information and continue your harassment, even if you are as you say "representing yourself."  Any lawyer advising you otherwise must not have had full information or the history of the operative facts or knowledge of the Colorado Court's Order upon which to base their advice.  Even if there were open unresolved legal proceedings between you and Mr. Cohen, which there are none, there is an orderly process by which to obtain information from an opposing party during the course of litigation proceedings.  For the record, you chose not to avail yourself of these orderly processes during the course of litigation proceedings which were instituted to resolve the legal controversies between you and Mr. Cohen nearly five years ago.  You were never denied access to any information during the course of any litigation between you and Mr. Cohen.  You simply chose not to respond to any of Mr. Cohen's allegations against you.  You now rather disingenuously intend to imply that somehow there was some withholding or concealment of information from you during the course of litigation, which is a blatant untruth.

3. As for your current belated requests of our office to provide tax returns, business records and a "forensic accounting" for Mr. Cohen's business entities - you had ample opportunity in the lawsuit Mr. Cohen brought against you in August 2005 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Case Number BC 338322 to request any information of Mr. Cohen that was pertinent to the issues you now belatedly raise many years later.  As you are well aware, since you chose not to exercise your legal rights at the time of the lawsuit and failed to respond at all to the complaint, much less engage in an orderly discovery process to obtain the information you now seek, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a default judgment against you in May 2006.  The legal issues you now attempt to raise - nearly five years after a Los Angeles Superior Court has entered judgment against you on these very same issues - are fully precluded from being raised again in a court of law by, among others, the doctrines of statutes of limitations, laches and res judicata. 

As there are no open litigation matters between you and Mr. Cohen, you have no legitimate reason to continue to contact our law office or Mr. Cohen. Any continued attempt to contact our office or Mr. Cohen is a continued violation of the Permanent Restraining Order.  As such, I have no obligation to continue to communicate with you, nor contrary to your assertion, do I or Mr. Kory have any obligation to respond to your demands for information. 

Once again, I ask that carefully reread the terms of the permanent Protective Order and carefully consider the consequences of your further actions.


Sincerely,

Michelle L. Rice, Esq.
Kory & Rice LLP
9300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 285-1633
Fax: (310) 278-7641

NOTICE: This email is confidential and may be legally privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee.  If you have received this email in error, please destroy this message immediately along with all attachments, if any, and please report the receipt of this message to the sender at the address listed above.  Thank you for your cooperation.
at