From: Kelley Lynch <kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:55 PM
Subject: BC338322
To: Jeffrey Korn cc: IRS, FBI, DOJ, FTB, Multiple Recipients
Jeffrey,
I am finalizing the motion I will be filing with Judge Hess asking that he refer Cohen (and certain legal representatives) for a perjury prosecution and disciplinary action.
Your client, based on the testimony he gave at my 2012 trial, has concluded that the default judgment in this case permits him to subvert IRS reporting requirements. I cannot see where the judgment advises Cohen that these corporate entities are not required to provide me with IRS required tax and corporate information particularly for the years 2004 and 2005. The judgment does not indicate that it is retroactive. Would it be possible for you to clarify what your client is referring to. If not, I will ask the court to clarify this ambiguity.
I would also like to know what the mistake is that Westin clarified as that clearly indicates that there are serious issues related to fraud in the inducement with respect to all agreements, etc. I was asked and/or instructed to sign. I would assume that any such mistake indicates that your client intentionally filed fraudulent federal and state tax returns.
Finally, do you have asset valuations for the IP wrongfully converted to Cohen? Clearly, the judgment transferred millions in IP property to Cohen - well in excess of the judgment amount. I would appreciate any IP valuations you have for assets that are owned (or should be) by BMT and Old Ideas, LLC. I also need this information for my tax returns.
Kelley Lynch
The Supreme Court has recognized the authority to remand for clarification judgments that suffer from ambiguity, particularly when the ambiguity implicates jurisdictional concerns. See, e.g., Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 78 (2000) (remanding because there was “’considerable uncertainty as to the precise grounds for the decision[]’” from which the appeal was taken (quoting Minnesota v. Nat’l Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 555 (1940))); see also Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809, 811 (1986) (remanding for clarification due to the “lack [of] an adequate explanation of the basis for the Court of Appeals’ judgment”). The Courts of Appeals in general and our court in particular have recognized that a remand for clarification is appropriate where a judgment is ambiguous.